Friday 28th March 2025
(4 days, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberLooked After Children (Distance Placements) Bill 2024-26 View all Looked After Children (Distance Placements) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this Bill before the House. On entering politics, I was determined to raise the issue of children in care and, in particular, the lack of safe, decent accommodation for the most vulnerable children. The state’s enduring failure to meet its most basic duty to care for those children for whom their family are unable to care continues to shock me, as it should shock us all. I want to play my part and make a difference, because this matter is close to my heart—not from experience of the care system myself, but from the insights I took from an adjacent perspective before being elected.
I practised as a barrister before entering this place, often in public law and family law, working on complex and heartbreaking cases involving children in care. I represented local authorities trying to safeguard children, parents fighting to keep their families together and children at the heart of the proceedings. Time and again I saw the same pattern: children were removed from their families for their own safety, but they had no place to go. On a Friday afternoon, when I was a very junior barrister, I would often be instructed to attend court for an urgent application to remove a child from their family before the weekend. Those were distressing cases, but upon drafting the order my work would be done. I would set off to enjoy the weekend, but I knew that for the social work team and, more importantly, for the family involved, the traumatic set of events had only just begun.
The process of removing a child can of course be incredibly difficult; the police may be involved, and parents can be forced into an emotional goodbye. Even once a child was in the care of a local authority, there would be desperate last-minute searches for suitable temporary accommodation. Foster carers would be asked if they could take the child just for a weekend, and residential units would be called to see if they had a spare bed. Too often, I was told by social workers of children waiting at local authority offices late into the night while these inquiries took place. On one occasion I was told that a child slept on an office floor because there was no safe place for them to be placed.
My Bill aims to make a very modest but significant change to the way we approach our responsibility to the children’s social care estate—in particular, the lack of any meaningful strategy or local initiatives to ensure that there are good, safe care places in every locality across the country, so that children are not placed miles and miles away from their communities, families, schools and friends.
In recent years we have seen a deeply troubling trend of children in care being placed far from home, sometimes hundreds of miles from their communities, schools and support networks, and those placements are no longer exceptional: they are becoming the norm. New data obtained through a freedom of information request I submitted reveals that nearly 10% of all children in care in England now live more than 50 miles from home. Some 4% live more than 100 miles from home. The number of children placed more than 50 miles from home has risen from just over 6,000 in 2020 to well over 7,000 in 2024. Those are not isolated outliers; they are thousands of children sent far from their schools and support networks, and often their siblings and other family members, not because it is in their best interests, but because there is simply nowhere nearby for them to go.
Even more worryingly, some children are now being placed across borders. The number of children in England moved out of the country, primarily to Wales and Scotland, has risen by 9% since 2020. Placements in Wales alone have increased by 15% over that time. These cross-border moves are even more complex, taking children away from the oversight of their placing authority and often into different jurisdictions, with entirely different education and care systems. Those decisions are not taken through incompetence; they are the result of a system that lacks capacity, co-ordination and meaningful planning, and the impact on children’s lives, their education, their mental health and their relationships is profound. Because these are looked-after children—a phrase that ought to promise protection but too often rings hollow—their needs are bureaucratised, their voices are marginalised and their lives are shifted like chess pieces on a board they never asked to be part of.
Distant placements are no longer exceptional, but systemic. In some local authorities, more than 70% of looked-after children are placed outside the home area.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend not just for his passion in bringing forward this Bill, but for his service as a lawyer before entering this place. He brings that expertise from his previous profession here. Will he join me in acknowledging that in places such as Plymouth this problem can be even more acute? Plymouth is not particularly near other large cities, so the tendency is for children to be placed in care very far away—sometimes 50 or even 100 miles away, as he highlights. As he gets to the part of his speech where he highlights some statistics, will he just acknowledge—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I just point out to Members that interventions, while always welcome, do need to be briefer than that?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is right. There is a particular problem in the south-west—his part of the country—and in his constituency, which he represents so ably. In fact, there are some care leavers with that experience in the Public Gallery who are from that part of the world. There are particular issues there.
My Bill does not seek to overhaul the care system or burden already stretched local authorities. It sets out three clear practical measures. First, it would place a statutory duty on local authorities to collect and publish data on distant placements—specifically, how many children are placed more than 20 miles from home, and how many have been moved in the past year due to a lack of suitable local provision. Secondly, it would require every local authority in England to produce an annual local sufficiency plan, which is a clear, forward-looking strategy setting out how they will meet their duty under section 22G of the Children Act 1989 to secure sufficient accommodation in their area. Thirdly, it would introduce a duty on the Secretary of State for Education to publish a national sufficiency plan after each financial year. That strategy must bring together the data collected from local authorities, and set out what action the Government are taking to support councils in meeting their duties.
That, in my mind, is a sensible, common-sense approach. This Government clearly take their responsibilities in this area seriously, but future Governments may not. This initiative will keep their feet to the fire. Together, those three provisions introduce something that our current system clearly lacks: clarity, co-ordination and accountability. The Bill does not ban distant placements. It rightly makes space for cases where distance is necessary, whether for safety, for therapeutic care or for stability. There needs to be flexibility in the system.
I am pleased to be joined in the Gallery today by Georgia and Kane, two care-experienced young people whose courage and insight continues to shape this debate. In fact, this Bill would not be before the House if it were not for them and many of their friends and colleagues who have campaigned so passionately on this issue. Their stories are vital, because behind every placement statistic, every sufficiency plan and every consultation document, there are real lives shaped by the decisions that the Government make and that we make in this place.
Kane, at just 16 years old, was moved from his foster home near Kingsteignton to supported accommodation far away in Exmouth. The move separated him from his twin sister and left him feeling alone and invisible. Georgia’s journey meant that she moved multiple times while in care and spent extended periods in mental health hospitals as a teenager, often far from home. She recently told the Education Committee how she had to be declared homeless in order to access the support she needed near to her networks. She described a kinship placement that offered love, stability and safety, but that broke down because her carers received no formal support. She was left navigating high-risk supported accommodation alone, often living alongside people experiencing exploitation and with serious mental health needs, all while trying to complete her A-levels.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend welcome the Government’s important changes, including the support from local authorities, for kinship carers, such as those I met in Beckenham and Penge?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that the Government and the Minister take kinship carers and the care system very seriously, and the Government have introduced a number of measures already. That is very welcome in their first 12 months—it emphasises just how seriously they take these matters—and it is part of the strategy of solving this problem of distance placements. When children can stay in the family, they should.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the register of children that is being introduced through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a start to what he is advocating? Knowing exactly where children are at any given point would be a healthy start for us.
Jake Richards
Absolutely—that is one of the most welcome measures in that Bill, introduced to this Parliament in its first Session. Data can be quite a boring topic, but it is so important, because it allows everyone—including this place, journalists and campaign organisations—to hold the Government’s feet to the fire and hold them to account. While it may seem a dry and conservative development, that register could be really important in making sure we have as much information about what is going on as we can, in particular for children in care, who so often are voiceless. We need to make sure their voices are heard. For every Georgia and Kane who find the strength and platform to speak, as I was just talking about, there are countless others whose experiences remain unheard—young people moved from their home with no explanation, no warning and no real choice. Georgia and Kane are remarkable campaigners, and now it is our duty to respond, not with sympathy alone but with serious structural reform. I hope that this Bill can help form part of that response.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech, and I echo his point about the voices of young people themselves being heard in these debates. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the opportunity to introduce the measures in this Bill, perhaps by adding them to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in the Lords. However, does the hon. Member agree that we are spending more and more on taking children into care because we are failing them and their families early on? In addition to the measures in his Bill, does he agree that we need to invest more in supporting children and families earlier, so that fewer children end up being taken into care in the first place?
Jake Richards
Absolutely. Care should always be the last resort, and later in my speech I will speak about the false economy of spending billions of pounds on a care system that is failing children—most importantly—but also the taxpayer and everyone else. Early intervention is absolutely critical, so I completely agree with the hon. Member’s point.
How have we got to this stage where, as I have just touched on, the system is failing in so many different aspects? The reasons are complex. Too often, distant placements simply reflect a chronic lack of local provision, with a market-driven care system unable or unwilling to provide safe, nurturing homes close to where children live. As we have heard, the result is thousands of children being let down by a failing system.
One of the most significant contributions to the Government’s Bill, and indeed to our understanding of the whole system, was the independent review of children’s social care led by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). That review laid bare a system that is under immense strain, one in which the needs of children are too often shaped by market forces and a postcode lottery rather than what is in the best interests of those children, which is what the Protection of Children Act 1978 requires and should shape all Government policy.
My hon. Friend’s review could not have been clearer: too many children are being placed far from home. It called for a fundamental reset—a shift from a reactive, fragmented care system to one grounded in early intervention, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) has advocated for, with strong relationships and homes that are local, loving and stable. It warned of a dangerous reliance on large private providers, many of which operate with little accountability and at high cost. We could have a whole separate debate about the extortionate costs of private companies in the care system and the profits they are making on the backs of desperate local authorities. That review also made a powerful case for rethinking the way in which we plan for care, arguing that the absence of a joined-up national approach has left too many children at risk of instability, isolation and, in some cases, real harm.
We know from councils that the crisis in placement sufficiency is leaving them with little choice. They face a dire shortage of foster carers, especially those trained to provide therapeutic support, and they are locked in bidding wars with other local authorities, or priced out by private providers demanding fees that would make even a well-resourced system buckle. If the state is going to remove a child from their family and their community —an enormous, draconian power and responsibility—the least it can do is ensure that every child does not lose everything else in the process. We must not only protect children, but nurture them; we must provide not just safety, but stability. I hope that the Bill lays the groundwork for that ambition. It would ensure that we do not just talk about sufficiency but plan for it. It would ensure that we treated data not as a bureaucratic requirement, but as the foundation of good care, and it would ensure that Parliament played a role in scrutinising the system, rather than simply reacting to its failures.
The Bill would not ban distance placements, because, as I have touched on, there will always be cases where a child must be moved, but it says firmly that they should never be the default. Placements should never be driven by gaps in provision, lack of planning or market dysfunction, and the Government must take a leading role in changing the care system.
As I have said, I welcome the legislation going through Parliament, and I applaud the Education Secretary, and in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who is in her place, for putting children in care front and centre of the Government’s agenda. That has not happened for many decades; many Governments of different colours have failed to properly grasp the issue, but I am pleased that the Government are doing so. However, I urge them to go further. I fear that some measures and ambitions will be lost if we do not ensure that the care estate in every locality improves its capacity.
The Department has a wide array of challenges, and this is a particularly difficult one, but the Bill, which would be essentially cost-neutral, would keep the focus on the agenda without placing too much responsibility on local authorities. The Government know that, yes, they must work in partnership with local authorities, but they must also take strategic decisions about where provision is needed, how it is funded and how we ensure that market dynamics do not dictate children’s futures.
I want to be clear that none of this speech is about blaming councils or local authorities, many of which are doing their level best under enormous financial constraints, and are firefighting in a system in which the odds are stacked against them. I hope that this modest Bill can give them the tools that they need to plan, build and provide, rather than simply outsourcing and hoping for the best.
The Bill would change expectations by restoring proximity as the norm, and placing the burden of justification on those who propose to go against that norm. If it were our children, we would expect them to stay close to home and their community, where they feel safe. We would expect a proper plan. Ultimately, that is all the Bill asks of the Government. The children in our care system deserve nothing less. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
As there are no further Back-Bench speakers, I call the shadow Minister.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I am pleased to contribute to this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) on bringing the Bill before the House. I commend him for shining a spotlight on an issue that affects some of the most vulnerable children in the country. These children are not simply statistics or case numbers; they are young people who have experienced trauma, instability and, in many cases, loss. It is essential that they get the loving home and the support that they deserve, so that they can flourish. He has brought this issue to the House with compassion and care, and I commend him for doing so.
As a serving Surrey county councillor and a former member of the corporate parenting board, this is an issue close to my heart, too. I have seen at first hand many of the challenges and systemic failings that have been talked about. As was set out, local authorities have a duty, so far as reasonably practicable, to ensure that looked-after children are placed in accommodation that meets their needs in the local area, but many local authorities fail to achieve that, and often shockingly high numbers of children are placed out of area.
I am sure that the inclusion of the words, “so far as reasonably practicable” was intended to give some leeway to local authorities where needed, and to recognise that sometimes distance placements are in the best interests of the child. However, I am afraid that in far too many cases those words have become a licence for abject failure. Yes, I accept that there are many challenges for local authorities in meeting their duties, including the higher cost of living, which makes it difficult to recruit and retain foster carers; the increased national demand for placements; and even the recent ban on using unregulated accommodation for 16 and 17-year-olds. Those pressures are real, but it is unacceptable that high numbers of looked-after children are being placed in accommodation far away from the communities that they know—far from their schools, their extended family and their support networks.
Such placements are often made not because they are seen as the best option for the child, but because there is simply nowhere else to put them. The problem is that it becomes almost normal to send high numbers of children out of area, so it becomes more acceptable. I am here to say that, except in specific cases, it is not acceptable. Local authorities and national Government need to do more to ensure that the sufficiency duty is met. The wellbeing and safety of these vulnerable children depend upon it.
The damaging consequences of these long-distance placements are obvious. Children placed miles away are more likely to experience educational disruption, go missing and lose contact with friends, siblings and trusted adults. In some cases, the sense of being cut adrift from everything familiar only deepens an already present feeling of abandonment. It should be noted that these placements are often beyond the local authority boundary, giving rise to myriad further risks.
It is self-evident that the system needs further intervention, and I am pleased that any policy decisions taken in the future will build on the major reforms introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Perhaps the most impactful reform in this space was the introduction of the staying put policy in 2014, which allowed young people in foster care to remain with their foster family until the age of 21. That was a transformational step. For the first time, young people in care were offered the stability and ongoing familial support that many of their peers take for granted.
It was also the previous Conservative Government who rolled out regional adoption agencies, which are designed to reduce delays in the adoption process and increase the number of children finding permanent, loving homes. Since their introduction, adoption timeliness has improved, and agencies have been better able to match children with prospective parents across wider geographical areas.
We also published our strategy and consultation, “Children’s Social Care: Stable Homes, Built on Love”. Our strategy was backed initially by £200 million of additional investment over two years to transform children’s social care, including by delivering a decisive multi-agency child protection system and ensuring that every child has a valued, supported and highly-skilled social worker when needed.
Finally, the publication of the independent review of children’s social care in 2022, commissioned by the last Government, was a landmark moment. It provided a comprehensive and honest assessment of the system’s challenges, and offered a road map for reform focused on early intervention, family help and a more relational, less transactional model of care. Those milestones, taken together, demonstrate that we have always taken the needs of looked-after children seriously, and we will continue to work constructively alongside Government Members to improve the support available to these children; I know Government Members have the same overarching objective of transforming life outcomes for these children.
I return to the Bill. The ambition of improving the transparency of data about placements of looked-after children is much welcomed. The Bill would place a duty on local authorities to publish such information, making it easier to identify where there are issues, and where local authorities are not performing. We will start to see tangible improvement only when the extent of the issue nationally is clearly laid out. As is often the way, measurement prompts improvement.
Undoubtedly, one of the most consequential aspects of the Bill is the requirement for the Secretary of State to produce a national sufficiency strategy for looked-after children. Local authorities can and should do more to collaborate at regional level to ensure that children are put in placements close to their homes, but the structural challenges faced likely cannot be solved by local government alone. National leadership is essential, and I urge Ministers to look seriously at how best to increase placement capacity where there are shortages, and at how to ensure that the right children end up in the right locations, not just the cheapest locations.
That is not to say that local authorities are not at the heart of this challenge—they are—but I know that they find it increasingly difficult. The residential care market is now heavily dominated by private providers, and the cost of placements continues to rise, placing a huge strain on local authority budgets. A shift to a more strategic approach is needed, and I recognise that the hon. Member for Rother Valley has sought to kick-start that shift with the requirement in his Bill for local sufficiency strategies to be published by local authorities in England.
At this point, I should acknowledge that for all the justifiable talk today against distance placements, there is a very limited set of circumstances in which they are appropriate and necessary. Some children need specialist provision that simply does not exist locally. Others may need to be placed at a distance to ensure their safety if they have become involved with gangs or are threatened by an abuser. The question is not whether distance placements should be banned—they should not—but how we can get to a point where they are used only when it is truly and demonstrably in the best interests of the child.
A key focus is how we recruit, retain and support foster carers, and how we encourage local authorities to invest in local residential provision at a time of such pressure on their budgets. Many of the answers lie in not only legislation but funding, training and leadership, both local and national. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on these important issues.
When a child is taken into care, the state becomes their parent. That is not a responsibility to ever be exercised lightly. We must hold ourselves and the systems we put in place to the highest standard—the standard we would expect and demand for our own children. The hon. Member for Rother Valley has brought this Bill forward in precisely that spirit, and I congratulate him once again on doing so. It was truly a pleasure to speak on it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
I am pleased that the Bill provides the opportunity to consider the importance of residential children’s homes, and the sufficiency of placements. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) will be familiar with the many significant issues that this Government have inherited and are having to resolve in order to fix the foundations, so that we can make a range of reforms across children’s social care. Those reforms include addressing the underlying issues that contribute to the country’s shortage of suitable placements for children in care. I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the important issues raised in his Bill, and agree that changes are needed to help local authorities better meet the needs of the children in their care.
Reforming children’s social care is critical to giving hundreds of thousands of children and young people the start in life that they deserve. In November, we published “Keeping children safe, helping families thrive,” which set out our approach. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is progressing through the other place. Our reforms will help to ensure opportunity for not just some but all children. Our approach to reform will break down barriers by shifting the focus in children’s social care to early support, early help and early intervention, so that we can keep families together and children safe. Our plans will help to ensure that children can remain with their families, where that is in their best interests, and will support more children so that they can live with kinship carers or in foster families, and we will fix the broken care market to tackle profiteering and put children’s needs first.
Before I turn to the Bill, I want to put on record that I am clear that a child should be placed far away from their home only when that is in their best interests. In the current system, however, a lack of availability of suitable local placements is too often the deciding factor for too many children, who end up being placed in care far away from their home and community. This situation may have been acceptable under the previous Government, but it is not acceptable to this one. We must change it, and we will. We are already working with local authorities to do so. I have met many campaign groups, and have spoken to young people and professionals about this specific area of change.
Local authorities have an existing duty to collect data on out-of-area placements. Since becoming Minister, I have come to realise that this data is actually published every year. The proposals in this Bill are therefore unlikely to tell us anything new about local authority sufficiency that will help. The data tells us that as of 31 March 2024, more than two thirds of children were placed less than 20 miles from their home, but that 45% of children were placed outside their local authority boundary. That is not good enough. However, the statistics cover many situations where a placement further away was in the child’s best interests, and where that was part of the care plan, rather than it being due to local insufficiency.
I absolutely agree that bold action is needed to improve sufficiency, but the variety and complexity of children’s needs and their individual situations mean that we cannot always easily categorise distance placements as inappropriate. Local authority staff work hard to find placements in really challenging situations. If a placement is found that best meets a child’s needs, but it is some distance away, the issue will be ensuring the child’s safety and wellbeing, and ensuring that contact is sustained, where that is appropriate. Furthermore, requiring national Government to publish sufficiency plans misunderstands the way that duties and funding operate in this space, and risks creating confusion. Responsibility sits at local authority level and it is not for national Government to assess the levels or types of need in each area, or how that need is best met.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley’s Bill includes proposals for—