(3 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 159 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 160 / Noes: 319 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 65 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 19—Cases in which duty under section (Corporate parenting responsibilities)(1) does not apply.
Government new clause 20—Corporate parenting duty: collaborative working.
Government new clause 21—Duty to have regard to guidance.
Government new clause 22—Reports by Secretary of State.
New clause 3—National Care Offer—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the passing of this Act, publish a document (the “National Care Offer”) which sets out the minimum standards of information that local authorities must publish under section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 (local offer for care leavers).
(2) Before publishing or revising the National Care Offer, the Secretary of State must consult with persons that appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of care leavers.
(3) Where a consultation under subsection (2) results in recommendations to be made to the National Care Offer, the Secretary of State must—
(a) make the recommended changes or otherwise implement the recommendations; or
(b) where not intending to make the recommended changes or otherwise implement the recommendations, publish a response to the consultation outlining the reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision and the action that will be taken instead.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on and publish a draft National Care Offer, which sets minimum standards for local care offers, within 18 months of this Act coming into force.
New clause 4—Health assessments to include mental health practitioner—
“In regulation 7 of the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, after “practitioner” in paragraph (1) insert “and a registered mental health practitioner”.”
This new clause would make an assessment of the mental health of children in care a core part of the health assessment of those children by ensuring a mental health practitioner is involved in the assessment.
New clause 8—Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment—
“(1) The Children Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 58 (Reasonable Punishment: England), omit subsections (1) to (4).
(3) After section 58, insert—
“58A Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment
(1) The common law defence of reasonable punishment is abolished in relation to corporal punishment of a child taking place in England.
(2) Corporal punishment of a child taking place in England cannot be justified in any civil or criminal proceedings on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.
(3) Corporal punishment of a child taking place in England cannot be justified in any civil or criminal proceedings on the ground that it constituted acceptable conduct for the purposes of any other rule of the common law.
(4) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) “corporal punishment” means any battery carried out as a punishment.
(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations for transitory, transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of this section.
(6) The power to make regulations under subsection (5) is exercisable by statutory instrument.
58B Promotion of public awareness and reporting
(1) The Secretary of State must take steps before the coming into force of section 58A to promote public awareness of the changes to the law to be made by that section.
(2) The Secretary of State must, five years after its commencement, prepare a report on the effect of the changes to the law made by section 58A.
(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after preparing a report under this section—
(a) lay the report before Parliament, and
(b) publish the report.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations for transitory, transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of this section.
(5) The power to make regulations under subsection (4) is exercisable by statutory instrument.””
This new clause would abolish the common law defence of reasonable punishment in relation to corporal (physical) punishment of a child taking place in England, amend certain provisions of the Children Act 2004 relating to corporal punishment of children and place a duty on the Secretary of State to report this change.
New clause 13—Review of adoption support offered by local authorities—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the adequacy and effectiveness of adoption support services provided by local authorities.
(2) The review must include services provided by adoption agencies which have been commissioned by local authorities.
(3) The review must consider in particular—
(a) any updates required to existing regulations and guidance relating to adoption; and
(b) the support needs of, and support services currently available or provided to—
(i) relevant parties in relation to birth family contact;
(ii) young adult adoptees in relation to their transition to adulthood; and
(iii) adult adoptees.
(4) Within six months of the completion of the review, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the findings and conclusions of the review.”
New clause 14—Notification when a child is placed into temporary accommodation—
“(1) This section applies where a local authority is exercising its duty under Section 189B of the Housing Act 1996 (Initial duty owed to all eligible persons who are homeless) to allocate temporary accommodation to a household which includes a child.
(2) A local authority must notify the following of the household’s homelessness status—
(a) the child’s school, and
(b) the child’s registered GP practice.
(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to schools and GPs on how to safeguard and promote a child’s welfare and wellbeing following receipt of a notification under subsection (2).
(4) A local authority must, before issuing a notification under subsection (2), request the consent of the household for the sharing of information relating to the household’s homelessness status.
(5) Subsection (2) does not apply if the household has not consented to the local authority sharing information about it.”
This new clause would establish a notification system requiring local authorities to alert schools and GPs, when a child is placed into temporary accommodation. The notification can only occur when the child’s parent or guardian consent to the sharing of this information.
New clause 15—Implementation of recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, take steps to implement the recommendations made in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse listed below.
(2) The recommendations are—
(a) the establishment of a single core data set on child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation in England and Wales;
(b) the establishment of Child Protection Authorities for England and Wales;
(c) the creation of cabinet Ministers for Children in the UK and Welsh Governments;
(d) the commissioning of regular public awareness campaigns on child sexual abuse;
(e) the amendment of the Children Act 1989 to provide for court action where there is reasonable cause to believe that a child in the care of a local authority is experiencing or is at risk of experiencing significant harm;
(f) the creation of registration systems for care staff in children’s homes, young offender institutions and secure training centres;
(g) greater use of the barred list in relation to persons recruiting individuals to work or volunteer with children on a frequent basis;
(h) the improvement of compliance with statutory duties to notify the Disclosure and Barring Service of the suitability of individuals to work with children;
(i) the extension of the powers of the Disclosure and Barring Service to provide enhanced certificates to people working with children overseas; and
(j) the provision of specialist and accredited therapeutic support to child victims of sexual abuse.
(3) The Secretary of State must, after a period of six months has elapsed from the passing of this Act and at 12 monthly intervals thereafter, publish a report detailing the steps taken by the Government to implement each of the recommendations listed above.
(4) A report published under subsection (3) must include—
(a) actions taken to meet, action or implement each of the recommendations;
(b) details of any further action required to implement each of the recommendations or planned to supplement the recommendations;
(c) consideration of any challenges to full or successful implementation of the recommendations, with proposals for addressing these challenges so as to facilitate implementation of the recommendations; and
(d) where it has not been practicable to fully implement a recommendation—
(i) explanation of why implementation has not been possible;
(ii) a statement of the Government’s intention to implement the recommendation; and
(iii) a timetable for implementation.”
New clause 25—Kinship care leave—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, entitle an individual to be absent from work on care leave under this section where—
(a) the individual is a kinship carer, and
(b) the individual satisfies conditions specified in the regulations.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must include provision for determining—
(a) the extent of an individual’s entitlement to leave under this section; and
(b) when leave under this section may be taken.
(3) Provision under subsection (2)(a) must secure that—
(a) where one individual is entitled to leave under this section, they are entitled to at least 52 weeks of leave; or
(b) where more than one individual is entitled to leave under this section in respect of the same child, those individuals are entitled to share at least 52 weeks of leave between them.
(4) An employee is entitled to leave under this section only if the eligible kinship care arrangement is intended to last—
(a) at least one year, and
(b) until the child being cared for attains the age of 18.
(5) For the purposes of this section, a “kinship carer” has the meaning given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.
(6) Regulations made under this section may make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken.”
New clause 26—Kinship care allowance—
“(1) A person is entitled to a kinship care allowance for any week in which that person is engaged as a kinship carer in England.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “kinship carer” has the meaning given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.
(3) A person is not entitled to an allowance under this section unless that person satisfies conditions prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) A person may claim an allowance under this section in respect of more than one child.
(5) Where two or more persons would be entitled for the same week to such an allowance in respect of the same child, only one allowance may be claimed on the behalf of—
(a) the person jointly elected by those two for that purpose, or
(b) in default of such an election, the person determined by, and at the discretion of, the Secretary of State.
(6) Regulations may prescribe the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated for the purposes of this section as engaged, or regularly and substantially engaged, in caring for a child under an eligible kinship care arrangement.
(7) An allowance under this section is payable at the weekly rate specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may specify—
(a) different weekly rates for different ages of children being cared for, or
(b) different weekly rates for different regions of England.
(9) Regulations under subsection (7) must specify a weekly rate that is no lower than the minimum weekly allowance for foster carers published by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 23 of the Care Standards Act 2000.”
New clause 27—Extension of pupil premium to children subject to a kinship care arrangement—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, for the financial year beginning 1 April 2026 and for each year thereafter, provide that an amount is payable from the pupil premium grant to schools and local authorities in respect of each registered pupil in England who is who is a child living in kinship care.
(2) The amount payable under subsection (1) must be equal to the amount that is payable for a pupil who is a looked after child.
(3) In this section—
“a child living in kinship care” is to be interpreted in the same manner as given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.
“looked after child” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989;
”pupil premium grant” means the grant of that name paid to a school or a local authority by the Secretary of State under section 14 of the Education Act 2002 (power of Secretary of State and Senedd Cymru to give financial assistance for purposes related to education or children etc).”
New clause 28—Admissions arrangements relating to looked after children and children in kinship care—
“(1) For section 88B of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (admission arrangements relating to children looked after by local authority) substitute—
“88B Admissions arrangements relating to looked after children and children in kinship care
(1) Regulations may require the admission authorities for maintained schools in England to include in their admission arrangements provision relating to the admission of children who are—
(a) looked after by a local authority in England, or
(b) living in kinship care as may be prescribed.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular include provision for securing that, subject to sections 86(3), 86B(2) and (4) and 87, such children are to be offered admission in preference to other children.
(3) In this section, “children who are living in kinship care” is to be interpreted in the same manner as given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.””
New clause 29—Establishment of National Wellbeing Measurement Programme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a national children and young people’s wellbeing measurement programme.
(2) A programme established under this section must—
(a) conduct a national survey of the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people in relevant schools in England;
(b) support schools in the administration of the survey
(c) make provision for parental and student consent to participation in the survey, ensuring that participation is voluntary and that results are handled confidentially; and
(d) regularly publish the results of the survey and provide relevant data to participating schools, local authorities and other public bodies for the purposes of improving children and young people’s wellbeing.
(3) A programme established under this section must—
(a) be developed and piloted within two years of the passing of this Act;
(b) be fully implemented in England no later than the start of the academic year three years after the passing of this Act;
(c) be reviewed as to its effectiveness by the Secretary of State every three years.
(4) Any review of the programme under subsection (3)(c) must be published and laid before Parliament.
(5) For the purposes of this section “relevant school” means—
(a) an academy school,
(b) an alternative provision Academy,
(c) a maintained school,
(d) a non-maintained special school,
(e) an independent school, or
(f) a pupil referral unit, other than where established in a hospital.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to introduce a national programme to regularly measure and report on the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people in schools.
New clause 30—Benefits of outdoor education to children’s wellbeing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review on the benefits of outdoor education to children's wellbeing.
(2) A report on the review must be published within six months of the conclusion of the review.”
New clause 33—National standards for children in need thresholds—
(1) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the operation of section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (Provision of services for children in need, their families and others).
(2) The review must assess regional and national variation in the type, frequency, and duration of support provided to children through child in need plans.
(3) The recommendations of the review must include the setting of—
(a) metrics in the Department for Education’s Children’s Social Care Dashboard for assessing the progress of children with child in need plans, and
(b) national guidance for local authorities defining the thresholds of need that children and families must meet to be offered children in need support.
(4) The national guidance issued under section (2)(b) must include—
(a) national triggers for an automatic referral to children’s social care, including when a primary care giver enters custody or inpatient mental health provision, and when a child is arrested,
(b) the Secretary of State’s expectations on how often children should receive help,
(c) the Secretary of State’s expectations on how frequently a child’s support should be reviewed when they have a child in need plan, and
(d) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”
The purpose of this new clause is to reduce regional variations in the type, frequency and duration of support that children receive through child in need plans.
New clause 35—Extension of priority need status to under 25s—
“(1) The Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) In article (4), paragraph (1)(a), omit “twenty-one” and insert “twenty-five”.
(3) In article (5), omit paragraph (1).”
This new clause would extend the priority need status under homelessness legislation to all care leavers up to the age of 25, regardless of vulnerability.
New clause 36—Action to promote children’s wellbeing in relation to mobile phones and social media—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, for the purposes of promoting the wellbeing of children—
(a) direct the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom (“the UK CMOs”) to prepare and publish advice for parents and carers on the use of smartphones and social media use by children,
(b) publish a plan for research into the impact of use of social media on children’s wellbeing, and
(c) require all schools in England to have a policy that prohibits the use and carrying of certain devices by pupils during the school day.
(2) Any advice published under subsection (1)(a) must have regard to—
(a) the paper published on 7 February 2019 entitled “United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers’ commentary on ‘Screen-based activities and children and young people’s mental health and psychosocial wellbeing: a systematic map of reviews’”, and
(b) any scientific or other developments since the publication of that paper which appear to the UK CMOs to be relevant.
(3) Any policy implemented under subsection (1)(c)—
(a) may provide for exemptions from the policy, or for an alternative policy, for sixth form students, in so far as such exemptions or alternative policies do not negatively impact upon the wider policy;
(b) may provide for exemptions for medical devices;
(c) is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate; and
(d) may, where implemented by a boarding school or residential school, include appropriate guidance for the use of certain devices during other periods which their pupils are on school premises, subject to such policies safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in accordance with relevant national standards.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“certain devices” means mobile phones and other devices which provide similar functionality and whose main purpose is not the support of learning or study;
“the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom” means the Chief Medical Officers for—
(a) England,
(b) Wales,
(c) Scotland, and
(d) Northern Ireland
“the school day” includes all time between the start of the first lesson period and the end of the final lesson period.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to promote children’s wellbeing in relation to mobile phones and social media by commissioning a report from the Chief Medical Officers and requiring schools to ban the use of mobile telephones during the school day.
New clause 37—Cessation of Child Protection Plans—
“Where proceedings are initiated or a care and supervision order is issued under section 31 of the Children Act 1989, any cessation of child protection plans for children under five years old must be signed off by the relevant Director of Children's Services or Head of Social Work Practice.”
This new clause would mean that the relevant Director of Children's Services or Head of Social Work Practice must sign off any cessation of child protection plans for children under five years old once proceedings have been initiated or once a care and supervision order has been issued.
New clause 43—Automatic enrolment for the Healthy Start scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, introduce a scheme to automatically enrol certain individuals for the purposes of the Healthy Start scheme.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “certain individuals” means people who are eligible for the Healthy Start scheme on the basis of having a child under the age of 4.
(3) The scheme must provide the means for individuals to opt out of enrolment for the Healthy Start scheme.”
New clause 44—Contact with siblings for children in care—
“(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 34(1), after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) his siblings (whether of the whole or half blood).”
(3) In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 2, after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) his siblings (whether of the whole or half blood).””
This new clause would ensure that children in care are allowed reasonable contact with their siblings.
New clause 45—Arrangements for remaining in a residential children’s home after reaching adulthood—
“(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 23CZA (arrangements for certain former relevant children to live with former foster parents), at the end of subsection (2) insert – “or by which a person who is a former relevant child by virtue of section 23C(1)(b) continues to live at the residential children’s home at which they were resident when they were looked after.
(3) In paragraph 19BA in Part 2 of Schedule 2 (local authority support for looked after children)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), after “parent” insert “or in a residential children’s home”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (3)(b), after “parent” insert “or residential children’s home”.’”
This new clause would extend the “staying put” arrangements that currently exist for young people placed with foster parents to those living in a residential children’s home.
New clause 46—Extension of the ban on unregulated accommodation for 16- and 17-year-olds—
“(1) In the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010—
(a) in Regulation 27A (Prohibition on placing a child under 16 in an unregulated setting), for “under 16” substitute “under 18”;
(b) in Regulation 27B (Exception to the prohibition on placing a child under 16 in other arrangements), after paragraph (1), insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that all accommodation provided to looked after children aged 16 and 17 meets the standards of regulated children’s homes or other regulated supported accommodation.””
(2) In section 22C of the Children Act 1989 (Ways in which looked after children are to be accommodated and maintained), after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) A local authority must not place a looked after child aged 16 or 17 in unregulated accommodation that does not meet the requirements set out in regulations made under subsection (7).””
New clause 47—Requirement for minimum standards for accommodation provided to 16- and 17-year-olds in care—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament regulations establishing national minimum standards for accommodation provided to 16- and 17-year-olds in care, ensuring—
(a) access to appropriate levels of support and supervision;
(b) safeguarding protections equivalent to those in regulated children’s homes; and
(c) oversight by Ofsted or another appropriate regulatory body.”
New clause 50—Establishment of Child Protection Authority—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, establish a Child Protection Authority for England.
(2) The purpose of such an Authority will be to—
(a) improve practice in child protection;
(b) provide advice and make recommendations to the Government on child protection policy and reforms to improve child protection;
(c) inspect institutions and settings at some times and in such ways as it considers necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with child protection standards; and
(d) monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other inquiries relating to the protection of children.
(3) The Authority must act with a view to—
(a) safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children;
(b) ensuring that institutions and settings fulfil their responsibilities in relation to child protection.”
This new clause would seek to fulfil the second recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in establishing a Child Protection Authority for England.
Amendment 176, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from start to “in” in line 8 and insert—
“When a local authority starts formal child protection proceedings.”
This amendment would require the offer of a family group decision making meeting when formal child protection proceedings are initiated or when a child protection plan is failing to protect the child, rather than before a local authority makes an application for a care and supervision order.
Amendment 177, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) A family group decision-making meeting must be offered by the relevant local authority when a family is going through private law proceedings.”
This amendment seeks to reduce the conflict in private law proceedings by offering a family group decision making meeting, allow other family members to support the child as well as to identify where there are significant safeguarding risks to the child/children. It would strengthen the intention that mediation and reconciliation out of court are better for the child.
Amendment 178, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) A family group decision-making meeting must be chaired by a systemic family therapist or other similarly qualified professional.”
This amendment would require family group decision-making meetings to be chaired by a family therapist or other professional with equivalent qualifications. Particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, including coercion and control, it is essential that the FGDP has the expertise to manage this and protect the child/children.
Amendment 172, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 21 to 26 and insert—
“(8) The child in relation to whom the family group decision-making meeting is held should be supported to attend all or part of the meeting if they wish to do so, unless the local authority determines this not to be in the best interests of the child, in which instance efforts should be made to ensure their views are represented.
(9) In exercising functions under this section in relation to a child, the local authority must, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare—
(a) ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings; and
(b) give due consideration (having regard to the child’s age and understanding) to such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain.”
This amendment would require a local authority to ascertain a child’s wishes and feelings regarding all aspects of family group decision-making, to give those views due consideration, and to support the child to participate in family group decision-making meetings where appropriate.
Amendment 179, in clause 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(10) If a child is to be looked after by other family members as a result of the family group decision-making meeting, the local authority must make arrangements to ensure the safety and welfare of the child and prepare a child protection plan that reflects this.”
This amendment would ensure that if a child is going to be looked after by other family members, the local authority takes appropriate action, that is reflected in the child protection plan, to assure their safety and welfare.
Amendment 180, in clause 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(10) If the child is under the age of two, the family group decision-making conference must not delay the timetable for the making of permanent arrangements regarding the child’s care.”
This amendment is designed to ensure that the offer of a family group decision-making meeting does not unduly delay making permanent arrangements regarding the child’s care
Government amendment 111.
Amendment 181, in clause 4, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
“(4A) Where the relevant person considers that the disclosure would be more detrimental to the child than not disclosing the information, this decision must be recorded.”
This amendment requires decisions made not to disclose information to be recorded.
Government amendment 112.
Amendment 182, in clause 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“(6A) Where information is disclosed under this section, the recipient must consider the safety and welfare of others to whom the information may relate or involve and take steps to promote their safety and welfare, particularly in cases of domestic abuse or elder abuse.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that other vulnerable members of a household are not inadvertently put at risk by the sharing of information, and that safety plans are put in place where needed.
Government amendments 113 to 116.
Amendment 174, in clause 5, page 9, line 31, at end insert—
“(8) A kinship local offer published under subsection (5) must state when it will next be reviewed.
(9) Any review of a kinship local offer conducted by a local authority under subsection (7) must involve the participation of children and families.”
This amendment would ensure that kinship families are actively engaged in shaping the support available to them, and that local authorities are held accountable for delivering their obligations.
Amendment 183, in clause 5, page 9, line 31, at end insert—
“(8) In fulfilling its duties under subsection (7) a local authority must annually consult and collect feedback from children in kinship care and their carers about its kinship local offer.
(9) Feedback received under subsection (8) must be published annually.”
This amendment would require local authorities to consult children and carers when assessing their kinship care offer.
Amendment 184, in clause 7, page 12, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) Where staying close support is provided, it must be provided with due regard to the wishes of the relevant person and a record must be kept of that person’s wishes.”
This amendment would require local authorities to take account of the wishes of the relevant young person when providing staying close support, and keep a record of those wishes.
Amendment 186, in clause 11, page 16, line 18, at end insert—
“(1AA) A child who is being looked after by a local authority in England and is under the age of 13 may not, whilst being kept in relevant accommodation in England, be deprived of their liberty in that accommodation unless this has been authorised by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would ensure that deprivation of liberty orders could not be issued to children under the age of 13 unless expressly authorised by the Secretary of State, in line with provisions relating to children’s homes.
Amendment 187, in clause 11, page 16, line 25, at end insert—
“(1C) The Secretary of State must review a deprivation of liberty order every 4 weeks to ensure that is appropriate for the order to remain in place.”
This amendment would require a review of deprivation of liberty orders to ensure that they remain appropriate for the relevant child.
Amendment 185, in clause 11, page 17, line 10, at end insert—
“(8A) After subsection (9) insert—
“(10) Where a child is kept in secure accommodation under this section, the relevant local authority has a duty to provide therapeutic treatment for the child.””
This amendment would place a duty on local authorities to provide therapeutic treatment for children subject to a deprivation of liberty order.
Government amendment 117.
Amendment 188, in clause 12, page 17, delete from line 21 to line 17 on page 21 and insert—
“23A Requirement for inspection
(1) The CIECSS may order an inspection of a parent undertaking, or any of its subsidiaries, if it has–
(a) a subsidiary undertaking which meets the requirements of subsection (2), or
(b) two or more subsidiary undertakings which meet the requirements of subsection (3).
(2) A subsidiary undertaking meets the requirements of this subsection if–
(a) the subsidiary undertaking is registered under this Part as carrying on two or more establishments or agencies for which the CIECSS is the registration authority, and
(b) the CIECSS reasonably suspects that there are grounds for cancelling the subsidiary undertaking’s registration in respect of two or more of those establishments or agencies.
(3) A subsidiary undertaking meets the requirements of this subsection if–
(a) the subsidiary undertaking is registered under this Part as carrying on one or more establishments or agencies for which the CIECSS is the registration authority, and
(b) the CIECSS reasonably suspects that there are grounds for cancelling the subsidiary undertaking’s registration in respect of one or more of those establishments or agencies.”
This amendment would require an inspection if the CIECSS believes that are reasons to cancel a children’s home registration, rather than issue an improvement plan notice.
Amendment 189, in clause 12, page 18, line 6, at end insert—
“(3A) The CIECSS may require an unannounced visit by Regulation 44 visitor to a children’s home, if it reasonably suspects that there are administrative breaches or minor concerns about the quality of care being provided.
(3B) After Regulation 44 visitors have inspected the relevant children’s home or homes, the local authority may issue an improvement plan notice based on their findings.”
This amendment would rely on the use of Regulation 44 visitors to inform the content of an improvement plan notice where the CIECSS has concerns about minor or technical breaches.
Government amendment 118.
Amendment 171, in clause 15, page 29, line 18, at end insert—
“(c) independent schools with caring responsibilities and offering SEND provision.”
This amendment would include independent special schools within the profit cap provision.
Government amendments 119 to 131.
Government new schedule 1—Relevant authorities.
Stephen Morgan
I start by thanking all hon. and right hon. Members for their valuable contributions during the passage of the Bill to date, and in particular, members of the Public Bill Committee for providing substantial debate and scrutiny.
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a landmark Bill and a key piece of legislation that will enable us to deliver the Government’s opportunity mission and our determination to break the link between people’s background and their future success. It will protect children from abuse, it will stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks in services and it will deliver a core guarantee of high standards with space for innovation in every child’s education. It will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout education and throughout children’s social care so that every child can achieve and thrive.
Reforming children’s social care is critical to giving hundreds of thousands of children and young people the start in life that they deserve. Our approach to reform will break down barriers by shifting the focus of the children’s social care system to early support to keep families together. We will ensure that children can remain with their families where appropriate, support more children to live with kinship carers or in fostering families and fix the broken care market to tackle profiteering and put children’s needs first.
The previous Government bequeathed to us a bitter inheritance of not only child poverty across great swathes of our country, which affected one in three, or even one in two, of our young people, not just record numbers of children out of school or not turning up to school, not merely a children’s social care system at breaking point, but—bitterest of all—a fiscal blackhole. That blackhole must be tackled to get this country’s finances and future back on track, but it limits the speed at which we can deliver the ambition that all Labour Members have for a brighter future for Britain’s children.
Let me speak to our Government amendments. New clauses 18 to 22 introduce corporate parenting duties for Departments and relevant public bodies. A previous Labour Prime Minister observed, following Tawney:
“What a wise parent would wish for their children, so the state must wish for all its children.”
That principle lies behind the change that these new clauses seek to bring today, as we ensure that across the public sector we recognise the moral and necessary obligation to do all we can to level the playing field for children in care and care leavers. This group of young people faces significant disadvantages. Twenty-six per cent. of the homeless population are care-experienced, and around a quarter of the adult prison population were in care as children. Care leavers aged 19 to 21 are over three times more likely not to be in education, employment or training than their peers.
New clause 18 introduces corporate parenting responsibilities for Departments and the relevant public bodies, referred to as “relevant authorities”, listed in new schedule 1. New corporate parents will need to be alert to the needs of children in care and care leavers and assess the services or support they provide that are available to them. They will also need to provide them with the opportunities to participate in activities designed to promote their wellbeing or enhance their employment prospects.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome what the Minister says. Last week, some of us had the opportunity to attend an event where Jamie Oliver was present. He is dyslexic, and he made a point that I think we need to recognise: those with dyslexia, autism and challenging educational behaviours also need to be helped. Will a section of the population that need help like this one also receive it?
Stephen Morgan
The hon. Member is a tireless champion for children and young people, and he regularly writes to me even though education is a devolved matter. I will say a bit more later about the support available for children with special educational needs and disabilities. He will know that SEND is at a crisis point, and this Government are absolutely committed to reforming the system and are working at pace to do so.
New clause 20 introduces a duty for new corporate parents and local authorities in England to work collaboratively with each other when it is in the best interests of children in care and care leavers when undertaking these duties. That is to avoid siloed working or duplication of efforts, addressing the challenges that children in care and care leavers face holistically in the same way that parents do when supporting their children.
New clause 21 introduces a duty for relevant authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The guidance will set out how the duty relates to different corporate parents and how that will continue to contribute to outcomes we seek for children in care and care leavers. We will develop that guidance in partnership with the sector and with the relevant authorities listed in new schedule 1.
New clause 22 introduces a duty on the Secretary of State to report on their corporate parenting activity every three years, bringing accountability to the new duty and allowing us to monitor progress and the impact of implementation. New schedule 1 provides a power for the Secretary of State to amend the list of corporate parents by affirmative regulations. The purpose is clear: where children in care and care leavers can be further supported by the addition of new public duties as corporate parents, or where we need to make changes to existing ones, they need not wait for fresh primary legislation. We shall have the power to act swiftly and powerfully in their interests. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members across the House share the Government’s ambition to drive a step change in the experiences and outcomes of some of the most vulnerable children and young people in society and that they will support these new clauses.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Although not explicitly mentioned in the document, young carers are obviously a group of young people who may be vulnerable and, having spoken to the Department for Education, parts of the Bill will support young carers better. Will the Minister touch on that?
Stephen Morgan
Supporting young carers is a key priority for this Government. My hon. Friend is a real champion on these issues, and I am very happy to work with him to ensure that the views of young carers are heard in this place.
The Government have tabled amendments to the information sharing and consistent identifier duties in clause 4. The wider picture is that children are too often failed by inadequate or patchy information sharing, which is not good enough. The Bill enables us to make the change that children need, and the amendments will ensure that we get that right from the outset.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I want to concentrate today on our new clause 36, which would ban phones from our schools. The new clause would also write into law some of the content of the very good private Member’s Bill drafted by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), because this does not need to be a party political issue.
When I was on the Science and Technology Committee back in 2018, I got us to do a report on screen time, social media and children’s mental health. Back then, the evidence was already very concerning, but by now every alarm bell should be ringing. Over the last decade, there has been an explosion in mental health problems among young people all over the world, over the exact same period that smartphones and social media have become dominant in children’s lives. The growth in mental health problems is focused almost entirely on young people, not older people. Children now get smartphones at a very early age. As the Education Committee pointed out in a good report last year, one in five of the UK’s three and four-year-olds now has their own smartphone. By the end of primary school, four out of five kids have a smartphone.
There are many different ways in which smartphones and social media cause problems for children. They displace time in the real world with friends. US data, for example, shows that prior to 2012 children spent over two hours a day with friends, but that had halved by 2019. The proportion of children feeling lonely and isolated at school has exploded all over the developed world. But smartphones are not just a time sink; there is also the lack of sleep. Children are tired in school, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has increased massively and concentration is impaired. This is a feature, not a bug. Apps are designed to be addictive and drip feed users dopamine.
At a recent school meeting that I organised in my constituency, I heard from local doctors about how excessive screen time is damaging eyesight and giving young kids the kind of back problems that one might expect from someone in late middle age. Eight out of 10 children are exposed to violent porn before the age of 18, many at a really young age. The average age at which kids see porn is now 13. The shift to a smartphone-based childhood is also leading children to be exposed to graphic violence, sextortion and self-harm encouragement, and is doing terrible things to girls’ self-image. According to the Office for National Statistics, one in five children aged 10 to 15 says they have been bullied online, and 72% of that is happening during school time.
As well as being bad in their own right, these negative effects come together to damage education. Although a ban of phones in schools cannot fix everything, it is a vital first step and can make a big difference in itself. I spoke to one headteacher who said that when they went from a policy of phones not being out to a full, “start of the day to end of the day” ban, with phones being handed in, the number of detentions they had to hand out fell by 40%, and teacher recruitment and retention improved, too.
Chris Vince
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; he should take this as a constructive intervention. As a former teacher, I know some of the challenges of mobile phones—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), will remember when hers went off during my speech in a debate on financial education. Will the shadow Minister also consider those groups who may require a mobile phone—I have perhaps given him a hint as to what I was going to mention—in particular young carers, who obviously need contact with family and those cared for?
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Member has brilliantly anticipated a point I was going to make, and if he looks at the text of the amendment he will see it is carefully drafted exactly to allow carve-outs for those who need them, for example as health devices, so I hope he is reassured on that point.
Attempts by the tech industry to lobby, to muddy the water, to run interference and to sow confusion are unconvincing. The problems hitting our children all over the world are not just a coincidence; there is more and more evidence for a causal link. For example, Sapien Labs asked questions about adults’ mental health and combined them into a mental health quotient score. They asked the same people when they first got a smartphone and the results were stark: the earlier someone gets a phone, the worse their mental health, particularly for girls. As with smoking, a powerful social gradient is also developing with smartphones and social media. That is going to widen gaps in school achievement unless something decisive is done.
Sadly, many people still do not know about the risks from smartphones but a growing number of parents do know and are worried about the problems with smartphones and social media, but we face a collective action problem: we worry that our kids will miss out if they are the only ones without them, and that is the problem that needs solving and Government need to be part of that. Across this country there has been an explosion of parent-powered campaign groups aiming to fight back including Smartphone Free Childhood, Safe Screens, Delay Smartphones and the new “Rage Against the Screen” campaign. Over the last year they have gained hundreds of thousands of members and together with the shadow Secretary of State and the Leader of the Opposition we met some of them this morning and I pay tribute to them for their work.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
When I visit schools across my constituency, I find that many have instituted policies banning mobile phones, or indeed are consulting on doing so. Sometimes there is a small degree of pushback from pupils, and sometimes indeed from parents, but does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government take up this amendment, it will make it clearer and easier for schools to ban these phones and produce a safe and nurturing environment for our pupils in school, and it would be easier to take this forward?
Neil O’Brien
My hon. Friend is completely correct, and I was going to come on to that very point.
The Children’s Commissioner has said,
“I honestly think that we will look back in 20 years’ time and be absolutely horrified by what we allowed our children to be exposed to”,
and she is right. the very first thing Government could do is implement a proper ban on phones in our schools. Parentkind recently said to me, “Effectively, we are allowing our kids to be fed digital drugs and we are even allowing the dealers into the schools.” That has to change.
The last Government issued guidance; it was a good start, but it is not enough and is not working. While 90% of schools say they have some sort of policy or some sort of ban, a survey by Policy Exchange last year found that only one in 10 secondary schools has a full start-to-finish ban, the policy that works best. Lots of schools are still trying policies where kids have their phones on them but are not supposed to have them out. The effect is that the kids are distracted, the teachers have to stop lessons to tell them to put them away, and we get all of the issues about bullying and social media during break times and more.
As the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), a Labour Member, pointed out the other day, guidance introduced by the previous Government is not working. We still have students using phones during break time and during lessons and this causes significant problems. I have had many teachers say to me, “This takes up so much time. It’s a huge distraction. It interferes with learning.” That is right and we are now in the strange situation where Labour MPs and the Conservative party agree that the guidance has turned out not to be enough, but the Labour Front Bench is insisting that it is; we are through the looking glass.
Why do we need a full ban, not just guidance? Our general approach is of course to give autonomy to schools but, first, the guidance is not working. The Department for Education’s own national behaviour survey published in April last year found that 35% of secondary school teachers reported mobile phones being used during lessons without permission, and the problem was more pronounced for older children: 46% of pupils in years 10 to 11 reported mobile phones being used when they should not have been during most or all lessons, and last month a survey by Parentkind found that nearly half of secondary school children say they see phones being used in class where they should not be every single day. So the idea that the guidance has done the trick and there is no longer a problem to solve is contradicted by the Department’s and the Government’s own data.
Secondly, we need to support schools and have their back. I know from speaking to teachers and school leaders that the pressures from a minority of parents to allow phones can be very severe. A minority of parents can be unreasonably determined that they must be able to contact their child directly at any minute of the day, but unfortunately that comes at a cost to everyone else’s education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) pointed out, a national ban would make things much simpler. We, the politicians, should take the flack and take the heat off schools.
Thirdly, a full and full-on ban is needed as the start of a wider resetting of social norms about children and smartphones and social media. We need a proper ban so that kids’ smartphones are put away for a whole day, including breaks. Breaks should be about physical activity, not just scrolling and scrolling. Schools should be the beachhead and the first place where we re-create the smartphone-free childhood that most of us got to enjoy—seven hours in which we de-normalise being on the phone all the time for young people.
A ban on smartphones in schools will, of course, not solve all the problems overnight, but it is a vital first step. When I was a Health Minister, I wanted us to develop an equivalent of the five bits of fruit and veg a day campaign, or public health campaigns such as “Don’t Die of Ignorance” or “Clunk Click Every Trip”, which older Members might remember. We need to do some big things to reset the culture. The heavy exposure of our kids to addictive-by-design products from the tech industry is the smoking of our generation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 3 and 4, which both stand in my name.
The Education Committee was afforded little time to undertake scrutiny of this important Bill, but we worked hard to do so, refocusing our ongoing inquiry on children’s social care to focus on part 1 of the Bill and holding an additional evidence session to look at part 2. I am grateful to all the witnesses who came to give us their evidence.
We have published a report for the Secretary of State setting out recommendations based on the evidence we received. Broadly, the Committee welcomes the scale of the Government’s ambition as expressed in the Bill, which is a key plank of the Government’s opportunity mission to break the link between young people’s background and their future success. We join the Government in wanting to see high and rising standards in our education and care systems to protect vulnerable children and ensure educational opportunity for every child.
We welcome the measures in the Bill to strengthen child protection, particularly the provisions to establish multi-agency child protection teams, including education in safeguarding arrangements and a single unique identifier for children, which has the potential to be genuinely transformative for the delivery of many of the services that support children and young people. We support the measures to improve the children’s social care market through regional commissioning and a financial oversight scheme. Action to remove profiteering in the children’s social care sector is long overdue.
The Committee welcomes the measures in the Bill that will enable more children to remain within their kinship network or, where a residential placement in kinship care is not possible, in contact with family and friends.
The Committee also made some recommendations on ways in which the Bill could be strengthened, based on the evidence we received. The amendments tabled in my name relate directly to our recommendations, and I will now turn to each recommendation that is relevant to part 1 of the Bill.
New clause 3 would require the Government to publish and consult on a draft national offer for care leavers within 18 months of the Bill coming into force. A national care offer would set minimum standards for local care offers and ensure greater consistency between local authority areas. A national offer would act as a floor, not a ceiling. It would not be designed to prevent innovation at a local level or to stop additional commitments being made by individual local authorities, but we believe that greater national consistency, driven by Government, would make a big difference.
The evidence of the unacceptably poor outcomes for care-experienced young people is shocking. Some 39% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 are not in education, employment or training, compared with 13% of all young people in the same age group. Some 14% of young people with care experience go to university, compared with almost half of their peers, and care leavers are 38% more likely to drop out of university. A third of care leavers become homeless within two years of leaving care, and 25% of homeless people have been in care. Care leavers are hugely over-represented in the criminal justice system. These are young people whose corporate parent has been the state, and these statistics are clear evidence that for many of them, the state is not a very good parent.
I welcome the Government’s amendment of the Bill to introduce additional corporate parenting responsibilities, but the Committee heard that there is significant disparity in the support that different local authorities offer to care leavers. We heard about the differences in support with bursaries to pay for university accommodation, access to wi-fi to be able to study and ringfenced apprenticeships for care leavers in local authorities.
In a powerful evidence session in which the Committee heard from young adults with recent experience of the care system, one witness told us that
“there needs to be a national offer for care leavers. The postcode lottery is profound”.
Another pointed to a lack of awareness of the needs of care-experienced people across the wider network of public services. She told us that
“when I had gone to the jobcentres they were very ill-prepared. They did not know any support for care leavers. There were certain grants I could have had to get back into education; they did not inform me, in fact, everything that I have done now is from me Googling it…or asking people. That should not be the case.”
A national care offer would be the foundation for building better, more consistent support for care leavers everywhere in the country. It would provide the Government with an effective mechanism for holding local authorities to account on the quality of their provision, making it much easier for care-experienced people to understand what support should be there for them and stopping the current disincentive to leave home to go to university because of uncertainty about the support when they get there. I urge the Government to support new clause 3.
New clause 4 would require health assessments of children in the care system to include assessment by a mental health practitioner. It would make assessing the mental health of children in care a core part of the health assessment of those children by ensuring that a mental health practitioner is involved. Children in care are significantly more likely to have experienced trauma and abuse than their peers, and they are consequently more likely to experience mental ill health. In 2021, 45% of children in care had a mental health disorder—rising to 72% among those in residential care—compared with 10% of all children aged five to 15.
The care-experienced young adults who gave powerful evidence to the Committee spoke strongly about the urgent need for better mental health support and suggested that local authorities are not always fulfilling their obligations to include emotional and mental health in their health assessments of children in care. One of our witnesses told us:
“Growing up it was only physical assessments; we did not have mental health check-ins at all…I think if my mental health was taken more seriously from a young age, if I had that person to check-in with me…I would probably be so much better. I would not have mental health problems growing up. I do think that mental health check-ins are equally as important—if not more important—as physical check-ins for children in care.”
Another witness said that
“looked-after children should get mandatory assessments, as with physical health. Also, if they are referred to CAMHS the waitlists are horrific right now…looked-after children should have fast tracks and there should be more funding for specialist teams.”
We heard very movingly from a witness who spoke about the need for more trauma-informed training for foster carers and other professionals working with children in care. She said:
“I feel a lot could be explained if they understood the experience of trauma. It will take time. It will not go away at night, and sometimes before it gets better it could get worse. No one talks about that. You will not be okay if you are going into care; there is a reason why you are there, and so it is important that the minute you go into care every child should have a mandatory assessment, physical and mental, and there should be that on-call support for them”.
It is the trauma that underlies the decision to take a child into care—the abuse, neglect, bereavement or exploitation—that often has the most profound impact on their lives. Our care system needs to place dealing with that trauma in a child-centred way at its heart. Ensuring that mental health assessments are properly undertaken is an essential requirement of such a system, because mental health must be assessed before treatment and support can be provided. New clause 4 would help to deliver that badly needed refocusing of the system, and I urge the Government to support it.
I wish to make two further points. First, I support new clause 14, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). It would introduce a requirement to notify a child’s school and GP when they are placed in temporary accommodation. As a constituency MP in south-east London, I see the horrific impact of poor-quality, unstable temporary accommodation on children in my constituency every week. Temporary accommodation is harming children, whether through the sleep deprivation of having to get up at 4 am to travel a long distance to their school, the lack of space to do homework, the fear and insecurity of sharing a kitchen and bathroom with strangers, the physical health impacts of living with damp and mould, or the impacts on gross motor development of being in a space that is too small to crawl or play in.
The impacts are profound, so it is completely right that there should be a statutory requirement to notify the public services that have the ability to help mitigate such impacts, and which have a responsibility for a child’s health and wellbeing when that child is placed in temporary accommodation. The Government should be taking urgent action to reduce the number of people in temporary accommodation, especially families with children. However, in the short term, the new duty introduced by my hon. Friend’s new clause would make a difference to the support those children receive.
Finally, at the same time as we are debating this Bill, the Government are preparing to announce reforms to the welfare system. I wish to emphasise the vital importance of considering the impact on children of any proposed reforms. Children do not get to choose the families into which they are born, but each one is equally deserving of economic security and access to the resources they need to thrive. It is not a justifiable outcome of changes to the welfare system to make life harder for the poorest children, or to increase child poverty by limiting the access to support that their parents receive. The Government must undertake and publish an assessment of the impact of their welfare reforms on children, and must ensure that children do not suffer as a result of any planned reforms.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure and a privilege to rise to speak on part 1 of the Bill, and in particular on the new clauses and amendments that stand in my name.
When the Bill had its Second Reading, I said that there was much in it that Liberal Democrat Members welcomed, alongside areas that we would seek to amend, probe and strengthen. Its progress in recent weeks has seen plenty of debate, discussion and opportunities to constructively strengthen the legislation, although the Government have failed to accept any amendments that were not their own, despite the Minister’s comments in his opening speech. I am grateful to colleagues from across the House who served on the Committee, in which we had some excellent debates. However, I was disappointed last week to see the sheer number of amendments tabled by the Government ahead of Report. I really hope that the Government do not make a habit of depriving Committees of their chance to properly scrutinise Bills, even if most of those measures are welcome and uncontroversial.
Turning to the new clauses and amendments that stand in my name, as the Minister knows, care—particularly kinship care—is a subject that is close to my heart and those of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. In Committee, we discussed a number of encouraging provisions that are included in the Bill, including those dealing with the definition of kinship care, setting out in law the support that kinship carers are eligible for, and providing additional educational support for children in kinship care.
However, what we agreed in Committee falls far short of the ambition that I heard the Secretary of State herself set out at a reception for kinship carers just a few months ago. At that reception, the Secretary of State—unusually for somebody in her position—called on campaigners and policymakers to keep pushing her. I believe that new clauses 25, 26, 27 and 28, which stand in my name, do just that. New clause 25 would ensure that kinship carers are entitled to paid employment leave; new clause 26 would put into statute an entitlement to an allowance on par with that of foster carers; new clause 27 would extend the pupil premium plus to all children in kinship care, based on the definition that is in the Bill; and new clause 28 would prioritise those same children for school admissions.
Kinship carers are unsung heroes, often stepping up at no notice to look after a child they are related to or know because that child’s parents can no longer do so. Time and again, we hear from kinship carers that they want to do the right thing out of love for those family members, but financial and other barriers often stand in their way. One survey revealed that 45% of kinship carers give up work, and a similar proportion have to reduce their hours permanently, putting financial strain on the family. These carers are disproportionately women, and they are over-represented in the healthcare, education and social care sectors, so this issue simply exacerbates our workforce crisis in public services.
In Committee, the Minister pointed to the kinship financial allowance pilots, which ran in a tiny number of local authorities and involved a very small subset of kinship carers. That was not ambitious enough. We must go further and give kinship carers parity with foster carers. That will help save money in the short and long term.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
In Surrey alone, spending on private special educational needs schools has risen from £48 million in 2018-19 to £74 million in 2021-22. These schools are often backed by private equity firms, and they are charging local authorities extortionate fees—on average double those in the state sector. They are draining public funds, but councils have no choice but to place children in these schools due to a lack of state provision. Does my hon. Friend agree that extending the profit cap to independent schools is essential to protect public finances and ensure fairer funding for children with special educational needs?
Munira Wilson
I had not shared my speech with my hon. Friend, but she has anticipated the next couple of points that I was about to make. I agree with her strongly. I preface my comments by saying that there are many independent special schools run by private or voluntary sector providers that do an excellent job and are certainly not profiteering in the way that I am about to set out. Clearly, however, that is not the case across the board, with some firms making upwards of 20% in profit on what they charge. We must challenge whether that is justified. The crisis in state special educational needs and disability provision and the lack of specialist places have led to a growth in private provision that is crippling local authority finances, as my hon. Friend just said.
In 2021-22, councils spent £1.3 billion on independent and non-maintained special schools—twice what they spent just six years previously. The average cost of one of those places was £56,710, which, as my hon. Friend said, was twice the average cost of a state-run special school place. Many of the companies running these schools are the very same private equity companies running the children’s homes and fostering agencies that clause 15 is designed to deal with, so I am at a loss as to why the Government have not included independent special schools in the clause. I urge them to think again and accept our amendment.
My new clause 29 would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to introduce a national wellbeing measurement programme for children and young people throughout England. I pay tribute to #BeeWell, Pro Bono Economics and the wider Our Wellbeing Our Voice coalition for their hard work in this area. As I have said several times during this Bill’s progress, I am more than a little surprised to find so little about children’s wellbeing in a Bill with this title. One in four children in the UK reports low wellbeing, and according to the programme for international student assessment data, our country is the lowest ranked in Europe on that head. Data on children’s wellbeing and mental health is fragmented across the NHS, schools and local authorities. It is crucial that we collect data to understand the challenges that young people face and to develop solutions, and that we seek to understand the efficacy of those solutions through the use of robust wellbeing data.
I welcome the Conservatives’ new clause 36 on wellbeing, phones and social media, both as a parent and as a parliamentarian. In this unprecedented digital age, we need to treat children’s social media and phone addiction as a public health issue. We have long supported the last Government’s guidance that schools should try to restrict mobile phone use during the school day, with—importantly—proper mitigations that teachers and heads can employ for young carers and those with medical conditions who use their phones as medical devices, and in other local circumstances that teachers and heads are best placed to identify.
Jim Shannon
Is the hon. Lady aware of the pilot scheme introduced in Northern Ireland by the Education Minister, Paul Givan? In some schools, all the children’s mobile phones are placed in pouches, so that they are never on show. This could make the Conservatives’ proposal acceptable to all, and there is still provision for carers to keep their phones with them. Northern Ireland has shown what can be done with a pilot scheme, and it is great that the House is following our lead.
Munira Wilson
It is always an honour to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, and it is great to hear about the pilot scheme in Northern Ireland. I have read that the Government in the Republic of Ireland have spent about €9 million on issuing those pouches to schools across the country. It would be useful and instructive for the UK Government to look at how that pilot goes, but I am not sure that we even need to wait for that. School leaders and parents are pressing us to go further now, and we must listen.
Putting the guidance into law will ensure that schools have the necessary support when they are challenged on their policies, and the resources to implement a mobile-free environment. A headteacher in my constituency told me that it would cost his school budget £20,000 to install lockers or issue the pouches described by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Children must be able to learn in an environment that is free from the distraction of phones and the threat of bullying. We have also seen a significant reduction in truancy in schools where restrictions have been robust.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments on the new clause, and also the cross-party support that demonstrates that this is a cross-party issue and is not about party allegiance. Does she agree that the data and the evidence promoted by specialists such as Jonathan Haidt show that problems with literacy, numeracy and focus among children have accelerated since the early 2010s, which coincides with their access to phones? When it comes to what this Government should be doing, it is an open-and-shut case.
Munira Wilson
The data in the book to which the right hon. and learned Lady has referred is alarming. Last week in Hampton, in my constituency, the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign organised a public meeting with local parents. It was pretty full, and the data shared there was also extremely alarming. I attended as both a parent and the local Member of Parliament, and I am afraid I came away feeling even less of a liberal than before I went in, and slightly more authoritarian. However, that was mainly because allowing our children to grow up with the freedom of being away from such a toxic environment is the right, liberal thing to do.
Let me say gently to the right hon. and learned Lady, and to those on both the Conservative and the Labour Benches, that being at school is only a small part of a child’s life—it is only a small fraction of that child’s time—and we need to look at much broader measures than restricting phone use in schools. It is disappointing that during the Committee stage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, neither Labour nor Conservative Members supported Liberal Democrat proposals to make the internet less addictive for children. After the Government decided to gut the “safer phones” Bill—the Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), which had a great deal of cross-party support—a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill offered Members an opportunity to protect young people from the doom-scrolling algorithms that are making such powerful changes to the way in which they live and interact. It is disappointing that Ministers did not seize that opportunity with both hands, and I hope they will think again as that Bill progresses through the House.
I welcome new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), which would abolish the common law defence of reasonable punishment. We need to ensure that all children are properly protected in law, so that they can grow up safe, happy and healthy. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for this for more than 20 years. We supported the law change in Scotland and Wales, and it is long overdue in England.
There is much in Part 1 of the Bill on which there is cross-party consensus. A number of amendments tabled by Members on both sides of the House seek to ensure that the Government go further in safeguarding and promoting the wellbeing of our children, which is surely one of the most important roles of Government. I hope that Ministers are in listening mode, and that even if they will not take on board some of the new clauses and amendments today, they will do so as the Bill progresses to the other place. After all, it is our duty to ensure that every child in the country not only survives, but thrives.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak about some very important amendments and new clauses, but also about a body of work that moves forward the country’s protections and support for some of the most vulnerable people in society, which has not been done for a long time.
Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I had the privilege of being the children’s lead for the local authority on which I served. Many Members here may be the grandparent or parent of a handful of kids, but as any local authority lead will know, we are a corporate parent to many hundreds. In that role, it is impossible not to be moved by the testimonies of the young people with whom we are working. They have often undergone real moments of trauma and difficulty that would knock any of us for six. In the face of that, their resilience and their determination to better themselves should inspire us all. As guardians of the country’s collective obligation to young people in care, we owe it to them to fulfil our side of that corporate parenting role.
I am therefore extremely happy to see Government amendments 18 to 22, which widen the role of corporate parenting to other local stakeholders. As a local authority lead working with the care-experienced campaigner Terry Galloway, I was happy to take on some of that work locally. I worked with fantastic local stakeholders to broaden our obligations as corporate parents, and to bring other local government bodies into the sphere of those who were trying to do best by the young people in our care. However, it is clear that acting in isolation cannot be good enough, and that without clear legislation requiring more local stakeholders to take on that important role, we can never involve all the partners who can have such a transformative impact on young people in care at that crucial early stage. No parent would think of caring for a child as just a narrow subset of his or her role, and the state, and our obligation as a corporate parent, should be no different.
I am very glad to see these amendments; many in the House and beyond have been campaigning for them for some time, including my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who recommended some of these measures in his report on social care a few years ago. We saw very little action in this area under the last Government, but I am delighted that this Government are wasting no time in widening that obligation, and therefore widening the scope of the corporate parents who have the back of some of our young people in care throughout the country.
I am also glad to see the Government amendments that strengthen information sharing. I have had to read a great many difficult serious case reviews involving young people all over the country, so I know that there has been tragic incident after tragic incident owing to failures in information sharing, and the failure of agencies to work together effectively. Strengthening information sharing and multi-agency working must be a core element of bettering our obligation to safeguard young people in all local authority areas, and it will be truly welcome to see that in the Bill.
Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill will strengthen our obligation to care leavers. No parent would expect their obligation to young people in their care to end when they reached the age of 18, and the state should be no different. Perversely, a child leaving care could be ruled intentionally homeless, but a stronger and more widely available care offer for those who are leaving care will empower local authorities throughout the country to do more to live up to the obligation that we all have, as parents, to do right by young people long into adulthood. A number of amendments could be made to strengthen that provision; the Government may not be bringing them forward today, but I am sure that we will continue to revisit proposals as we monitor how this new obligation for local authorities plays out.
The need to do right by young people cannot end when they turn 18, so we must think about how we can continue our role as corporate parents long into children’s lives, when they are young adults. Many of the young people with whom I worked as a local authority lead would welcome extra support, and I am sure that many will welcome the start that the Bill is making today.
Alongside that, it is a fact pretty well appreciated across the House that the overly bureaucratic care system has not always done enough to recognise the importance of wider family networks at really important moments in young people’s lives, so the clauses bringing forward stronger commitments on family group decision making, recognising the important role of kinship carers, and strengthening the educational support available to those in kinship care, are truly welcome. So too—although not in this Bill—is the Government’s record financial commitment to expand the kinship care pilot and ensure that we start to understand the value that wider financial support could have in enabling more young people to be looked after by members of their wider family network, rather than falling into more formalised care.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that what the Government committed to do was some research.
Alistair Strathern
I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the Minister did not just commit to do some research; he committed to bring forward a statement on some really important aspects of online health on which the Government had not formally commented before. I gently suggest that if the Opposition are so clear—
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Of the six Education Secretaries we had between 2019 and last year’s election, did any of them propose banning mobile phones in schools—or is this the latest bandwagon from the Opposition?
Alistair Strathern
I thank my hon. Friend, who could not have put my next point better.
I completely recognise that this is a really important topic—it is important for parents and schools right across my constituency, too—but I am afraid the idea that, having had 14 years to bring this forward, the Conservatives have suddenly had a damascene conversion to the idea that this is something that cannot wait and must be delivered now, at a time when there is not a clear consensus among educational professionals or parents about the best way to bring such a ban into effect, feels disingenuous at best. I share lots of their concerns and, over time, I hope to be able work across this House to bring forward good protections to that effect. What I simply will not do is indulge this attempt to turn the issue into an opportunity for the Conservative party to posture, because it had so long and did so little on this work.
In conclusion, I am very glad to be supporting a Bill that delivers step changes in protections for young people, steps changes in support for care leavers and a step change in support for kinship carers. For too long, we have not done enough to look after some of the most vulnerable young people in our society, and I am glad that this Bill and some of the Government amendments underline our commitment to ensuring that we do far better on this front than the last Government did.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I urge Members to ensure that they keep their language respectful at all times.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to clause 9 and the important issue of looked-after children, which I think Members from across the House care about greatly. It is for that reason that the Bill is so disappointing, because there are missed opportunities on supply and demand, and particularly on my concern—I represent a rural constituency with cheaper housing—about the concentration of looked-after children in particular communities, which the Bill’s regional commissioning fails to address sufficiently.
I will take those issues in order, starting with supply. In Committee there was a lot of discussion about profiteering, and I am sure the Minister will respond to my pointing out that the Bill is silent on addressing the real and probably shared issue of how we boost supply by pivoting to talk of the profit clawback. My concern about the profit clawback is that when the Minister comes to claw back the money, he will find that it has long since moved. It would perhaps be helpful if the Minister could clarify the estimate that has been given to the Treasury for how much the Department expects to recover in clawback, because the Opposition suspect that it will not be particularly effective.
Likewise, there are missed opportunities in the Bill for reducing demand, and I very much echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) in Committee about boosting foster carers—an issue that is frequently debated in this House. I accept that is not a panacea for all the issues affecting looked-after children, particularly those needing secure accommodation, but one would have expected the Bill to go further in that regard.
It is also the case that what the Government are doing about unaccompanied child migrants is further exacerbating demand. I draw the Minister’s attention to the 2023 Home Office research, which shows a massive increase not only in the number of unaccompanied child migrants, but in the number of disputed cases where people claimed to be children when there was concern that they were adults. In half of those cases—49%—the individual was found to be an adult. That is further stoking demand, and it is very regrettable that the Government are not taking action and, indeed, are reversing some of the safeguards put in place by the previous Government to reduce demand. Again, clause 9 is silent on those issues.
Given that I represent a rural community, my third and main concern is that regional commissioning risks being further detached from local communities where there is cheap housing, and where there is therefore a temptation to further concentrate looked-after children, in a way that does not join across the Government’s silos with areas such as police funding and housing. I will give the House a specific example. Because Cambridgeshire has had significant population growth but the police funding is based on the population in 2012—that is how the police grant is calculated—commissioning does not pick up the additional pressures that the Cambridgeshire force is facing, particularly in its rural communities. Those pressures are exacerbated where we have looked-after children with a troubled history interacting with the criminal justice system, and where there are challenges around unaccompanied child migrants.
Nothing in this Bill says how regional commissioning interplays with the formula for police funding, even though the data I have from Cambridgeshire police is very clear that a significant proportion of their time is spent as a consequence of this policy. An example of that are the requirements on the police when a child goes missing, which is rightly an issue of significant concern. Of course that is something for which the police should prioritise time, but having a concentration of care homes in rural communities can require significant additional resource.
Clause 9 fails to address supply and demand. What will be done about the fact that it is further divorced from the rural communities where commissioning is often placed? Given that the Government are hammering rural communities in so many areas—not least farming—how will they reassure my constituents in Fenland that the failure of the money to follow looked-after children sufficiently is going to be addressed?
I will finish with one example from the recent data coming from councils. The Home Office reimburses councils for their spending on children under 18, at a rate of between £114 and £143 a day. On 15 February this year, councils reported that the payments from central Government do not cover all the costs. The risk is that rural communities, which have been hammered by this Government on farming and in so many other areas, will have to pick up the police costs, the health service impacts and the other impacts on public services that come from more distant regional commissioners, which is exactly what clause 9 risks doing. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a little bit more about that when he comes to close the debate.
Tristan Osborne
I rise to support this Bill and the Government’s amendments. Specifically, I will talk to new clauses 18 to 22, on corporate parenting; new clauses 44 to 46, on kinship; and new clause 36, tabled by the Conservatives.
As a former teacher in secondary schools in Kent, I believe these measures are overwhelmingly welcomed by many of my constituents, and also by professionals across social work and social care and in the education sector. Of course, the context of the Bill and the Government amendments is 14 years of cuts to many secondary schools and social care services in councils across the country. Successive cuts have been made to the numbers of schoolteachers and those supporting children on the frontline, with many children left in contextual settings that were inappropriate, with schools constantly having to chase agencies for resolutions. Of course, we had six Conservative Education Secretaries since 2019—a revolving door that would make the average attendance officer blush.
To get to the specifics, new clauses 18 to 22, tabled by the Secretary of State, will ensure clearer responsibilities on corporate parenting. I welcome the strengthened provision for care leavers, including the responsibilities placed on local authorities to support the transition of young people into adulthood and independent living. This transition is a period of tumult for many young people, but our most vulnerable do not have the support of parents to help them manage it. I welcome the changes to the Housing Act 1996 to clarify that care leavers should not be considered intentionally homeless and should be supported.
I also support new clauses 44 to 46, which provide much greater clarity on registered providers. In my area of Medway, many young people were placed with providers where people had serious contextual safeguarding concerns, and many of these residencies were unregistered. Unsurprisingly, these children ended up being involved with the police, and with local authorities as the environment and management of these homes was in some cases unscrutinised and poor. Sadly, as chair of the community safety partnership in Medway, I regularly saw waves of criminality associated with some of these homes. I therefore welcome the measures to tighten up the audit and scrutiny of them by regulators.
In addition, I welcome the debate raised by new clause 25 and elsewhere on kinship care in the UK. Kinship care plays a vital role in supporting children who are unable to live with their birth parents, offering them a familiar and supportive environment during a challenging time. There are over 141,000 children in kinship care in England and Wales. The benefits of kinship care are significant, and children should be offered the same redress as those in foster care. Children placed with relatives or close family friends are able to maintain stronger emotional bonds, retain connections to their cultural identity and stay within their local communities. The clauses on which I wish the Government to go further on are those to support kinship care, and I urge them to continue to do so, working in dialogue with Back-Bench MPs, charities and third sector organisations.
Lastly, on new clause 36, I want to talk from my experience as a teacher about the effective management of banning mobile phones and the safeguarding components specifically linked to part 1. As a former teacher, I know this has significant merit with issues of mental health, social media bullying and screen time causing concern, which is why I welcome the Government’s position of further research in this space.
However, many schools already operate policies to this effect, including “no phones visible” policies during the school day, and before I could support any such proposals, I would need clarity about the professional distance in relation to any such amendment, including what would happen if a child were to be found with a phone—would that lead to an immediate suspension or expulsion—and what would happen if a mobile phone is concealed? Are teachers expected to challenge students and try to turn out their pockets, because for many professionals that would be a step too far? I would need to see real guidance before advising teachers about trying to challenge students who may not have a visible phone on them, but where there is suspicion that they have one.
There also needs to be further consultation work. Where do we draw the line between a mobile phone and a tablet device, such as an iPad—which many children may also bring into school—that allows access to social media? Is there not a conversation to be had with social media providers and other companies about withdrawing services for those under-18, as opposed to stopping them holding the technology, especially as we know that much of this is linked to out-of-school activity as well as to in-school activity? Further debates on this topic are needed before we simply jump to a ban.
There are many things that students do in schools that we might challenge, such as eating foods we do not approve of. However, we have to be careful because digital devices and digital literacy are important if children are to grow up into adults who understand the context of the digital devices they hold. Banning can have a cobra effect in the sense of not enabling children to learn how to manage themselves on these devices.
Many of the amendments show the importance of an holistic approach to education. The Bill and the Government amendments acknowledge that academic achievement alone is not sufficient for children’s success, and that agencies and social services have a broader responsibility to support our most vulnerable. Part 1 of this Bill links holistically to other parts, which will be discussed tomorrow, on free breakfast clubs, cuts to school uniform costs, and reforms of pay and conditions. I urge all Members to support these amendments.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak on this important Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
I wish to focus my attention on two new clauses. First, I am calling my new clause 33 Sara’s law, after Sara Sharif, my murdered constituent. This comes out of the findings of the recent review conducted by the Children’s Commissioner. I thank the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others that have suggested a raft of great changes to the Bill when it comes to improving how we look after children in the UK. The list is never-ending, with so many great contributions from many.
Given what happened to Sara Sharif, we know that the system is not protecting vulnerable children as it should. It failed her, so I am hoping to untie that fundamental knot in the children’s social care system. The sad reality is that the level of support a child receives too often depends not on their needs, but on where they live and the thresholds the council has for stepping in and saving a child from abuse and neglect.
There is an unacceptable inequality in how local authorities interpret thresholds for an intervention under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. That means children at risk in one council area may receive early help and intervention if a family is in crisis, yet in another they are left without the intervention that could protect them, if not save their life. Every child in this country has in effect been entered into a postcode lottery, and we are gambling with their lives by not attempting to repair that flaw.
We need to look at the devastating case of Sara to understand the consequences of having a system that lacks consistency and clear national standards. I do not think we can put a price on a child’s life and decide to step in only on the basis of resources, but that is how the current system works. It is clear that social services over the years have struggled with deep cuts to funding and services, and the Liberal Democrats and I are not yet confident that the new Government will fully fund local authorities.
Sara was just 10 years old when she was brutally murdered after, sadly, years of torture and slavery at the hands of those who were supposed to love her. She was known to social services, yet the response was not sufficient to protect her. Would clearer national guidance with stronger thresholds for intervention have made a difference? In my opinion, yes. Would automatic referrals such as those proposed in this new clause have ensured that professionals had the opportunity to intervene before it was too late? In my view, yes.
New clause 33 calls for a review of the variation in the support that children in need receive across the country, and critically, it requires the Government to establish national standards for when and how children should receive help. It sets out clear triggers for automatic referral to children’s social care, such as when a primary caregiver enters custody or becomes an in-patient for mental healthcare, or when a child is arrested. There are moments of profound instability for a child in such cases, yet without clear national standards and a proactive approach, too many slip through the cracks.
My constituent Sara slipped through the cracks. In January, when I asked the Prime Minister if he would call for an inquiry into the failings of the state surrounding the death of Sara, he said the Government would look into it, but we are still waiting for him to update the House. The proposed changes would set expectations about how frequently a child’s situation should be reviewed. Cases like Sara’s remind us that it is not enough to assess a child once and then step away; their needs must be updated and reviewed regularly. The risks can escalate quickly. There are warning signs and if regular checks are not in place, intervention comes too late with morbid consequences.
New clause 33 is about accountability, consistency and, most importantly, protection. We cannot continue to accept a system where a child’s safety depends on geography and resource rather than need. I think MPs from across the House, particularly Government Members, have a moral duty to protect vulnerable children and there are so many children out there who are still in danger. I hope new clause 33 is accepted. If it is not, I hope the Government will consider it in the other place.
I wish to draw the House’s attention to new clause 8, which has been referred to, tabled by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). It ensures that corporal punishment cannot be used as a defence in court if it is being used to hide grievous harm to a child. It is not about preventing parents from reasonably reprimanding their children; it is about closing a legal loophole that abusers have regularly used or attempted to use to evade justice. We saw it in the case of Sara, whose father Urfan sought to use such a defence to avoid accountability for the terrible suffering tantamount to torture—that is what the judge said—that he inflicted. No child should endure such brutality. No perpetrator should be able to hide behind awful outdated legal justifications.
We should standardise child protection in this country and close the loopholes that currently exist that abusers can exploit. The Bill, if correctly amended, gives us the chance to do that. Let us take that opportunity and protect vulnerable children.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 8 in my name, which has the support of many colleagues across the House and organisations including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and the Children’s Commissioner for England. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Woking (Mr Forster) for their comments in today’s debate.
New clause 8 would amend section 58 of the Children Act 2004 to remove the “reasonable punishment” defence that permits assault and battery on children by parents and carers. Children in Scotland and Wales already have the same protections as adults when it comes to being hit, but we find ourselves in the peculiar situation where a child growing up just over the border in England has fewer rights. Why should they? What is the difference between a child growing up in Berwick-upon-Tweed and a child in Bonnyrigg? Scotland and Wales are not alone: 67 countries around the world have already banned physical punishment—Tajikistan last year became the latest—and 27 others have also committed to a ban. There is a global recognition that children deserve better. Indeed, as part of the UK’s commitment to the 16th Sustainable Development Goal, we have already pledged to end all violence against children, and that includes physical punishment in the home. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has stated unequivocally that protection from physical punishment is a basic human right of a child.
Physical punishment is not punishment; it is abuse. We have a wealth of research to draw on from the last 30 years, and not a single reputable study has found that physical punishment positively impacts children’s development. There is no evidence to show that it improves behaviour in children. The reality is that physical punishment does not establish in a child’s mind a difference between right and wrong; it simply evokes fear—a fear of violence and pain. We know that children who are physically punished are at a far higher risk of experiencing maltreatment and abuse by parents, because over time parents may feel the need to escalate and inflict more and more pain to elicit the same response. A 16-year-old girl told Childline:
“When I was younger and misbehaved, my mum gave me a warning and put me on the naughty step. Then when I got to five to 12 years old, it was a tap or a little smack. But now it can be a proper smack, or there was one occasion where she pulled my hair and I fell to the floor and she continuously hit me. I don’t want to get mum in trouble, but I can’t carry on being afraid of her.”
Studies have also found that physical punishment leads to higher levels of aggression directed against parents by their children. Violence begets violence, and teaching children from a young age that violence is an acceptable way of channelling stress and frustration has consequences for all of us in society. It also has a pronounced impact on the children themselves. We know from research conducted by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health that children who are physically punished are almost three times more likely to experience mental health problems than those who are not. We know that physical punishment of children is linked to substance misuse, antisocial behaviour and slower cognitive development. While the majority of parents do not use physical punishment and its use is declining, more than one in five 10-year-olds have still experienced it.
New clause 8 is not about criminalising parents. No one wants to stop a parent from protecting their child who is about to reach for a hot kettle or cross a busy road. Of the many countries that have introduced a ban, there has been no evidence that it has led to an increase in prosecutions. Instead, changing the law is about giving parents, children and professionals clarity, while improving the toolbox parents have to positively raise their child. New clause 8 removes the ambiguity created by the “reasonable punishment” defence and will allow children and adults to come forward more readily to report abuse. A clearer legal framework also makes it easier for professionals like social workers to do their jobs in the best interests of children.
New clause 8 will not, on its own, be able to stop cases like Sara Sharif’s, but it will certainly ensure that the threat of violence many children face will no longer be given the pretence of legal cover. We cannot afford to delay action. The NSPCC has seen a threefold increase in the number of child welfare calls mentioning physical punishment in the past couple of years. We need to act now to ban physical punishment, so we can ensure that children can grow up free from abuse and harm, something I know is a priority for this Government and is the purpose of the Bill in front of us.
Evidence from other countries shows us that bans work. In Germany, for example, the percentage of young people subjected to physical punishment fell from 30% to 3% after it introduced a ban in 2002. Given that 71% of adults believe that physical punishment is unacceptable, it seems to me that sooner or later we will have to change the law. My challenge with new clause 8 is: why not sooner? Why do we not commit to ending this abuse today? Children will not thank us for waiting. Future generations will not look kindly on our inaction, nor should they. We have the evidence, the power and the time. We have the ability to act and we should to protect all our children.
Damian Hinds
It is a pleasure to join in this important debate, as it has been to serve on the Bill Committee. I am very pleased that we have two days to debate the Bill on Report, because really it is two Bills, which are very different in character. In part 1, which we are debating today, there is a great deal on which I think all of us in the House agree. In fact, quite large parts of it were in the previous Government’s published Bill. It contains some important provisions covering children in care, special educational needs, child protection and so on.
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend speaks with huge levels of authority given his previous roles. He has just mentioned special educational needs. As a fellow Hampshire MP, would he agree that we in Hampshire benefit from excellent services for our local schools, particularly when it comes to special educational needs? However, demand has doubled in the past few years. Would he support my campaign to save the Henry Cort Community College in Fareham and Waterlooville, which is under threat of closure? If the college is to be closed, would it not be better diverted to special educational needs provision to serve the local community?
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend and near constituency neighbour makes a very important point, and I am sure she is running a very effective campaign. We look to the Government to come forward with what we know will be a large and broad special educational needs reform package. We do not yet know what will be in it or what the implications will be. Of course, we want all children to be wherever is right for them. For some children, that means being educated in a mainstream setting where they can benefit from that. However, we also know that for some children, it is right to be in special school. Having the full range of provision is therefore incredibly important.
There is a great deal in this Bill that I could speak about, and which we did speak about in Committee. However, in pursuit of brevity—as I know you would wish, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am going to limit myself today to talking about two aspects: one thing that is in the Bill, and another that is conspicuous by its absence. The thing that is in the Bill is a peculiar thing to raise on the Floor of the House of Commons, because it is something with which I have not yet heard anybody disagree, and on which there is no amendment to speak to —although, to remain orderly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can speak with reference to Government amendment 114, which is right next to it in the legislation.
I speak neither in favour nor against the principle of what I am about to cover, but raise it for what is, I think, an important reason. In this House, it is sometimes precisely with measures on which there is no disagreement that the greatest dangers lie, because this House, with its oppositional layout, thrives on people finding holes in what is being proposed and objecting to them; when everybody is saying the same kind of thing, there is a real danger that things will get through without the proper attention.
I have not yet said what I am referring to, have I? I am referring to the provisions on unique identifiers. A couple of speakers have already mentioned the importance of these measures. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) was talking about a number of almost invariably serious case reviews identifying the problems that have occurred. A lot of that centres around the lack of proper data sharing, where different agencies both knew the same child, but did not join together what they knew about that child in order to be able to act in their best interest. Having what is, in the systems world, called an “index term”—a terrible way to refer to a child—or a unique identifier for every child, so that everybody knows when they are talking about the same child, is very important. The Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) spoke about the potential for this area to be genuinely transformational— I think that was the phrase she used. All of that is true.
Clause 4 allows for the creation of a single unique identifier for children and introduces new duties around data sharing. Here is my worry: sometimes when we legislate, something passes through without too much debate, and then, two or three years later, all sorts of other things start happening, and when we query why they are happening, people say, “Well, you lot voted for this. You passed a law about it. Perhaps these are some of the consequences.” I think something along those lines might have happened with GDPR, for example, and some of the things that we now see coming through on rules around children’s social media use and ages.
The creation of the single unique identifier is a massive change in the way we keep records on people in this country. With the potential to join up different databases, there are great positive implications for things like child safety, but there are other implications around privacy, data security and so on. It has been suggested that the NHS number would be the unique identifier used for each child, which, at first glance, seems an obvious and sensible thing to do. As a former Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that in the past, various projects have proposed using the national insurance number as a unique identifier for adults, which, at the time, also seemed like a sensible and clever thing to do. However, when it was prodded further, it turned out that the national insurance number database is not perfect, and I am afraid the NHS number database may not be, either—it just was not designed for this kind of purpose.
We are obviously not going to have a big debate on this issue today, although they may do in the other place when they talk about the Bill. However, over time, I think we will have to unpack what this whole new system may imply. For a start, is it talking about using the existing NHS database and the index term—the unique identifier for individuals—or is it talking about taking those numbers and putting them into a new database or system, which would have significant cost and time implications? If it is using the current NHS database, we need to think about the implications.
There has been a different debate going on about AI and the use of large amounts of data for academic research. What would be the implications of having this huge database with every child in the country potentially linked to all sorts of other databases, with details about them, for that kind of research? How secure would the system be? We can probably safely say that the system would not give the same number to two different children, but I am not 100% certain that we could say with total confidence that the same one child could not, at different times in their life, have different numbers, particularly with immigration and re-immigration, change in family structures and so on. What would that mean for the system?
More broadly, though, once we had this unique identifier and a national database of this sort, we could use it for quite a few things other than child protection. Some of those things might be considered by many of us in this House to be pro-social things that are worth pursuing. We have been having debates about age verification and the use of electronic devices and social media, for example; such a database would probably be the most reliable identity system for under-18s.
What about after age 18? If children have grown up with this database and with a number and identifier attached to them, that would not disappear just because they pass the age of majority. In theory, they could carry on having a linked database that potentially links up child protection sources, NHS sources, police national computer and so on—who knows what else could be joined up. We might then find that we have a system of national identity cards without having sought that in the first place.
Helen Hayes
The right hon. Gentleman is raising a number of technical considerations about the implementation of a project that is no doubt very ambitious. But does he not hear the cries from parents of children with SEND who are so weary of having to tell their story again and again to different parts of the system that are supposed to help them, and are currently being hampered in those efforts by exactly this want for information about a child being held in a single place? Does he not think that, ambitious though this project is, and important though the technical considerations are, it is worth delivering, and that it is worth giving parents the confidence that we in this House will scrutinise it and do that job? There are big gains to be had from pursuing this course of action.
Damian Hinds
I think the hon. Lady was here for the first two or three minutes of my speech—that is broadly what I said. In fact, I quoted her talking about the transformational potential of this measure and its importance. I do not want to go through it all again, but I said that when we all agree on something, there is sometimes a danger of unintended consequences. I then said that we may not talk about all this today—we do not have to do so today—but I think the Government will probably have to come back multiple times for Parliament to be able to consider all the much wider potential implications of creating such a database. I think, not for the first time in our in our lives, we are not a million miles away from one another.
The other thing that I want to talk about, in a less consensual tone, is what is glaring in its absence from the Bill: new clause 36 on mobile phones and social media, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). There are four parts to it: the first two state that the chief medical officer should be commissioned to issue a report, and the Government will conduct research on the effects of social media on children and young people. That was in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), which we discussed a couple of Fridays ago.
The third thing was in the wider package, as colleagues will remember, but the Government did not agree to it: a phone ban during the school day. That is point of contention, although I know that many hon. Members across the House, including in the Labour party, agree on it. There are limits to the approach. An argument that is always made when asking, “Why not ban mobile phones at school?” is, “What about out of school?” That is a good question, but it is not a reason not to do the first part. I readily admit that most online harm happens outside school. We know from research, including the recent study from the University of Birmingham, that a school ban does not necessarily reduce the total amount of time that young people spend online—it just displaces some of it. That does not necessarily improve things such as sleep, which is a big worry for teenagers, nor does it address wider issues of attention span, eyesight and so on.
Rules are still important, for the sake of both children and schools, but three things in recent years have changed the context for behaviour in schools. The first is a set of things that happened around covid—a sort of attitude shift that seems to have happened to a large extent throughout society. The other two things are vapes and phones. Of course, there is a universal ban on vapes at school. That does not mean that they never get through, but pupils are not allowed to vape in any state secondary school in this country. Phones are the other thing. We know—I say that because it applies to us as well—that if we have a phone in our pocket, even if we are not looking at the screen in front of us, it is still something of a distraction, because it could buzz at any time. In fact, we might be wondering if it will buzz when someone replies or comments on a post or whatever it might be.
The school day in its entirety should be devoted to school. That means not just lessons and learning things, although that is the primary aim, but being a child or young person, being with friends and growing up without those distractions.
Tristan Osborne
Did the right hon. Gentleman say that it was a “rite of passage” for young people as young as year 6 and 7 to have a mobile phone, and that it was in the gift of their parents to decide? Last year, did he not suggest that we should wait until the guidance given by Government is fully reviewed and understood before we go for an outright ban? Why has he changed his mind?
Damian Hinds
I do not know if the hon. Member has been reading misquotes.com again, but I did not say what he just suggested. I think he is probably referring to an interview from years ago in which I said that it has become something of a rite of passage that, between years 6 and 7, the great majority of children are given a mobile phone. That is true, and it is not at all what he just said that I said.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
On a point of fact—[Interruption.] I am reading from a mobile phone but, talking about quoting, they are important for research. On 19 February 2024, when the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister of State for Schools, a press release issued his Department said:
“Mobile phones are set to be prohibited in schools across England”.
On the right hon. Member’s website on 29 February, there was an article that said, “This latest article”—
by the right hon. Gentleman—
“for the Herald and Post follows the decision to ban mobile phones in schools”.
I raise that point because, previously, Conservative Members made the argument that they were already banning mobile phones in schools. Is it not the case that they were posturing then, just as they are posturing now?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Member clearly did not consult the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), because he has made a slightly contradictory point. I was coming on to say that we did issue non-statutory guidance that mobile phones should be prohibited during school. That was the right thing to do. I do not know if this is further down whatever webpage the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) was looking at, but I said that we maintained the option of making that guidance statutory. That time has come to do that, because the guidance has not been sufficiently effective in its current form, but issuing the guidance was the right thing to do.
Luke Murphy
It was not just any website; it was the right hon. Member’s website, and it was a direct quote. My point—it was not necessarily to do with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne)—was that when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of State for Schools, he described the move on his website as an outright ban. No if, no buts. It was described by the previous Government as an outright ban. It was posturing then, and it is posturing now.
Damian Hinds
No, it was not posturing then and it is not posturing now. We issued non-statutory guidance—
Damian Hinds
With respect, there are different levels. There is non-statutory guidance, statutory guidance and primary legislation. I first had to deal with this question in 2019. On that occasion, we decided not to issue a ban. We had a big discussion about it in a legislative Committee. I am not totally sure that it was the right approach to take at the time, but it seemed to be the view of headteachers in particular that there should be no ban. The hon. Member is right that when I was back in the Department for Education, we introduced non-statutory guidance, and I believe that the time has come to write that guidance into legislation. If he will give me a chance, I will say why.
Even if something should be banned, it is perfectly legitimate to ask: why not just let schools decide? Schools know their pupils better. I have made that argument myself many times over the years on many different things. Both the Labour party and the Conservatives find ourselves in the exceptionalism territory. Labour Members of Parliament say, “Don’t tell schools what to do. Leave it up to individual headteachers.” Have they read the rest of the Bill? It prescribes what schools must do in the most extraordinary detail. It takes away academy freedoms, specifies the exact length of breakfast, and says, “You may not have more than four items of branded school uniform. For secondary schools, that includes a tie. Primary schools may not have a tie.” It includes all manner of detailed specifications, except on this one issue.
To give the mirror image, it is true that we believe, in general, that we should leave things entirely up to schools, who know their children best, but this should be an exception. As that hon. Gentleman was just saying—[Interruption.] I was not being rude; I meant the hon. Member for Basingstoke, as opposed to this one, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford. In 2019, we decided not to issue that guidance, but in 2024 we did. It was clear at the time that there was an option to make the guidance statutory, if required.
Since then, the world has kept on changing. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) talked about the continued development, tragically, of mental ill health among children and young people. We had this debate when discussing a private Member’s Bill a couple of Fridays ago. Proving causality perfectly is incredibly difficult—we will probably never be able to do it. However, I do not know about colleagues, but I do not meet many people, particularly not teachers, who seriously doubt that there is a major causal link between the two things.
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend, who has detailed experience in the Department, is speaking as eloquently as ever on this topic. Before we move on from the Government Members’ interventions, is he, like me, enjoying the slight irony of hearing them argue for consistency, when, on inheritance tax for farmers, the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, winter fuel, national insurance and so many other issues, consistency does not seem to be a priority?
Damian Hinds
As ever, my right hon. Friend makes a compelling point. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I am coming to a close.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
The right hon. Member knows where I stand and my views on this issue. Will he outline what has changed since February 2024, when he said no to a ban on phones in schools, but reserved the right to issue statutory guidance—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I gently suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that we are meant to be debating the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on Report, and the amendments and new clauses.
Damian Hinds
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; indeed we are. In fairness to the hon. Lady, there is a connection, but it is important to say that we did not say no to a ban in 2024. We said that we would start with non-statutory guidance, with the option to make that guidance statutory.
Yes, children’s usage of mobile phones has continued. People say, “Phones are banned in all schools anyway.” That is true, and I doubt there is a school in the whole country that says, “Yeah, it’s okay, just whip out your phone in the middle of an English lesson.” Everybody has various restrictions. However, if we look at the survey data, we see that there is a bit of a hierarchy; we can listen to Ministers, headteachers, classroom teachers or kids. The further down that list we go, the more we hear people saying, “Phones are about, particularly in breaks and at lunch time.” That, to me, is part of the school day; this is not just about lesson time.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
On Friday, I visited Kent college in my constituency, which has recently instituted a ban. Phones are collected in the morning and put into pouches, and at the end of the school day, the children can get them back. The school has found benefits for the collection of lost property, which is attached to the cages that have the phones in them. Is the right hon. Member aware of any cases where a school has instituted a ban, and it has been seen to have negative, rather than positive, outcomes?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Member makes a powerful point very effectively. There will always be arguments about needing exceptions for this case and that, but we can have exceptions, and school headteachers are pretty good at knowing when they need to make an exception to a rule.
It would be helpful to have a national policy in this area. That would not preclude exceptions for children with a special educational need or young carers. Crucially, it would also not preclude children from having a phone as they go to and from school, where the school and the parents want that. Parents often think about that, for safety reasons. There are various ways of dealing with this, such as the pouches that the hon. Member mentioned, or lockers.
I have noticed a shift. A couple of years ago, some people argued against a ban on principle. Now, the only real argument that I hear—I do not say that this is a trivial point—is about the big cost of buying pouches or lockers. If that is what we are arguing about, that is material progress. It is time for us to stop talking about whether, and to start talking about how.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I, through you, wish all Members of the House a very happy St Patrick’s day? I rise to speak on new clause 14. What it proposes is not brain surgery, and it is not new or exciting, but it is an essential part of how we approach the enormous problem of children living in temporary accommodation miles away from their home, their home borough, their school and their doctor.
The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), who spoke for the Opposition, said that he thought we would look back at the issue of mobile phones in schools and think, “What were we thinking to allow that to happen?”. We should already be thinking, “How did we come to have tens of thousands of children in temporary accommodation, which is almost exclusively in a terrible state of repair, miles away from anybody who is watching them?”.
Many of the families we are talking about are not just homeless, but are the most vulnerable in our community. They include children with special needs, and children and families who experience great difficulty in their day-to-day lives. There are those who have disrupted families, those who move frequently, and those who just find things difficult. As of right now, there are 164,040 children living in temporary accommodation. On average, 54 children from homeless families are placed in temporary accommodation every day.
In London, the area that I understand best, one in every 21 children is living in temporary accommodation—that is at least one in every school class. In schools in central London, 50% or 60% of children could be living in temporary accommodation. That was certainly the case for Harris Peckham. Last year, an article in The Sunday Times identified it as having 60% of its children in temporary accommodation. That school, like all schools in the Harris Federation, tries to do its best for those large numbers. It has set up a drop-in centre in the school, to allow parents to take their children to school, spend the day in school, and go home with their children in the evening.
We constituency MPs probably understand a lot more clearly than most in our communities the impact of what is going on. In Merton, we have just under 700 families in temporary accommodation. That is probably the lowest number in London, but to me it is an extraordinary number that I worry about every day, every night, and at every advice surgery. Some 80% of those families are placed outside the borough. When they are placed somewhere outside the borough, the council is required to place only two notifications: one with the receiving borough and one with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—it does not have to inform the schools or the GP—and nothing happens, so all these boroughs are taking on families that they know nothing of.
Families often do not want their GP to know that they have moved, because they worry about being removed from their list. They worry that that would mean their children being removed from the children and adolescent mental health services list, which we know can be as long as 12 months, being removed from operation lists at local general hospitals, and generally being displaced along with being misplaced in accommodation. This also means—we probably consider this far less—that the health visitor does not know that a family with young children has moved into the area.
I have a great friend, Debbie Fawcett, a Queen’s nurse who is the homelessness health visitor to families in Merton. Part of her job is to regularly go to hostels, converted warehouses and converted office blocks in and around my constituency to find out where these children are. She gets no notifications; she simply walks round the blocks and gets the families she already knows to be her spies, in order to find out if families are moving in. She has been known to run into flats after delivery drivers to see if she could find a baby. These families are often placed in accommodation that is so small that the children cannot learn to walk. They are displaced from the support of grandparents, churches and other community groups. They desperately need Debbie’s help, but she does not know they are there.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 172, tabled by my party, and then I will say a few words to lend cross-party support to new clauses 8 and 3.
I truly welcome the important steps taken in the Bill to strengthen the systems intended to keep children safe, yet the Bill fails to embed meaningful consideration of children’s views. This means that critical decisions may be made at local and regional levels without consideration of the views and experiences of the children they affect. It is concerning that the proposed requirement in the Bill is to seek the views of the child only where the local authority thinks that is appropriate. The NSPCC points out that this is weaker than the existing Children Act 1989 requirements to ascertain and give due weight to the wishes and feelings of the child, in line with their age and maturity. In short, while there are so many good things in the Bill, it inexplicably falls short of that gold standard. Our amendment 172 seeks to address that.
Amendment 172 would ensure that local authorities offering and facilitating family group decision making must consistently seek to ascertain the child’s views and to properly support them to engage, where this is in their best interests. Importantly, the amendment also seeks to ensure that, where attendance at a family group decision making meeting may not be in the child’s interests—which must of course include giving due weight to their wishes and feelings and identifying safeguarding concerns—that is not the end of the story, because even if the child is not in attendance, the amendment requires the local authority to ensure that the child’s views are sought and, where relevant, independently represented. This could be, for example, through an independent advocate, recognising the incredible work they do to support even the youngest children to be heard and to participate where possible. So I hope the Minister will look seriously at that amendment.
New clause 8 was tabled by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). I thank her for her years of work on this issue, and I want to reiterate that the Green party supports putting into law equal protection for children. The physical assault of children is never acceptable, and we need to follow Scotland and Wales by urgently updating our law. The Children’s Commissioner, the NSPCC, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and many others have been crystal clear, not least in the wake of the horrifying case of Sara Sharif, that children should be equally protected from assault.
The Children’s Commissioner makes the important point that equal protection from physical assault is not a so-called smacking ban. That term trivialises this issue and is misleading about the types of behaviour that would come under scrutiny through such legislation, wrongly implying the creation of a new offence. Equal protection would instead remove the defence currently available to parents and carers who have been charged with assault, which by their nature are some of the most serious cases of child maltreatment.
I will also say a few words in support of new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who chairs the Education Committee. There is strong cross-party support for a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on and publish a draft national care offer, to set minimum standards for local care offers. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) tabled a similar amendment in Committee—she is unfortunately unable to speak in today’s debate as she is on Environmental Audit Committee business.
All local authorities, as we have heard, have to produce a local offer for care leavers, but the support they get is a postcode lottery. A great national offer would help support independent living into adulthood for all care leavers. Enhancing and improving support for all care leavers would involve an ambitious cross-Government programme of work, but it would mean that for the first time there could be a clear list of statutory entitlements that care leavers could access. Such entitlements should mirror the support that many young people receive from their parents, including support with rent deposits or free transport. With the number of children in care at a record high, we simply must do more to support those leaving care. There is both a financial and moral case for the Government to do that.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I rise to comment on Government new clauses 18 to 22 and new clause 3. I very much welcome the new corporate parenting duties and the value they add to the Bill and to the activities of authorities up and down the country. The new clauses add value because this Bill is about boosting standards in schools and creating opportunities. It is about children getting the best start in life and ensuring that there are clear protections for young people. Crucially, it is about stopping children and young people from falling through the cracks in the system.
In addition to the unique identifier that this debate has considered to join up services to help children and young people; the overhaul of children’s social care, which is long overdue, starting by capping excess profits, ensuring collaboration and ensuring that every pound counts towards getting the best for children; and the measures to support kinship carers and care leavers elsewhere in the Bill, all of which are crucial, it is also crucial to strengthen what children in care can expect authorities to do to secure good outcomes for them.
I previously led children’s services as a cabinet member in Southampton. That was during a time when we needed to make huge strides forward to improve how we supported children and young people. I know from that experience what rests on the services provided: they make or break opportunities for the young people looking to us for care. It is welcome that the Bill now includes accommodation in the local offer, which makes good on a commitment to guarantee care leavers a place to live. New clause 18 sets out the wider responsibilities for authorities. The reality is that the barriers faced by care-experienced young people are greater than those faced by most of their peers, and good outcomes will likely be far harder for them to secure.
It is right that authorities do more in good, sensible collaboration, but what does that look like? It is couched in unfortunate language, in a sense: “parenting” is a word that pretty much everyone can relate to, and we understand “corporate”, but not in this context. We know within the sector what corporate parenting means, but it potentially draws away from how we should be thinking about it in terms of a family, rather than an institution, public service or organisation with thresholds and goals. That means a family gives love and attention to those in its care. It ensures a warm, safe place to live, echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). It is about getting them in front of a doctor or dentist precisely when they need it.
We know that the support does not stop when kids leave home. As a father of teenagers and a small one, I have not yet faced the moment when they leave home, but I know that if and when they eventually leave, I will not suddenly say, “You’re someone else’s issue now”. Therefore, corporate parents cannot and must not do the same. When kids leave home, parents continue to help them out. If, for example, that family has a family business, they give first dibs on a job or training opportunity to their child. That is what councils do as corporate parents. They act as guarantors and can help with university or apprenticeship costs. In short, they fight for those young people and act as one family. They do not pass the buck and say, “It’s not my problem,” and that is what corporate parenting must be about across all Government organisations and other authorities.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
On Second Reading, I spoke about the role of supported lodgings, but I also spoke about the impact on well-meaning and responsible parents who, for a variety of reasons, choose to home-educate their children and who will be disproportionately impacted by the legislation. I realise that this issue is in part 2 of the Bill and will be debated tomorrow, but I am on a Public Bill Committee tomorrow, so I want to get on the record my support for amendments 193 to 198, tabled by the Conservative Education team, which all seek to tackle the hammer blow that the Bill applies to home-educating families. However, today I must stick to part 1—I appreciate that I was speaking slightly off topic.
Clauses 7, 8 and 9 seek to further support those who have been in the care system by providing a statutory basis for their support to the age of 25. Like the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), as a former member of a corporate parenting panel as a councillor, over the years I have met many young people who are looking for support and security as they start their transition to adulthood. I should at this point declare an interest as a member of Plymouth city council. I want to share a recent innovation by the council. We have a great history of cross-party working as a corporate parenting panel, but the council has just instituted paying for prescriptions and providing additional housing support for over 18s. The particularly clever point is that it charges the cost of the prescriptions back to the integrated care board, so that is a good illustration of what is going on out there and is the sort of thing we could build on.
Indeed, when I was a member of a corporate parenting panel, I felt strongly that a good way to get national recognition and national provision, as the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said, would be to pursue something like a care leavers covenant—a bit like the veterans covenant. This is not over the top. We have touched the edges of the expectations around jobs, housing and homelessness, and the implication and understanding of the veterans covenant could be extended to care leavers.
As I said, I have met many care leavers who are looking for that support. As a result, I have a particular interest in the transition to adulthood. We can stand here and talk about young people from birth to 25, but something about the transition to adulthood has always resonated with me. It is particularly important that I am able to speak about that again today.
Specifically, I welcome the Government’s confirmation in Committee that supported lodgings will be included in the Bill’s statutory guidance as a form of accommodation to be considered by local authorities. Having highlighted the value of supported lodgings to young people on Second Reading, and having seen the evidence that Home for Good and Safe Families provided in Committee, I remain convinced that they are a valuable option for young people and should be used more.
Furthermore, I know the Fostering Network is keen to see the Bill proceed and more explicitly provide for staying put, not just staying close, thereby extending the opportunity for young people to remain with their foster carers at the age of 18. Ultimately, that would be one less move they need to make if they do not have a secure home after that age. However, I am not sure that is in the final Bill—it remains to be seen. I suppose the House of Lords could make an amendment, but we will have to see where we end up.
It is disappointing that amendment 184, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), does not have Government support. It would have ensured that staying close support takes account of the views of young people, requiring local authorities to take account of the wishes of the relevant young person when providing staying close support to allow for continuous improvement. It would also have introduced a requirement to keep a record of those wishes to ensure that the young person’s views and desires are protected from the loss of knowledge when personnel change.
We have already heard about many inconsistencies in the Bill, and this feels like another. We are keen for young people to have a number that follows them all the way through school, but we are not keen to ensure that their records and their wishes as care-experienced young people are followed through and protected.
As I am sure many Members will agree, it is all well and good for us to stand here today and say that supported lodgings should be promoted, but as someone who has not been in the care system, I can speak only from the experience of receiving my family’s continuing support after the age of 18. However, I also had a choice at that stage, and it is so important that, as corporate parents, we ensure such choice continues.
My life is effectively based on my choices, which meant going away to university, but I also got to come home every holiday. Although I may have lost my bedroom to my younger brother, I still had a home right through until I moved to London for my first job— I even moved back again in my early 30s. I had the support of a home, which we are saying we should provide for those who are care-experienced.
It is essential that we recognise the value of choice for those care-experienced young people who do not have the choices we may have. If we can at least listen to them and ensure that their views and preferences are carried through the system, putting them in the driving seat, it would be beneficial to their transition to adulthood.
Clause 7 strengthens the provision of advice and support for young people aged 18 to 25 who have been in the care system. While I welcome the extension to the expectation of who local authorities support and how, it feels like a limited list—this seems like a missed opportunity.
Bear with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, because this is a reasonably long story that does not directly relate to these amendments until the end, but I think it is important to put it on the record. On Friday, a 33-year-old man attended my surgery to share his experience as someone who had been placed in care and then adopted. Unfortunately, this Bill does not cover his experiences.
He was sexually abused as a baby by both his parents, and he was eventually removed from home—with hindsight, he was also neglected. The impact of his life story means that he has experienced homelessness, prison on more than one occasion, and ongoing mental health issues related to the trauma he experienced. These issues extended into his adoptive life with a new mother who became an alcoholic and was physically abusive towards him.
Now a young man, despite the odds stacked against him, he has settled down, has three children and is still with their mother, although he says that is tough at times. He is a facilitator for Andy’s Man Club in my constituency, and he has set up a support group and a podcast to help others like him. On the one hand, he is a success.
However, he highlighted an issue that I think is important to raise today. He clearly articulated to me how he feels he was let down by social services when he asked to see his care records. This is where I believe his story links to the Bill. Regardless of the fact that he discovered there were two sets of records—his social services files and his adoption records—he received no support when he made a request to access them. He was simply given the files by Devon county council, and that was that.
Having read two of the five files he was given, which he found to be in a highly disorganised state, he had to stop because of their content’s significant adverse effect on him. His case highlights the need for provisions like clause 7 to go further on the staying close offer, by prompting a conversation about how we support those who have, through no fault of their own, experienced some of the most horrific early childhood experiences.
How can we better support previously looked-after adults as they continue their journey through life? I appreciate that we cannot necessarily provide this support forever, but perhaps the only thing we need to do when they access their social services records, as we do not know at what point in their life they will do so, is ensure that they receive a meeting with someone trained to explain what those records mean. That is what young adults like my constituent are requesting.
My constituent’s records contained distressing details, but they also included lots of technical language that he did not understand because he is not a social worker. He may be over 25 now, but I do not believe his experiences are age-related. I call on the Minister to ensure that guidance on the sharing of care records is explored as we finalise clause 7. This simple proposal could make an extraordinary difference.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful point about the importance of accessing coherent and organised records. However, does she agree that one of the reasons for those records being disorganised is the churn of social workers, and one of the causes of that churn is our care system’s extensive reliance on the excessive profiteering of external companies? This Bill provides for retention of care workers by ruling out excessive profiteering. Does she welcome that?
Rebecca Smith
I will reserve my judgment, because I am not convinced that stripping out excessive profiteering will actually help the system. Ultimately, what we need is the provision of service. If people just leave the sector altogether, we will not have social workers anyway. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but I understand the link to what I was saying.
I welcome how far we have come in recent years on extending support in areas such as housing and provision up to the age of 25, but I believe the Bill is creating another cliff edge. What more can be done to enable those affected in adulthood by the emotional and mental impact of their life in care to access trained support? That might be something we need to consider further.
Slightly changing tack, and talking of missed opportunities and perhaps a lack of ambition, I fail to see why the Government cannot support safeguarding young people in schools by banning mobile phones in the classroom. I feel there is another inconsistency here, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned. Clause 24 limits the use of branded school uniforms to reduce peer pressure and costs. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), who is no longer in his place, made that argument while, at the same time, arguing for ensuring that young people can take their smartphone and their tablet into school. Talk about something that creates peer pressure and highlights the disparities between those who can afford it and those who cannot. I simply believe the Government do not want to support the amendment because it was tabled by Conservative Front Benchers. We need to move away from party politics and seriously consider what is best for young people. We should at least be consistent. Let us make sure that the legislation we are creating does not do one thing on the one hand and something completely different on the other.
New clause 36 is not about banning young people from using phones—I do not believe that is the state’s role; it is for parents to choose if and when their children can use a phone. Instead, it is about recognising the impact that the presence of phones can have before, during and immediately after the school day. There are some parents who recognise that. There are those who limit what their children can access on their smartphones and those who are making the most of what some might refer to as a brick phone—I do not know whether any of us here this afternoon ever had one of those—or, as it is known today, a dumb phone or non-smartphone.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I rise to speak to new clauses 43 to 47, standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends. New clause 43 is yet another attempt to put my Healthy Start Bill into law. When I first introduced that Bill, 200,000 eligible pregnant women, babies and infants were missing out on Healthy Start vouchers. That is approximately £58 million going unclaimed from a scheme that is already budgeted for. These vouchers provide financial assistance in the form of a prepaid card to all under-18s who are pregnant, families with babies and children under the age of five, and pregnant women claiming certain benefits. This is to help with the ever-increasing cost of fruit and vegetables, milk formula and vitamins.
Just last year, the child of the north all-party parliamentary group, which I chair, heard evidence that children in the north are more likely to die before reaching their first birthday than those anywhere else in the country. It has been widely reported for some time that, in desperation, parents have resorted to the theft of baby milk and formula or to having to water it down, which is not surprising considering that formula prices are at historically high levels. As it stands, there is a lack of awareness about the scheme, and the application routes are overly complex and varied. The reason so many are missing out on vouchers is that the system operates on an opt-in, not an opt-out model. Auto-enrolment for all those eligible would ensure maximum take-up of this essential nutritional safety net. The Healthy Start scheme was introduced by a Labour Government. The current problems with it are the fault of the last Government’s management of the scheme. It is in this Government’s gift to solve those problems.
New clause 44 relates to improving sibling contact for children in care. The Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to allow a looked-after child reasonable contact with their parents, but there is no parity of provision for a looked-after child’s contact with their siblings or half-siblings. If siblings cannot be placed together, they should have exactly the same rights to contact defined in primary legislation as they do with their parents. The relationships that adults deem to be the most important for children in care are not the same as those that are most important to the children themselves. The Government’s own research acknowledges that maintaining contact with siblings is reported by children to be one of their highest priorities. Having that relationship ripped away causes them anguish on many levels.
Although the Department does not collect statistics on siblings’ contact levels, work by the Family Rights Group has shown that half of all sibling groups in local authority care are split up. Many of those siblings come from neglectful and abusive backgrounds. They state themselves that the only constant, positive, reassuring and enduring relationship is the one they have with their siblings. That is especially the case if they have been abused by their parents. Therefore, it cannot be right that our primary legislation gives more weight to a child’s contact with those who have or may have caused them significant harm than it gives to contact with their siblings, who are totally blameless.
Guidance on sibling contact does exist, but it is sufficiently opaque to be ignored, and it regularly is. We all know in this House that guidance is no substitute for a clear duty. I first raised the issue in 2016. Every Minister who followed—there were a lot of them—promised that the regulations would be amended. To date, they have not been amended; to date, children in care do not have contact with their siblings prioritised. This is robbing them of what they cite as their most important and enduring relationship.
New clause 45 seeks to rectify a clear inconsistency in the law, whereby children in stable foster placements can stay with their foster families until the age of 21, under the terms of the Staying Put arrangements, but similar provisions do not exist for children in residential care. We should not be presiding over a two-tier system, where those in foster care receive more comprehensive support from the state than those in residential care. The Minister knows that children in residential care often have complex needs and require an immense amount of support. That need for support continues when they leave care. One of the factors known to give them a better chance in life is suitable and stable accommodation. Staying close is not enough. Local authorities have a duty to ensure significant accommodation for looked-after children in their area. New clause 45 would introduce a similar duty to ensure sufficient accommodation for all care leavers up to the age of 21, not just those in foster care.
I turn to new clauses 46 and 47. Just as children leaving residential care are treated differently from their peers in foster care, children aged 16 to 17 in residential care are also treated very differently from their younger peers. In 2021, the previous Government introduced provisions through statutory instruments to prohibit unregulated accommodation for children in care aged 15 or under, but not for those aged 16 or 17. Later, in 2023, they introduced what they deemed appropriate standards for supported accommodation for children in care and care leavers. These statutory instruments legitimised and encouraged the increasingly shameful practice of placing children in unregulated, unsafe hostels, bed and breakfasts, shared homes and caravan parks. Some children were even placed in tents on campsites.
All those settings have left them without any support, vulnerable to criminal abusers, drug gangs and sexual exploitation. The changes that followed in 2023 to supported accommodation for children aged 16 and 17 included no requirement to provide these children in care with any care at all, no requirement for qualified staff or managers to be present in their accommodation, and no requirement for independent monthly monitoring of that accommodation. Ofsted is only required, on a three-yearly cycle, to look at a small proportion of these accommodations. They also did not prohibit corporal punishment, as is the case in children’s residential homes, and these changes still allowed putting children into care in caravans, barges and boats or accommodation with vulnerable adults and prison leavers.
As of March 2024, the latest statistics that I have are that up to 50%—nearly 900,000—of 16 and 17-year-olds in care were living in this careless, bleak accommodation. I have said before in this House that 50 children in unregulated accommodation have died, that we know of, the details of which are rightly not fully known or in the public domain, but the children themselves I have spoken to have said they are literally surviving. They are not living, they are not being allowed to prepare for adulthood, they are not in education, and they are not in employment. They are literally surviving hour by hour.
I remain deeply saddened that we did not object to these changes at the time, despite my efforts. Our 16 and 17-year-olds in care have been abandoned for far too long. My new clauses 46 and 47 will give them the support and care that they so desperately need and desperately want—the support and care that the previous Government ripped away from them.
While I have been in this place long enough to know that the Minister is not going to accept all of my new clauses today, I remain ever confident and hopeful that he will work with me and consider these new clauses deeply and carefully as the Bill progresses to the other place and eventually returns back to this Chamber.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
As the son of a lady from Limerick, may I offer my mum, my wider family and everybody in the House a happy St Patrick’s Day?
I rise to speak in support of two new clauses. New clause 13 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) requests a review of adoption support services offered by local authorities and requires the Government within 12 months of passing the Act to conduct a review of the adequacy and effectiveness of those services. This will give those providing adoption services and those receiving them the comfort to know that they are indeed adequate and hopefully increase the confidence in adoption services and increase the take-up of those offering their homes to children in need.
On the second amendment I wish to speak to, I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on households in temporary accommodation. New clause 14 tabled by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) has the support of 35 colleagues from both the Labour and Liberal Democrats Benches. It requires local authorities to notify the child’s school and registered GP practice of a household’s homelessness status.
In this debate, we heard from the hon. Member about the impact of living in temporary accommodation, but this new clause will help in detecting any learning or health outcome issues as a result of living in temporary accommodation—accommodation that the Chair of our Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee has mentioned in this place before as being no longer, sadly, that temporary. It is to be hoped, too, that it will help in learning the lessons of the 74 children who have died in temporary accommodation and that being classed as a contributory factor to their deaths. I commend both these new clauses to the House.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As a former teacher, I know at first hand the importance of safeguarding and ensuring that every child has the opportunity to thrive, regardless of their background or circumstances. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome and want to talk about new clauses 18 to 22, focusing on corporate parenting. They represent a vital step in protecting vulnerable children and enhancing their overall wellbeing.
These amendments shift the responsibility for the welfare of children, particularly those in care or at risk, from being solely a single-agency duty to a much-needed collective duty on local authorities, social services, healthcare providers and educational agencies. My hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), and for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), eloquently spoke about that, giving examples from roles that they held before coming to this place. The idea of corporate parenting is that services and agencies must come together to act in the best interests of children, much as a parent would. They are tasked with ensuring that children receive the care, protection and opportunities that they need to grow, thrive and reach their full potential.
As a teacher, I saw at first hand how crucial it is for agencies to work together. A child’s welfare needs are not confined to those that arise in the classroom; we need to provide them with a holistic support system that addresses their physical, emotional and psychological needs. These new clauses will strengthen the Bill and create an integrated approach in which services collaborate and share vital information to support children. That will reduce duplication of work, minimise silo working, and ensure that children are not ignored.
When it comes to accessing mental health services, education, housing and medical care, no child should fall through the cracks. Every child deserves to have their needs met, and this Bill will ensure that all agencies involved are jointly responsible for making that happen. This landmark reform to child safeguarding means no more empty words about lessons to be learned. Instead, we have real action, and a Government who are taking responsibility.
The need for these changes is clear. We have seen far too often the tragic consequences of systems failing to collaborate or act quickly enough. Cases such as that of Victoria Climbié, a young girl who suffered horrifically at the hands of her guardians, despite being in contact with multiple child protection agencies, highlight the devastating outcomes of such failures. Similarly, the case of Baby P, or Peter Connelly, is a heart-wrenching reminder that even children who are known to authorities can fall victim to abuse when systems do not work as they should. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) spoke about his constituent Sara Sharif. Sadly, these are just a few of the tragedies that should never have happened.
While we cannot change the past, we can and must ensure that we never allow such failures to happen again. New clauses 18 to 22 aim to prevent more children from being let down by the system. By making local authorities and agencies more accountable, the Bill ensures that there is a shared responsibility for every child. It is about creating a proactive, rather than reactive, system of child protection. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen, I would welcome examples of good practice in corporate care, and for the Government to explore this issue.
We all know that children who have the support that they need are more likely to succeed. I have witnessed small interventions, whether from a teacher, a social worker or a healthcare professional, making a world of difference to a child’s life. Joining up these sometimes small but often life-changing interventions can only enhance them. The new clauses are about ensuring that such interventions are not isolated, but are part of a larger picture, so that there are co-ordinated efforts to meet the needs of every child, especially the most vulnerable. I thank all Members for their passionate and informed speeches today, particularly those from Labour Members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said, we see the concerns and plight of the children in our constituencies at first hand.
In conclusion, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill marks a significant shift in how we safeguard children. The holistic, co-ordinated approach outlined in the Bill, particularly in clauses 18 to 23, offers the best chance in years to create a safer and more supportive environment for our children. Now is our opportunity to build a system in which every child is truly protected and given the support that they deserve. A vote against the Bill is a vote against the safety of our children, their childhood and their future. It would mean more words and inaction, and would shamefully allow children to continue to slip through the cracks and be let down. I urge all hon. Members to use their vote to pass this landmark reform and safeguard all children, so that they not only survive but thrive.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 35 and amendment 174, both in my name, as well as the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).
The Corporate Parenting Forum was one of the more enjoyable committees I was on when I was a local councillor. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that the forum has quite a cold name, given all the warm work that it does. It shows the dedication of social workers, the compassion of foster carers and adoptive parents, and the resilience and character of the children. However, anyone involved in that forum would also have seen that the hard work of those involved was often undermined by a system that held people back from caring to the best of their ability.
I am pleased that the Bill will make significant progress in that regard. However, there are areas where it could go further, and I intend to speak about a couple of them. One area of particular interest to me is the so-called care cliff edge. Those leaving the care system at 18 are forced to grow up so much faster than their peers. I have raised the issue on the Floor of the House before—in particular the age differential for universal credit. That impacts young care leavers far more than any other group.
The Bill seeks to lessen the care cliff edge. The “staying close” support requirements are of particular of interest to me, as is strengthening the support provided up to the age of 25. However, there is an anomaly on housing. I understand that the Government may accept that care leavers should not be regarded as becoming homeless intentionally, but my new clause 35 would go a step further and extend priority need status under the homelessness legislation to all care leavers up to the age of 25, regardless of all assessed vulnerabilities. The Bill provides that status to young care leavers aged 18 to 20, but that is out of line with the rest of the support available to young care leavers. Given all we know about the vulnerabilities of care leavers, which have been spoken about in the Chamber today, we should not put them in a position where they have to prove their vulnerability at that crucial crisis point.
Last Friday, I was at a homeless shelter in my constituency. I met a young carer who had spent eight months in a tent prior to arriving at the shelter. He told me the story of how that happened. He had been in supported accommodation before the age of 18, but that home shut down just as he reached the age of 18, so his transition plan was completely undermined in a moment. He bounced about from place to place for the following few years. He has now reached the crucial age of 25, but he has not received the support he needed in the last few years. New clause 35 could help rescue people like him in the future.
My other area of interest is kinship care. I must admit that I had not heard of kinship care until a few years ago, but I grew up in kinship care. I was the eldest of three boys. My mum had me at 19, and times got pretty tough as a teenager. Things boiled over, and eventually the relationship with my parents broke down. I left home and I never went back. As cocky as I was at 14 or 15 years old, I could not have lived on my own. but luckily my grandparents stepped up to take me on. My Nan and Pops, as I knew them, helped pick up the pieces and put me back on the straight and narrow. I went from being a boy who had started to fall behind in school and drink a bit down the park, to slowly taking my education more seriously and getting my act together.
If it had not been for my grandparents, I am pretty sure that I would not be sitting on these green Benches today. It was not easy for them, though: they were on a state pension, lived in a council house and did not have a lot to give, but what they did have to give was love, guidance and support. Crucially, that was accepted readily by me because they already had my trust and respect, and they had authority over me because they were my grandparents. That is the real power of keeping care within the family. There are bonds that are ready made, which is difficult to replicate in any other form of care, and they provide the foundation that children need to thrive. I acknowledge that the Bill is groundbreaking on kinship care, but we have so few opportunities to make change in this area, and I am determined to get it right the very first time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has tabled amendments on kinship care leave, kinship allowances, extending the pupil premium and prioritising school admission arrangements, all of which I have put my name to. I strongly hope that the Government can find a way to support those amendments. I have also tabled amendment 174, which would ensure that kinship families are actively engaged in shaping and forming the local authority policies that are outlined in the legislation, as families are in developing policies for children with special educational needs. The simple principle is: nothing about us without us. Kinship is a particularly complex form of care. The relationships have history. We need to appreciate the special nuances, and listen to kinship carers when developing policy. We must ensure that the authorities hear the voice of kinship families when designing the system to support them.
I wish that my grandparents had lived long enough to see me take my place on these Benches; they would have been very proud. I hope today that we can begin to say thank you to them, and to the thousands of kinship carers like them, by working towards the strongest possible rights and support.
Neil O’Brien
We have heard some superb speeches this afternoon. The Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), gave a brilliant and thoughtful speech, which ended with her talking about the welfare reforms that the Government will propose tomorrow. Our proposal for a ban on smartphones in schools is part of a general drive to undo the damage that a smartphone childhood is doing to young people’s mental health. We see that the driver of ballooning welfare claims, which the Government are really worried about, is young people and their mental health claims. If we want to be serious about prevention, a good place to start is with the amendment that we will vote on in a few moments. I am a glass-half-full kind of person. Although various Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), said that they would not be voting for the smartphone ban today, I could sense chinks of light in what they were saying; perhaps they were starting to come round to the idea.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) gave a great speech, in which he mentioned the challenge posed by the large number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the system, who now represent a third of all looked-after children in some local authorities. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) gave a fantastically powerful speech about safeguarding, in which he spoke about the tragic case of Sara Sharif. Although we will have to disagree about the policy, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) gave a good speech arguing for a smacking ban. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) raised important questions about unique identifiers, on which we all agree in principle, but getting it right will be crucial.
One of the most important speeches was the excellent contribution by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). She talked good sense and gave the Government good advice on part 2 of the Bill, and on schools. She also proposed sensible measures, which we support, to ensure that the flow of information around the system is all that it should be, and that the same kind of information that is provided to the Department is provided to those working on the frontline with children.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) gave bleak but important testimony. Her idea of a covenant was important. There were other good speeches that I have not mentioned, but we ended on an excellent note with the contribution made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). He made the case for kinship care powerfully; we are in agreement on that, and I hope that we will make progress on the issue as the Bill goes to the other place. It was a wonderful speech, and he was completely correct that his grandparents would have been very proud to see him in this House.
Stephen Morgan
I reiterate my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions on a range of amendments, of which I aim to cover as many as possible in the time available.
A key pillar of this Government’s reform of children’s social care is to shift the focus towards early support to help families together and to keep them together where possible. I will therefore begin with the amendments concerning family group decision making, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) and the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott).
On amendment 172, we agree that the voice of the child and their views are integral. In some cases, it may not be appropriate for the child to attend meetings. However, during family group decision making, the local authority must seek the views of the child where appropriate. Statutory guidance will also set out that local authorities should ensure that the facilitator has the right skills and training, and I am confident that skilled professionals will engage the child in an appropriate way.
On amendment 176, there is robust evidence that children can be diverted from care when family group decision making is offered at the pre-proceeding stage. We also encourage local authorities to offer this process as early as possible in the child’s engagement with children’s services, to support a “family first” culture.
Turning to amendment 179, if a looked-after child goes to live with a family member, the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 already require a care plan to be in place, which must include arrangements to meet the child’s needs and must be reviewed at least every six months. It would be inappropriate to assume that every child going to live with a family member needs a child protection plan. It is right that we protect all children at risk of harm, but it is also right that we do not intervene in family life where children are safe, loved and well supported.
Turning to new clauses 25 to 28, tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I emphasise how much the Government value kinship carers; they come forward to care for some of the most vulnerable children in society, who would otherwise likely be in care. We recognise the challenges that many kinship carers face in continuing to access work alongside the pressures of raising a child unexpectedly. In October 2024, the Government announced £400 million of new funding for the kinship financial allowance pilot, which will provide a weekly financial allowance to kinship carers to support them with the additional costs incurred when taking on parental responsibility for their kin. That is the single biggest investment made by Government in kinship care to date, and decisions about future roll-out will be informed by robust evaluation.
New clause 25 would introduce a new right to kinship care leave. Employed kinship carers may already benefit from a number of workplace employment rights designed to support employees in balancing work alongside caring responsibilities—for example, unpaid parental leave for employees who have or expect to have parental responsibility, which we are making a day one right through the Employment Rights Bill. We have also committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families.
On new clauses 27 and 28, we are providing more than £2.9 billion of pupil premium funding. Schools can direct spending where their need is greatest, including to pupils in kinship care, and such children may already be eligible for the highest admissions priority where they are or were looked after by the local authority. New section 22H(7), inserted by clause 5 of the Bill, states:
“A local authority must review and update its kinship local offer from 30 time to time”.
That gives opportunities for the views and opinions of children living in kinship care and their carers to be taken into account. I hope that the hon. Members for Twickenham and for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) and the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks are reassured by that.
I turn to new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). Adoption is a vital part of our system, and it is important that we ensure that support is of high quality. However, Ofsted already reports regularly on adoption support in local authority children’s social care inspection reports, as well as on voluntary adoption agencies and adoption support agencies.
On new clause 3, tabled by the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), increasing support for care leavers is a key Government priority. Clause 8 of the Bill will build on existing provisions by requiring each local authority to publish the arrangements it has in place to support and assist care leavers in their transition to adulthood and independent living. That will include its arrangements for anticipating the future needs of care leavers in respect of accommodation.
I turn to the related new clause 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), which would extend staying-put arrangements. This new clause is not needed. As part of the Bill, we require each local authority to provide eligible care leavers with staying-close support where their welfare requires it. That means that all eligible young people who leave residential care can be supported to find and keep suitable accommodation into adulthood.
I turn to amendment 184. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for raising the important principle of local authorities listening and responding to the wishes and feelings of eligible care leavers. As set out in Committee, when assessing and providing staying-close support, the local authority will be expected to have due regard to the accompanying duties regarding the creation and review of a young person’s pathway plan. The views of young people are expected to be considered as part of that.
I turn to new clause 47, which was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, and amendments 188 and 189, tabled by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the quality of care in and oversight of children’s homes, and I welcome the support of the Opposition for the position—implicit in their amendment—that action needs to be taken to better equip Ofsted to deal with poor practice across children’s homes. However, we do not believe that the new clause or these amendments are required. Introducing a full inspection at provider group level would not be appropriate or a well-targeted way to use Ofsted resource. Clause 12 is deliberately designed in a way that supplements the existing robust regime for inspection of individual settings, which ensures that Ofsted can take the quickest and most effective action to safeguard vulnerable children.
Amendment 189 would give local authorities the power to issue an improvement plan notice to a children’s home for minor concerns or admin breaches following a regulation 44 visit, which would add little value over and above what is already in place under existing regulations. It is also not clear what would constitute a minor concern or what regulatory action could follow; it risks muddying the waters of accountability and responsibility. There are already mandatory national minimum standards through the Supported Accommodation (England) Regulations 2023 and Ofsted registration and inspection requirements for providers accommodating 16 to 19-year-old looked-after children and care leavers.
New clause 14 relates to a notification for when a child is placed into temporary accommodation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her significant campaigning on this issue—I know that this morning she met with my ministerial colleagues, who will follow up with her directly. As she said in her contribution, too many children are spending years in temporary accommodation at a point in their lives when they need space to play and develop, as well as nutritious food to thrive, and access to education. Although we do not accept the new clause, I understand the rationale behind it and commit to continuing to work with my hon. Friend on the matter.
I turn to children placed in secure accommodation. Depriving a child of their liberty must always be a last resort, and it is of paramount importance that any restrictions placed on a child are appropriate and for no longer than absolutely necessary. However, I do not think that amendments 185 to 187 are necessary. A statutory regime already exists when children are being deprived of their liberty under section 25 of the Children Act 1989, and this measure would extend that to relevant accommodation. The Bill gives powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations for relevant accommodation and to set a maximum period beyond which a child may not be deprived of their liberty without the authorisation of the court. We also intend to bring forward regulations to require local authorities to seek approval from the Secretary of State before depriving of their liberty children who are under the age of 13 and in relevant accommodation.
I turn to new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). Protecting children at risk of abuse is at the heart of this Bill. Regarding the common law defence of reasonable chastisement, we are looking closely at the legal changes made in Wales and Scotland, but we have no plans to legislate at this stage. Wales is in the process of reviewing the impact of changing the law, and will publish its findings by the end of 2025. We want to look at the evidence before taking such a significant legislative step.
I now turn to new clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. All children must have an assessment of their health when they become looked after. Existing regulations require that that assessment must be completed by a registered medical practitioner, include assessment of emotional and mental health, and be kept under review.
New clause 37, tabled by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks, is not required. Robust protections are already in place where proceedings have been initiated. Pre-proceedings will almost always be initiated when a local authority has determined that child protection activity is not sufficient to keep a child safe and promote their welfare. The initiation of proceedings will not result in automatic discharge of a child protection plan; such a plan can be discharged only through a decision taken at the child protection conference between multi-agency practitioners who have been working with the child and their family.
One area in which the Government have not wasted any time is taking action against child sexual abuse. New clauses 15 and 50, covering recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, are addressed by the steps that this Government have taken and will take to deliver the change and the justice that victims deserve. In January, the Home Secretary made a statement to the House confirming that the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations of the final IICSA report, including establishing a child protection authority.
As the Home Secretary stated, the cross-Government ministerial group is considering the working through of the remaining recommendations, supported by a new victims and survivors panel. The Government will also be implementing all the remaining recommendations of the IICSA’s separate stand-alone report on grooming gangs from February 2022. As part of that, we will update key guidance on child sexual exploitation. Second Reading saw political opportunism of the worst kind from the official Opposition, and I would like to take this opportunity at the Dispatch Box to condemn it. The Home Secretary, the Education Secretary and the Minister for combating violence against women and girls all have a track record of standing up against that abuse, and they are acting decisively in Government.
Let me turn now to the new bandwagon that the Conservatives have jumped on, that of mobile phone use in schools, and to new clause 36. Phones have no place in schools. That is what the Education Secretary said last week, and it is as simple as that. Teachers and headteachers have the Government’s full backing in ridding our classrooms of the disruption caused by phones, and they already have the means to do so. We will be checking that that is happening, strengthening Government monitoring of implementation of the guidance to ensure that our classrooms are phone-free.
However, I must note—as a number of Members have mentioned tonight—that just a year ago the Conservatives claimed that their action meant mobile phones were prohibited in schools, and that their guidance meant a consistent approach across all schools. That begs the question: what has changed? Not only does the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks seem to have missed the Education Secretary’s statements; she has missed the Secretary of State for Science and Technology already announcing the studies that she is asking for. Those studies are being conducted by the University of Cambridge and will report back before the end of the school year. She has even missed the Health Secretary confirming just this month that the chief medical officer will consider the impact of phones and advice for parents.
Stephen Morgan
Of course we hear parents’ concerns about screen time, but this is a wider issue across the board that is not exclusive to schools. It is an issue on which we are already acting across Government to make sure that parents and teachers are supported in ensuring that children’s safety and wellbeing are protected. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I cannot hear the Minister speak, so I assume that nobody else can.
Stephen Morgan
The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) had the opportunity to speak in the debate, but he has chosen to turn up at the very end to make an intervention. It just shows what his interest is in these issues.
We take these matters seriously, because we take children’s wellbeing seriously. The clue is in the name—Labour’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The measures in the Bill to protect children from harm, improve their schools and save their education from causing financial distress to their parents all relate to their wellbeing, and we know that mental health goes hand in hand with wellbeing. I was at this very Dispatch Box just last week to discuss the support we are offering in schools, and we will of course have more time to talk about those issues further. I understand that new clause 29 seeks to be supportive on this matter. The Government recognise the importance of understanding trends in the wellbeing of children and young people; indeed, schools are already encouraged to measure pupil wellbeing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the leave of the House, I shall put a single question on Government amendments 119 to 131.
Clause 18
Information Sharing
Amendments made: 119, in clause 18, page 34, line 37, at end insert—
‘(4A) The Secretary of State may provide financial oversight information to the Care Quality Commission for use in connection with the Commission’s functions under sections 54 to 56 of the Care Act 2014.
(4B) “Financial oversight information” means information held by the Secretary of State in connection with the Secretary of State’s functions under sections 30ZE to 30ZJ.’
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to disclose certain information to the Care Quality Commission for use in connection with the Commission’s functions under sections 54 to 56 of the Care Act 2014.
Amendment 120, page 35, leave out lines 1 and 2.
This amendment removes subsection (5) because it is clear without it that the information in question may consist of or include personal data.
Amendment 121, page 35, line 14, at end insert—
‘(9) In this section, “the data protection legislation” and “processing” have the same meaning as in section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.’
This amendment adds a signpost to the definition of terms used in section 30ZO of the Care Standards Act 2000 (inserted by clause 18).
Amendment 122, page 35, line 14, at end insert—
‘(2) In the Care Act 2014, after section 56 insert—56A Provision of information to the Secretary of State—
(1) The Care Quality Commission may provide market oversight information to the Secretary of State for use in connection with the Secretary of State’s functions under sections 30ZE to 30ZJ of the Care Standards Act 2000.
(2) “Market oversight information” means information held by the Commission in connection with its functions under sections 54 to 56.
(3) Except as provided for by subsection (4), a disclosure of information authorised by subsection (1) does not breach—
(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or
(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).
(4) Subsection (1) does not authorise the processing of information if the processing would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether it would do so, take into account the power conferred by that subsection).
(5) In this section, “the data protection legislation” and “processing” have the same meaning as in section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.’—(Stephen Morgan.)
This amendment enables the Care Quality Commission to disclose certain information to the Secretary of State for use in connection with the Secretary of State’s functions under sections 30ZE to 30ZJ of the Care Standards Act 2000.
Clause 20
Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: children aged 16 and 17
Amendments made: 123, in clause 20, page 36, line 29, leave out “in England”.
This amendment and amendments 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 and 131 ensure that the clause 20 protection against ill-treatment or wilful neglect applies to children aged 16 and 17 in certain care and detention settings in Wales, as well as in England.
Amendment 124, page 36, line 32, after “home” insert “in England”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.
Amendment 125, page 36, line 34, after “centre” insert “in England”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.
Amendment 126, page 36, line 36, leave out
“accommodation provided at an establishment”
and insert—
“an establishment in England providing accommodation”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.
Amendment 127, page 37, line 1, after “accommodation” insert “in England”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.
Amendment 128, page 37, line 2, at end insert—
‘(e) a place in Wales at which a care home service or a residential family centre service, as defined by Schedule 1 to the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 (anaw 2), is provided;
(f) a place in Wales at which accommodation is provided to disabled children and which is notified to the Welsh Ministers in accordance with regulations under section 2 of that Act;
(g) youth detention accommodation in Wales as defined by section 188(1) of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (anaw 4).’
See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.
Amendment 129, page 37, line 4, leave out “in England”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.
Amendment 130, page 37, line 14, leave out “in England”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.
Amendment 131, page 37, line 35, leave out “in England”.—(Stephen Morgan.)
See the explanatory statement to amendment 123.
New Schedule 1
Relevant authorities
‘Part 1
List of relevant authorities
1 The Secretary of State.
2 The Lord Chancellor.
3 (1) The governing body of a maintained school in England.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “maintained school” has the meaning given by section 39(1) of the Education Act 2002.
4 (1) The proprietor of a non-maintained special school in England.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) “non-maintained special school” has the meaning given by section 337A of the Education Act 1996;
(b) “proprietor” has the meaning given by section 579(1) of that Act.
5 (1) The proprietor of—
(a) an Academy (as defined by section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996),
(b) a city technology college, or
(c) a city college for the technology of the arts.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “proprietor” has the meaning given by section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996.
6 (1) The governing body of an institution in England within the further education sector.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) “institution within the further education sector” has the meaning given by section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;
(b) “governing body” has the meaning given by section 90(1) of that Act.
7 (1) The proprietor of a special post-16 institution in England in relation to which an approval under section 41(3) of the Children and Families Act 2014 has effect.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “proprietor” and “special post-16 institution” have the meaning given by section 83(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014.
8 His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills.
9 NHS England.
10 An integrated care board.
11 An NHS foundation trust.
12 An NHS trust.
13 The Care Quality Commission.
14 The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.
Part 2
Power to modify Part 1
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend Part 1 of this Schedule by—
(a) adding a person or description of persons,
(b) removing an entry listed in it, or
(c) varying an entry listed in it.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(1) Regulations under paragraph 15(1)(a) may not add a person or description of persons to Part 1 unless the Secretary of State considers that the person exercises, or (as the case may be) all persons of that description exercise, functions of a public nature.
paragraph 15(1)(a)
(2) Regulations under paragraph 15(1)(c) may not vary an entry listed in Part 1 so that it relates to a person who does not exercise functions of a public nature or, in the case of a description of persons, so that the description consists of or includes persons who do not exercise functions of a public nature.
paragraph 15(1)(c)
(1) Regulations under paragraph 15(1)(a) may not add a person or description of persons to Part 1 if the Secretary of State considers that the person or (as the case may be) any person of that description—
paragraph 15(1)(a)
(a) exercises devolved functions only, or
(b) exercises any devolved functions, unless the entry for that person or description of persons provides that they are a relevant authority only to the extent that they are exercising functions that are not devolved functions.
(2) Regulations under paragraph 15(1)(c) may not vary an entry listed in Part 1—
paragraph 15(1)(c)
(a) so that it relates to a person who exercises devolved functions only, or in the case of a description of persons, so that the description consists of or includes any persons who exercise devolved functions only, or
(b) so that it relates to a person who exercises devolved functions, or in the case of a description of persons, so that the description consists of or includes any persons who exercise devolved functions, unless the entry provides that they are a relevant authority only to the extent that they are exercising functions that are not devolved functions.
(3) In this paragraph, “devolved function” means a function that could be conferred by provision that would be within the legislative competence of—
(a) the Scottish Parliament, if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament (see section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998),
(b) Senedd Cymru, if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (see section 108A of the Government of Wales Act 2006), or
(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly, if it were contained in an Act of the Assembly, where the Bill for that Act would not require the consent of the Secretary of State (see sections 6 to 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998).’—(Stephen Morgan.)
This new Schedule lists the persons who are relevant authorities for the purposes of the corporate parenting duty introduced by NC18. It also contains a power for the Secretary of State to amend the list of relevant authorities by regulations.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Bill to be further considered tomorrow.