Jimmy Lai
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent steps they have taken towards securing the release of Jimmy Lai.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, British national Jimmy Lai’s case is a priority for this Government. We continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release him. The Foreign Secretary committed in the House of Commons that Ministers would raise Jimmy Lai’s case with the Hong Kong and Chinese officials at every opportunity, and we have been doing so. Our diplomats have attended his trial and continue to press for consular access.
I know the right reverend Prelate will be retiring at the end of the month. I express my gratitude and, I am sure, that of the whole House for all his work.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ kindness. I am glad to ask my last Question on the welfare of a British citizen whose only crime is to exercise freedoms that this House has long stood for: freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest. He is 77, has diabetes and is being held in solitary confinement, and the next stage of his trial is being delayed until August. This is shameful.
I thank the Minister for what His Majesty’s Government are already doing, but I wonder what consideration is being given to introducing a legal right to consular access to all British citizens being held in detention, and what other discussions he and his colleagues have held with the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to see whether it and other international parties can develop an integrated approach to seeking Jimmy Lai’s release.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. We are, as he has pointed out, absolutely committed to strengthening support for British nationals abroad, including by introducing a right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations. The department is considering a package of measures, which we will announce in due course, alongside options for stakeholder consultations. The FCDO is committed to strengthening support for British nationals overseas, including through the appointment of an envoy for complex detention cases. We will announce further details in due course.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I join the Minister in conveying my own gratitude to the right reverend Prelate for the outstanding contribution he has made on this and on so many issues over his time in your Lordships’ House. I declare my interests as one of the Members of Parliament sanctioned by the People’s Republic of China, and as a patron of Hong Kong Watch.
Why, on this apparent normalising of relations with the People’s Republic of China, have we not made conditional action to release Jimmy Lai from the Hong Kong prison in which he and over 1,000 political prisoners are still incarcerated? Secondly, given that it is two years and four months since a request by Sebastien Lai—whom I met this morning with his family’s lawyer, Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC—to meet the Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the Opposition, why has the Prime Minister still not acceded to that request to meet with him and the family? Will the Minister agree to take that request back to No.10 Downing Street to ensure it is actioned expeditiously?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I said in my opening comments that this Government are absolutely committed to pursuing this case and we will do so at all levels. Certainly, the Foreign Secretary has done so, but so has the Prime Minister in his meeting with President Xi. I know that Minister West has also met with Jimmy Lai’s son—I think he is present here—and we will continue to do so. It is really important that we highlight this case at every single opportunity.
The noble Lord mentioned normalisation of relationships. Of course, China is a big economic player globally, but we are absolutely taking a consistent, long-term strategic approach in managing our relationships, rooted in those interests. We will co-operate where we can and compete where we need to but, most importantly, challenge when we need to.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I too send my best wishes to the right reverend Prelate on his retirement.
It is worth repeating that Jimmy Lai has now been detained in solitary confinement for 1,600 days. He is an elderly, ill British citizen. I too was privileged to meet his son Sebastien yesterday. His case is, of course, just another example of the tyrannous and repressive nature of the current Chinese Government. President Trump, to his credit, said that Jimmy’s case will be on the table during US-China trade talks. Can the Minister reassure the House that the case is equally important to the UK Government?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I repeat: it is absolutely important. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen, which the Chinese of course deny because he is a dual national. But we have absolutely remained committed to raising his case at every opportunity and we will continue to do so. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for raising this case today, because it is up to us all of us to constantly raise it to ensure that we never forget Jimmy Lai’s situation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I, too, commend all the work of the right reverend Prelate, and also the family of Jimmy Lai, who have been stalwart defenders.
I am sure the Minister will agree that no matter how big a global economy is, it is our duty to defend our citizens when they are treated so badly. But it is also our duty to act when that state operates under transnational repression here in the United Kingdom, issuing bounties on those who are defending the rights of those being persecuted in Hong Kong. I have met them, and I know that other Members of this House have too. What actions, not just diplomatic representations, are being taken by the Government to ensure that the transnational repression in this country is halted and those responsible are held to account?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very important subject. We will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments, whoever they are, to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas. The safety of Hong Kongers in the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance. Hong Kong Police issuing arrest warrants encourages reckless behaviour on UK soil and damages Hong Kong’s reputation. On Christmas Eve, the Foreign Secretary strongly condemned the Hong Kong Police’s targeting of individuals exercising their right to freedom of expression. Following reports of letters sent to UK residents, FCDO officials again raised the matter with the Chinese embassy. Counterterrorism police are dealing with the referral, and officers are in contact with the individuals concerned. As I say, we will not tolerate such interference in our democratic processes.
Lord Garnier (Con)
What have been the practical consequences of the many conversations the Government and their representatives have had with Hong Kong and other Chinese authorities? There is a lot of “raising the issue”, but we are looking for some consequences.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Do not underestimate the fact of raising these issues. The noble and learned Lord knows full well that the Chinese Communist Party does not like being criticised for these actions. It is important that we continue to raise this at every possible level, particularly in international fora, which we will continue to do. It is absolutely staggeringly awful that such a man—a British citizen—should be in prison just for expressing his opinions, and we will continue to raise this at every possible opportunity.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I, too, join the tributes to the right reverend Prelate for his work and welcome the Government’s announcement of a special envoy, which was reported through various committees. It is essential that that be done. The President of the United States has said publicly that he, too, will raise the issue of Jimmy Lai. What liaison and co-ordination has taken place with the United States? As the Minister knows, when we work together, we achieve the kind of results that my noble and learned friend has just highlighted.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct. I must correct something I said earlier by mistake. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen; he is not a Chinese citizen, which I alluded to, so I correct the record. The noble Lord is right that whenever we take action, if we take it collectively with our international allies, we have greater impact. We are working across the board with all international allies to ensure that this case is properly raised.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans. He has been wonderful on the gambling legislation and on issues such as this one, and on defending the rural economy and as Convenor of the Lords Spiritual. For that, we are very grateful.
I was held in one of Amin’s notorious prisons, and I was confined in a cell that was much shorter than me. I got out because the Chief Justice of Uganda confronted Idi Amin. Instead of words, which are seen as criticism, what real, definite action are the Government willing to take?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I repeat: do not underestimate the value of words, and I think the noble and right reverend Lord understands that. They do have an impact, particularly in the current geopolitical situation, where China’s reputation and trading issues are at stake. It is important that this case, in particular, has the highest profile. It will have an impact. We need to make sure that we do not forget Jimmy Lai and that we constantly raise his case at every opportunity.
Social Care Reform
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in cross-party talks on the reform of social care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are facing up to the challenges of adult social care reform. The Prime Minister has tasked the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, to lead an independent commission into social care, a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transcend party politics. The noble Baroness is tasked with building cross-party consensus on her recommendations and is starting a national conversation on what is expected from social care.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, history shows us that reform of social care is a contentious issue and political consensus has been notable by its absence—indeed, parties have used proposals as sticks to beat each other with—but there is agreement on two things: first, the system badly needs reform; and, secondly, this is a long-term project that cannot be solved in one Parliament but across several. In view of that, does my noble friend agree that achieving political consensus is a vital part of any reform of social care? Can she tell the House that this will be specifically included in the terms of reference for the review that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is carrying out?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend makes very strong points, which I absolutely concur with. This is an issue that needs to be able to stand the test of time and changes, whether they be in leadership or of Government. That is why we are taking the approach that we are. My noble friend will have seen the terms of reference that have been published. They are deliberately broad because we are tasking the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to lead the work fully independently, which is particularly important in seeking cross-party consensus. Indeed, the noble Baroness’s review is very much about having the conversations cross-party and seeking to bring people together across parties and across sectors and the many individuals who have an interest in this.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that there is a consensus between the parties? The Economic Affairs Committee of this House published a report some five years ago. There was unanimity across the House. There has since been another report. This setting up of commissions and so on is just to appease the Treasury, which refuses to provide the money that is needed for social care and is the key to cutting waiting lists and moving forward in the health service. Should not the Government just have the courage to commit to the resource that is necessary instead of kicking this into the long grass for another three years while elderly people and young people suffer from inadequate services and clog up beds in the health service?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the noble Lord’s impatience—I am sure we share it—and I hear what he says, but I have to remind your Lordships’ House that the previous Government did not commit funding to their plans, and I am glad the noble Lord agreed with that. I do not accept the characterisation of this. As my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said, it has to stand the test of time. We are not waiting to take action; we have already put a number of pieces of work in place to lay the groundwork, including additional funding for social care authorities, increasing the carer’s allowance weekly earnings limit and an extra £172 million for home adaptations. We are not just waiting for this report. By the way, I do not recognise the three-year characterisation because the first phase will report in 2026 and then there will be a further report back by 2028. I feel this is the right way forward.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand that, but the noble Lord said we were just waiting until 2028, and I am not aligning myself with that.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
It is recognised that any meaningful social care reform must deliver for unpaid carers. Will the Minister say what role carer organisations are playing in shaping these talks?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Unpaid carers are key because they provide care and support to those who require care. The needs of unpaid carers will be very much part of the commission. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will be speaking to relevant organisations and those with lived experience.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend give us an estimate of the number of vacancies in the care workforce and tell us whether there has been an assessment of the impact on the workforce of the restrictions on overseas recruitment for care workers?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can say to my noble friend that the adult social care workforce is growing. Skills for Care data tells us that there has been an increase of 70,000 filled posts since 2022-23, that staff turnover is reducing and that the overall vacancy rate decreased to 8.3% in 2023-24 from 9.9% the previous year. While the direction is good, there is certainly more to do. As regards international care workers, it has indeed been factored in that we need a workforce, and that is one of the many reasons why the new measures that require care providers to prioritise recruiting international care workers are focused on those who are already in the UK, have visas and require new employment. I am sure we will talk about this as we discuss the Employment Rights Bill and all the directions it is taking to support professionalisation of the workforce and encourage those in the UK to take on adult social care roles.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, in July last year His Majesty’s Government scrapped the social care cap and curbed winter fuel payments. Sir Andrew Dilnot, author of the landmark Dilnot commission report on social care, said this was a “tragedy” and that
“we have failed another generation of families”.
With all due respect, the Government are doing a U-turn on the winter fuel payment; can the Minister rule out a U-turn on social care?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Again, I do not recognise the characterisation of a U-turn on social care. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have been extremely clear, as I outlined earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about why this commission is in place. When it was brought to this House previously, I recall that many noble Lords, although not all, were positive about it because they saw the opportunity—which the previous Government did not, not least because they did not fund its suggestions. This Government are absolutely committed to having a lasting, practical answer that involves everybody concerned and will be supported in the right way. I would have hoped that the noble Earl would welcome that.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister explain how cross-party consensus will be constructed in relation to local mayors and local authorities? For example, the leadership in Cornwall Council has just changed, and there are huge care needs in Cornwall. How will we ensure that other parties—those underrepresented in this and the other House—are involved?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As I mentioned, the terms of reference for the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, are deliberately broad. She will set out how she will involve all those who are affected and have a voice, because she wants to make sure that it is a thorough report.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Party.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what progress has been made on addressing the problem faced by many unpaid carers who have been penalised, through no fault of their own, for having been paid too much because of technical failures in DWP? Are we making progress on addressing those very serious issues?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, the relevant officials and Ministers are working on that. I realise the difficulty it has caused and they, too, are very sensitive to that point. I will reflect my noble friend’s comments to my ministerial colleagues.
Young People’s Media Literacy
Baroness Blower
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve young people’s media literacy by providing additional resources to schools, in terms of IT equipment, staffing, training and appropriate curriculum materials.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, the curriculum and assessment review’s interim report notes the rise of AI and trends in digital information and states that it is necessary that the curriculum keeps pace with these changes,
“including a renewed focus on digital and media literacy”
and critical thinking skills. There is already a range of resources and training available to schools on teaching media literacy. Once the review has completed, the Government will decide how best to provide any further support that schools need.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that response. Perhaps she is aware of the recent research, published by the National Education Union, which adds to the volume of material demonstrating that significant harm is experienced by young people from social media and from being online in general. Does she agree with me that the current curriculum review must address the need for greater access to all the arts, providing much better activities for children and young people to engage in, but that it must also weave through the school experience the skills and knowledge to deal effectively and, as she says, critically, with the online world, and that this will need resourcing?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that further question. She is absolutely right that it is vital that pupils are taught about staying safe online, but we have to remember that we live in a digital age and it is imperative that we strike a balance, so that young people can access the benefits of social media while we continue to put their safety and well-being first. The curriculum and assessment review is looking to see how it can widen the curriculum and the offer, in this specific area and all the areas that contribute to the well-being of young people and emerging adults. Of course, this will lead to curriculum requirements, and any information on funding to support this will be available after the review is finally published.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that a Select Committee, ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, is doing a piece of work on media literacy. It is convenient that we will have not only the curriculum review but this piece of work as well. What do the Government think should be their number one priority?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
For me, the Government and, I think, all of us here, the number one priority is the safety of young people. We have to make sure that all the measures we bring in keep children and young people at the centre of everything we are doing. We talk a lot about systems, structures and strategies, but let us focus on their needs and hear their voices too in contributing to what we need to do.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, media literacy is indeed the subject of the Communications and Digital Committee’s current inquiry. Evidence we have received argues strongly that good media literacy for young people is characterised by sustained and repeated engagement and interwoven throughout the curriculum, across all subjects. Sadly, that is not the case in our schools in England. We have heard, in fact, that the rigidity of the curriculum—the emphasis on assessment—can mean that media literacy skills are deprioritised because they are not assessed, and that relegating media literacy to optional subjects or ad hoc PSHE sessions is insufficient. Members of the UK Youth Parliament described to us lessons that were reactive, infrequent and did not engage pupils. The committee will report back to your Lordships’ House on our inquiry in the summer, but do the Government accept that this important subject needs to be properly taught and embedded in the curriculum?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the work she is doing on the committee, and all the members who are engaged. There is also the issue of consistency between different schools and the way that they approach this. That is why the reviews that are undertaken are so important: to get some standards. At the moment, we see media literacy being taught through compulsory citizenship, RSHE, computing and English, but we know that every single subject area will have to be engaged in this important work. We are living through vastly changing times. All teachers need to be aware of the opportunities and challenges young people face and need to make sure that the teaching materials they have are appropriate.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, like digital literacy, media literacy is a cross-cutting essential skill that is needed by all young people and relevant to all subjects. It is good to know that the curriculum and assessment review is taking account of this, but will that review look seriously at a better balance between skills-related subjects, such as digital and media literacy, and the academic subjects on which the current curriculum focuses, in order to achieve a system that is able to take account of assessing things that cannot be usefully assessed by current GCSEs?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am grateful for that question. The scope of the review has been one of its real strengths and benefits, and we all look forward to its conclusions and recommendations. This is such a large question in terms of assessment and how skills are judged and taken forward for young people. We need to have a much more holistic approach, as the noble Lord suggests.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness just finished with the words “holistic approach”, and the evidence of the impact of parental screen use on children is growing daily, whether that is on very young children, with delayed language development and social skills, or whether it is on teenagers accessing online materials. Without effective communication with parents about screen use, surely any school efforts are doomed to failure, or at least to be less successful. So what plans do the Government have for a public health campaign on this, directed at parents?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
When I received the briefing for this, my first question was about parents—and, if I can express an interest, grandparents too. That is a very serious point, because so many young children are now looked after by their grandparents and older relatives. It is absolutely imperative that we address the issues, as the noble Baroness suggests. A report mentioned the number of children going to school who have never held a book, for example, and how we deal with that. On another point, in my experience a lot of schools are setting up parental groups to help schools navigate this difficult area. There is a strong recognition that, without parents’ engagement, helping to recognise the dangers and opportunities, we will not get as far as we need to.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
Will the Minister agree that a renewed focus on media literacy, which is absolutely necessary, will require significant support for the profession? The number of media studies teachers has been decimated, and it has been written out of the curriculum—yet this is an essential skill for young people in today’s world. If they had better knowledge of media literacy, Andrew Tate would have less influence.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank my noble friend and absolutely agree: high-quality teaching will make such a difference in this particular area. This is why the Government are committed to recruiting 6,500 new expert teachers, especially into shortage subjects, and this can fall into this area. What we understand is that teachers are desperate for high-quality resources and materials, and to make sure that the new quality requirement since last year really focuses on helping and supporting curriculum mentoring, partnerships and bringing people in from outside to help teachers. This is a fast-moving area and I have every sympathy with teachers who are doing their very best to keep up to speed with all the changes that are happening.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I will pick that up. As a governor, I have listened to very good and very poor teaching and, having heard the Youth Parliament, I note that its point about not being engaged seems to be a crucial part of looking at how to teach.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
This is a subject very dear to my heart. The Youth Parliament has a lot to say, but that goes back into all the schools and school councils that contribute to that process. If we do not take account of young people’s voices, we will not make progress. The response to the “Adolescence” programme is that so many people do not understand the language that is being used. We need young people to work with us, especially those who have had poor experience, so that they can help us to move forward in this area.
Social Mobility: Sutton Trust Opportunity Index
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Sutton Trust’s Opportunity Index and what steps they are taking to increase opportunities for social mobility across the country.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Sutton Trust’s valuable report highlights that too many children face barriers to success because of who they are or where they come from. That is why, through the Government’s opportunity mission, we will break the link between young people’s backgrounds and their future success by tackling child poverty and ensuring that all children have safe and loving homes, get the best start in life, achieve and thrive in school, and develop skills to succeed in life.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
I thank the Minister for her Answer. The opportunity index shines a light on the great disparity of prospective outcomes for children and young people in London and the south-east compared with those in the north-east, particularly Newcastle. What consideration have the Government given to reforming the national funding formula to address some of the granularity of that disparity and improve chances for all our young people?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Funding is important, which is why the Government will consider the national funding formula and ensure that it focuses on the right places and addresses need in the way the right reverend Prelate outlined. But it is also important that we take action—across schools, for young people through training, and in the early years, when children need to have the best start in life. We have already started taking that action.
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank the Sutton Trust for this piece of work. It is worrying that, of the 20 constituencies with the highest ranking for opportunity, all are in London. Among the top 50, all but eight are in London. The lowest, of course, are in the north, including Newcastle, followed by Liverpool. We have had levelling up—whatever happened to that? My concern is that, often, government works in silos, but issues such as this have to be across silos. Is there a case for a Minister having responsibility for getting hold of this issue and making a real difference?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The whole Government are responsible for ensuring that young people’s opportunity is not determined by where they come from or other factors of their background. That is why the Government have an opportunity mission, as I outlined in my initial Answer; it is owned across government, and all parts of government are expected to make a contribution to ensure that young people get the best start in life, that they can achieve and thrive in school, and that they are then able to gain the skills necessary to succeed further on in their lives.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, as we have heard, this excellent report highlights the uneven impact of where you live on your opportunities. For instance, a free school meals pupil in Stratford and Bow in London is over 10 times more likely to attend university than someone in Bristol North West. This brings to mind the findings of the 2020 report from the Social Mobility Commission, The Long Shadow of Deprivation. In response to that report, the Minister at the time pointed to the 12 opportunity areas, which later became 55 educational investment areas, as important for driving change. Can the Minister say what lessons were learned from both those programmes, which have now closed? Crucially, how are they being applied in the new approach that this Government are taking to addressing regional inequalities?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think that the lessons that were learned are feeding every aspect of the work that is happening across the opportunity mission. For example, there is the need for high-quality schools and excellent teaching throughout the whole of the country; the need for young people to have the access to skills wherever they are in the country; the need for our higher education sector to do more to ensure that all those who can benefit from higher education can access it, which will be a key part of the Government’s higher education reforms; and, of course, the need to start early in children’s lives, to ensure that they have access to early years education of the highest quality. It is work on all those areas that will ensure not just that the benefits are felt equally across the country but that we are able to close some of the gaps that the Sutton Trust report identified.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will the Minister look very carefully at social mobility in rural areas and, in particular, the fact that the rural deprivation grant was withdrawn, which has had a major impact in North Yorkshire? I pay tribute to the work in rural areas that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has done as head of the Rural Coalition. He will be greatly missed in this House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness is right that there are particular challenges in rural areas—and, particularly, as she identifies, in terms of the pockets of poverty found there, where perhaps there is no infrastructure of support, that might explain why those children and young people in London are doing comparatively better than people in other parts of the country. She makes a very fair point, and we need to keep a focus on rural poverty and how we ensure that children and young people in rural areas get the opportunities that they deserve.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, when it comes to opportunity, a ubiquitous one is service in the Armed Forces, which offers access to the greatest number of apprenticeships, longer life expectancy and highly successful second careers. It probably represents the biggest engine for social improvement in the country. In the context of a dangerous world and 9 million people on benefits, might the Government not commit to a narrative that makes that more evident?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord makes an important point. I was discussing exactly that point with the Minister for Veterans just a couple of weeks ago; as he says, we were talking about the excellent apprenticeship programmes that there are within the armed services, as well as the opportunities that there are for young people who choose to take that route to benefit from it.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, long before the term “nepo baby” was ever invented, we understood the role of unpaid internships in ensuring that professions remain a closed shop for the offspring of the well-to-do, and how difficult it is for young people from ordinary backgrounds to move to London without contacts, where they simply cannot afford to work for free. The law is already clear that productive work should be paid at least the national minimum wage, but it is not enforced. Will the Minister talk to colleagues about the need to boost the labour inspectorate in the proposed fair work agency to ensure that young people from all backgrounds get the paid work that they need?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. It is for employers to ensure that they provide access to the types of opportunities that will enable young people to experience different forms of work—but it is of course also the responsibility of those agencies tasked with enforcement to make sure that, where the law is not being properly applied, there are consequences for it. Of course, it is also our responsibility, which this Government take seriously, to make sure that all children have, for example, better careers education and the opportunity to have two weeks’ high-quality work experience and that we work with employers to ensure that placements are available to those young people doing T-levels while ensuring that apprenticeships are open to all. So there are a range of ways in which we need to make sure that young people get equal access to the experience of work that will set them up for a successful future.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Sutton Trust opportunity index rightly looked at the importance of early intervention and the early years, and the Minister will be aware that there are about 50,000 children annually on free school meals who go into year 3 without sufficient reading skills to be able to engage successfully in the curriculum. Will the Minister agree to look at the Apex programme funded by the Fischer Family Trust, which has worked providing reading mentors to children in years 1 and 2 where there are significant concerns about their ability to read? At the end of year 2, 81% of them reach the expected standard in reading, compared with 60% for a comparable cohort, and 95% pass their phonics test, compared with 85% nationally.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The scheme that the noble Baroness talks about sounds interesting and important, and I shall certainly undertake for the department to look at it in detail. She makes an important point, as she did in the previous Question, about the need to ensure that children are supported to make a successful start at school at the point at which they arrive. That means the sort of support that the Government are providing through family help and Start for Life to support not only the children but the parents to provide learning environments at home. That is supported, of course, by this Government’s priority to ensure that more children arrive at school ready to gain the benefits of that education.
Industry and Regulators Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I begin by joining others in acknowledging the scale of the humanitarian crisis that we are seeing in Gaza. Lives are being lost and people are suffering immensely. We on these Benches join with all noble Lords across the House, I am sure, in our hope that the conflict is brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible.
I appreciate that the UK’s position and influence in this matter is somewhat limited, and probably even more so now, but we must never forget that this conflict started when Hamas—a repulsive terrorist organisation—undertook a murderous and viscerally antisemitic attack on innocent people. That attack was not just limited to a single day; the attack on 7 October continues every single day that hostages remain in Hamas’s captivity. Israel has the right to defend itself against this ongoing attack, and returning the hostages to their families is a righteous objective. We must support it in this effort and use our diplomatic efforts to help to facilitate that.
I therefore ask the Minister what engagement the Government have had with key stakeholders in the region to help to secure the release of those people who remain in Hamas’s hands. Has the UK helped to develop an overall strategy for getting these sons, daughters, brothers and sisters returned to their families? The only way that we can resolve this conflict is by getting these hostages home, and the Government must be able to demonstrate that they are taking practical steps to facilitate this.
While the conflict is ongoing, getting aid to those who need it most is a key practical priority, I hope, for the Government. Noble Lords may recall our debate last week on the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. The Government refused to consider this as an alternative measure to UNRWA, which is itself connected to the attacks on 7 October—the event that started this conflict in the first place. The Israeli Government are rightly extremely suspicious of UNRWA, given its record of working with Hamas and turning a blind eye to its facilities being abused for tunnel construction. The Government seemingly remain committed to supporting the current failing model. Can the Minister please update the House on what the Government are doing to help to get aid into Gaza? What discussions have they had with representatives from other countries to make sure that aid gets to those who need it and is not stolen by Hamas? Can he tell the House what steps the Government have taken to ensure that no UK aid gets into the hands of Hamas?
Finally, we are clear—and I know the Minister has said this a number of times—that Hamas will never be part of any future Government in Gaza. In the Prime Minister’s statement the other day, he threatened the Israeli Government with further “concrete” steps if they do not comply with his demands. Can the Minister give us an example of what these concrete steps will be, or will it be like King Lear to his daughters:
“I will do such things—
What they are yet I know not, but they shall be
The terrors of the Earth!”?
Finally, following on from the memorandum of understanding that was reached between the UK and the Palestinian Authority last month, can the Minister say what progress has been made in holding the Palestinian Authority to undertaking serious, measurable and tangible reforms on corruption, education, welfare policy and democracy to help to strengthen resilience against the threat of Hamas in the future? Will the Minister update the House on what work the Government are doing with the Palestinian Authority to advance progress in these areas? Can he assure us that these are discussed in talks with partners in the authority?
We all support a swift end to this conflict, which has cost far too many lives on all sides and has led to an incredible amount of suffering across the region. We need to recognise the practical steps that we in the UK can take to support this resolution and help those who are in need in the region. To that end, I hope that the Minister will be able to cover the questions that I have raised, showing what steps we are taking today to return the hostages, get aid in and, crucially, make sure that Hamas is finally eradicated.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it would be utterly inconceivable for us to even imagine walking out of this Parliament building and witnessing every child in London being forcibly walked with their mother to Slough and back again three times, on foot, and offered no shelter or medicine, or sanitary products, if they are a girl, and now, with no food, literally facing dying of starvation. This apocalyptic view would be utterly inconceivable to us, but it is the reality in Gaza.
Now we see, as a result of choices being made at a political level by the political Administration in Israel, a secretive foundation set up as a Swiss Stiftung to finance profiteering mercenaries to weaponise food and medicine to children in an illegally occupied land, which plumbs new depths of moral bankruptcy in the provision of that assistance. Can the Minister first of all guarantee that not a penny of British money will be channelled through this route?
Among this utter horror, hostage families are still going through torture. Indeed, for those families I have seen and spoken to, speaking out against the Netanyahu Administration is extremely moving, because they are still in a situation where their loved ones are not home and they do not even know if many are alive.
I welcome the Government’s Statement and their intent, but I wish to press the Minister that it is time for the Government to go even further. Since the Statement in the Commons earlier this week, now even a British official, carrying out their diplomatic role in a territory that they have an absolute right under international law to access, has been under fire as a result of a so-called warning shot—which is euphemistic—in streets that I have literally walked and where British officials carry out their business. What action have the UK Government taken as a result of this shocking incident?
Since the Statement, Benjamin Netanyahu has confirmed what other extremist Ministers have said, which is that his Government’s policy is now to illegally annex territory, which they have no international legal right to do. Given that this is now his Government's clear policy, it needs to be the UK Government’s policy to move on the recognition of Palestine as a state with urgency. I therefore urge the Minister to take up my noble friend Lady Northover’s Bill in this House and move ahead with the clearest possible intent to prevent illegal annexation and subjugation.
These Benches have regretted that there has been a lack of action since last February, when we called for the wider and expanded sanctioning of those Ministers in the Netanyahu Administration who had sought repression in the West Bank and had activated illegal outposts and settler violence. That, combined with what we now see—the collective punishment of civilians within Gaza—means that those responsible need to be sanctioned by the UK, and there should be no impunity for the tragedy that is being inflicted on civilians there. This means that our Government and our partners need to act.
On the security of the aid being provided, there is of course justification with regard to concerns that Hamas has sought to loot aid, to commercialise aid and to prevent it at the source. However, the time when we have seen the most effective delivery of aid has been when UNRWA has been provided with the ability to do so, with a Palestinian Authority police force, supported by British assistance, able to provide security and get the aid through. Will the Government offer urgent assistance to the Palestinian Authority police forces to ensure that aid, once over the border, can be provided securely?
I remind the House that there is over 100,000 tonnes of aid waiting to get into Gaza and it is being blocked unjustifiably. Will the Government make a clear statement that, until this is allowed through, Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Ministers are not welcome in the United Kingdom, as this would be not conducive to our public good?
Finally, can the Government press the International Court of Justice to accelerate its work to ensure that there is, as we all wish to see, an international standard that international humanitarian law is adhered to and those responsible for its breach are held to account?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their questions and contributions.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that the United Kingdom has played an active role in co-ordination with our international partners since the beginning of the conflict. The Foreign Secretary has visited Israel and the Occupied Territories three times since taking office, and we have pressed for a resolution to secure a ceasefire and to see the return of all hostages. That is absolutely the first ask of this Government: ceasefire and the return of the hostages.
I want to reflect on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made. We are absolutely committed to upholding our responsibilities under domestic and international law. By the way, the independence of the ICJ is something that we value. We are not going to put pressure on the court; it knows its job and we will facilitate that, but it is independent and we respect its independence as an international court. We have been absolutely consistent in ensuring that we act in a manner consistent with our legal obligations under international law.
As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis said, humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool or military tactic. The UK will not support any aid mechanism that seeks to deliver political or military objectives and puts vulnerable civilians at risk. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. That is why this Government and the previous Government have been committed to supporting the best possible means of getting aid into Gaza, which remains UNRWA. We are absolutely committed to that.
We should see that the blocking of aid and its disastrous consequences do not put Israel’s case. The people of Israel, who want and deserve security, particularly after the atrocities of 7 October, are absolutely not supporting the rhetoric of Netanyahu and some of his Cabinet members, or the means by which it is expressed. We are absolutely determined that we should be very clear about our position. My noble friend Lady Chapman, the Minister for International Development, has been in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories this week. We have made our position on our diplomatic workers very clear to the Israeli Government and will continue to do so. I have visited the Occupied Territories and seen some of the actions of what I would call independent settler outposts, which have behaved really appallingly. Now, with the IDF more focused in Gaza, those very people—the outpost settlers—are taking on the duties of the IDF. I think that that is the cause of some of the problems.
During her visit this week, the Minister announced £4 million in new support to organisations on the ground in Gaza, which we will continue to support. This will cover essential medicines and medical supplies for up to 32,000 people, safe drinking water for up to 60,000 people and food parcels for up to 14,000 people. That is what we are talking about: basic, fundamental issues that need to be addressed. So far, since 7 October, we have provided 405,000 patient consultations across Gaza, food aid to at least 647,000 people, and improved water, sanitation, and hygiene services. We know that the situation is absolutely desperate, which is why we took the action we did. We are, together with our partners, strongly opposed to the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. We have reaffirmed our calls for the Israeli Government to stop its military operations and immediately allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza.
Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary announced new sanctions to target those supporting violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank, following extremely concerning surges in this type of violence. Of course, we announced as part of the Statement the formal pause in free trade agreement negotiations with Israel, effective immediately. This is because it is not possible to advance discussions on deeper trading relationships with a Netanyahu Government who are pursuing policies that are absolutely damaging to the UK, the wider region and, most importantly, Israeli citizens themselves. This is the really important thing: we are committed to a two-state solution and to a political solution. We are doing everything we possibly can to achieve that, and we are committed to supporting the Palestinian Authority and their reforms. I am not going to say how far they have reached, but it is essential we do that, because it will form part of the process for a longer-term solution. We are absolutely committed to ensuring not only that the people of Palestine, Gaza and the Occupied Territories can live in peace and security but that that applies to the State of Israel.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours wishes to take part remotely, and I now invite him to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as a lifelong supporter of the State of Israel, I ask why we cannot, with others and with or without the United Nations, create a safe haven enclave within a part of Gaza, as I successfully argued for in April 1991 in the case of Iraq, to supply hospitals, food security and aid, while requiring a total Israeli military withdrawal from the enclave. The trickle feed of aid is unacceptable. Israel will back off only when it is confronted by real intervention, backed up by the threat of occupying forces within the Gaza enclave from the international community. All we need is the guts to challenge the bullying behaviour of a minority in Likud. Confronted by worldwide anger and intervention, they will back off.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I understand my noble friend’s frustrations, but our efforts have been absolutely focused on building a strong international alliance and working with allies within the region to ensure that there is a longer-term political process that leads to a two-state solution. The immediate situation requires Israel to stop blocking aid into Gaza and to ensure that we can reach a situation where the political dialogue my noble friend referred to can take place. We are absolutely committed to that. Fundamentally, we urgently need a ceasefire now, we need application of that agreement and the release of hostages, but we also need that aid into Gaza.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register. Truth matters. In the other place when the Statement was made, the following MPs repeated the lie that 14,000 babies would die within two days, and I hope that they will put that record straight: Joe Powell; Adnan Hussain; Debbie Abrahams; Ben Lake; Olivia Blake; Tahir Ali; Vikki Slade; Danny Chambers; Imran Hussain; Monica Harding; Carla Denyer; Yasmin Qureshi; and Josh Fenton-Glynn. Words have consequences. Yaron and Sarah, two young representatives of the State of Israel, were murdered in cold blood in DC. These were two beautiful souls gunned down as a direct result of toxic, antisemitic incitement against Israel and Jews around the world, and I register an interest as a Jew, a proud Jew. Yehi zichram Baruch: let their souls be for a blessing.
We are concerned about the situation in Gaza, which was, I remind the House, caused by Hamas. The USA and Israel have been working on an alternative delivery agency to address legitimate concerns about aid diversion, confiscation and abuse by Hamas, so can the noble Lord confirm whether the UK has been involved in developing this scheme, or have the UK Government refused to take part?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We have been absolutely clear that the proposals by the Israeli Government will not meet the humanitarian aid situation, which is so desperate. It is really important to acknowledge that, of course, words hurt. Of course it is wrong to quote numbers without verification, whether they contribute to the situation or not, but what are we talking about: 14,000, 7,000, or 1,000 babies? What number is acceptable? I heard Tom Fletcher on Radio 4. He was obviously a dedicated civil servant, he was a diplomat, and I was moved by his comments. He is a man who is absolutely committed to his job. I am not going to respond to the numbers he quoted, but I will respond to what he made very clear: that the situation is so desperate that we need action within 48 hours. That is what this Government are demanding, and that is why we have imposed these restrictions on the Israeli Government. The noble Lord knows my views about the security of the State of Israel, and I just think that the Netanyahu Government are doing nothing to ensure the security of Israel.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, I consider Tom Fletcher a friend and former colleague. On a personal level I also consider the Minister a friend, but will he reflect on what he has just said? I do not doubt that Tom Fletcher hears this and feels very sincerely, but the claim that 14,000 babies would die in 48 hours was a grotesque inaccuracy. As the Minister has said, in the early hours of this morning two Israeli embassy officials—Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky—were gunned down on the streets of the American capital by a gunman who shouted: “Free Palestine”. I am deeply troubled by and oppose what is happening with aid in Israel and Gaza right now, but these words matter. We have a growing level of extremism and hate and a risk to British Jewish citizens here that may well result, I am afraid to say, in similar action being taken on the streets of London. We have to do more to stand up against the demonisation of Israel while this conflict is going on.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I will not tolerate any demonisation of Israel or its people. It is people who I am most concerned about. I have very good friends in Israel and have been a supporter of Israel’s security for many years, so I will not take lessons about this. I am not interested in the figures that Tom Fletcher cited; I think he was trying to convey the urgency of the situation, which requires Israel to stop blocking aid getting into Gaza. That is the issue. Aid must never be used as a political or military tool, and that is what is happening. We are absolutely concerned to take those actions.
I say to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Walney, that we should all be concerned about the impact on communities and community violence, particularly antisemitism. We should not tolerate antisemitism in any form whatever. I will not tolerate any trope that leads to that sort of language, but I will not stop being extremely concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. It should concern us all that so many people are suffering—that food and water are not getting in. It absolutely needs to be addressed now.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister elaborate on how we can support the people of Gaza? In all the comments about support, no one has spoken about the dissent by the people of Gaza against the regime of Hamas, which threatens, kills or kneecaps the people of Gaza if they dissent. What journalists exist in Gaza are threatened if they criticise Hamas in any way. What are we doing to support the people of Gaza against Hamas?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The answer is supporting the Palestinian Authority on their road back to reform to become much more legitimate. That is the pathway to a two-state solution. There is no role for Hamas in the future. It is a terrorist organisation that has committed heinous crimes. We should never forget those crimes. The noble Lord is absolutely right that it is repressive and resisting any form of scrutiny, but the Israeli Government have not allowed journalists into Gaza as well. We should be very clear: we want a road map to peace and a solution, but that will be achieved only if we can ensure that the Palestinian Authority can reform, be supported and be the legitimate voice of the Palestinian people. Palestine is not just the Gaza Strip; it is also the Occupied Territories. We need to ensure that all the people of Palestine, represented by the Palestinian Authority, can have the voice they deserve.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I had the unfortunate need this morning to privately message my long-standing friend Ted Deutch, the leader of the American Jewish Committee, whose event on peacebuilding was ended with the murder of two Jewish people. When Jewish people cannot walk the streets of Washington safely, that shows how dangerous a world we live in.
From my capacity as government adviser on antisemitism for the last six years, I know that every time there is such an incident, the Government in this country immediately renew and relook at the security of the British Jewish community. It does no damage to ask the Minister to ensure that, as that is happening, our citizens—particularly those in sensitive areas or international organisations, and our diplomats abroad—are fully incorporated into such reviews. Jewish people in particular, wherever they are at the moment, are in danger from terrorists. Will the Minister take back the strong message that, whatever important decisions the Government make on our position on Israel and Gaza or on freeing the hostages, they need at all times to demonstrate to the British Jewish community that they are reinforcing their priority of tackling antisemitism in this country and abroad?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. I heard on the “Today” programme this morning a discussion on precisely these issues. It is really important that we challenge antisemitism. I hope I have conveyed today the very clear distinction I make between the Government of Israel and its people. The people of Israel deserve all our support and protection, particularly from malign states such as Iran that are trying to undermine it and committing state terrorism across the globe. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the need to protect our communities. I am determined that everyone should be able to express an opinion and walk safely through our streets. Sometimes walking that path can be extremely difficult; I am criticised on the one hand for saying that I support the State of Israel and on the other for saying that what is happening in Gaza is unacceptable. I think everyone in the House feels the same and wants a two-state solution that provides security for both communities. We will continue to work towards that.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register. I think the final sentiments just expressed by the Minister reflect where we are across the House on this emotive and human issue. There are practical steps that the United Kingdom Government can take. First, since last September I have alluded to out-of-the-box thinking on the delivery of humanitarian aid; we must work with Jordan and Egypt. It is not perfect and land solutions must be provided, but out-of-the-box thinking, including air deliveries, would provide some respite.
Secondly, diplomacy matters. When Ashdod port was not being opened, I remember calling the Moroccan Foreign Minister because Eli Cohen, the Israeli Foreign Minister at the time, was of Moroccan heritage. Relationships and being on the ground matter. I welcome the Development Minister being there. We should invest in those relationships. It is not always about public statements. It is about private diplomacy and building relationships with voices within Israel who want to see an end to this, including the hostages’ families.
Finally, on sanctions and the egregious abuse of human rights, in 2019 the previous Government set up the regime that has been exercised, but the Minister will be aware that, unfortunately and regrettably, there are those in the democratic Government of Israel who are touting things that the Israelis reject. I refer to Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. Sanctions were worked up on them that the previous Government were considering. The Minister may not be able to comment on timing, but it is important that the levers of diplomacy are exercised in a way that reflects the true standing of the British Government as a friend to Israel and a friend to Palestine.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He and I have worked very closely over the years on precisely the issues he refers to, and I totally agree with him on the diplomatic effort. Sometimes the most effective diplomatic effort is the one you do not see. Shouting is not always the way to achieve the change we want, which is why we are heavily engaged in this, as he acknowledged. My noble friend Lady Chapman is visiting Israel and the Occupied Territories this week, but she has also been to Jordan, and Minister Falconer regularly speaks to neighbouring countries. The noble Lord is right: we are not ruling out anything in terms of aid, and he repeatedly reminded me that air drops and sea routes could way be a way of alleviating the desperate situation. However, blocking aid on the road routes has had a disastrous effect, and we are committed to tackling that.
The noble Lord is right to point out that there are voices in Israel that are extremely concerned. He knows I cannot comment on future sanctions, but we have taken new UK sanctions to target three individuals, including prominent settler leader Daniella Weiss, as well as two illegal outposts and two organisations that have supported, incited and promoted violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank. Along with Daniella Weiss, the individuals and entities sanctioned are Harel Libi, Zohar Sabah, Coco’s Farm, and Libi Construction and Infrastructure. We are committed to focusing on these actions. The noble Lord knows we are actively considering future designations, but I cannot comment on when, or who they will be.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, the Palestinians who survived bombing are being starved to death. We have heard about the accuracy of the statistics—14,000 babies dying in 48 hours. Okay, it might not be 48 hours, but it might be a long, slow death of days, weeks or months if this carries on. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s condemnation of what is taking place and of the extremist statements made by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. When asked about Palestinian statehood, the Foreign Secretary talked about timing; surely the time is right now. Can the Minister give more details? Does he mean days, weeks or months? Do the Government support a peacekeeping force, and would the UK be involved in that?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We have covered the urgent humanitarian situation, but as the noble Baroness and the House know, this Government—and the previous Government—are committed to a two-state solution, and support for that is unwavering. We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state at a time that has most impact in achieving this reality and is most conducive to long-term prospects for peace. We are clear that this does not need to be at the end of the process. We are in constant dialogue with all partners on how we can best use the international conference for the implementation of the two-state solution in June to advance Palestinian statehood. There are key points on which we can move this agenda, and, with the French and Saudi leadership, we are committed to the two-state solution conference in New York. It comes at a crucial time to ensure that a Palestine state remains viable.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I am not going to get into the issue of the numbers, but the fact is that it is 10 weeks since aid was allowed into Gaza. We cannot but be moved, not only this House but this nation, by the pictures of young children, some of whom were born after 7 October. Given the dire situation, particularly with baby food, will the Minister consider emergency air drops of baby products within the next 72 hours?
I raise also the issue of access to sanitary products for women and girls. From reports I have seen, there is a dire shortage, and women and girls are often going without them, so will the Minister also consider emergency air drops of sanitary products?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern; I think everyone in this House is concerned about how we can get aid in. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, reminding me, when I made such calls, that it is not simply a matter of sending a plane over a piece of land and dropping material. The most important area we have discussed is how we distribute the aid. How do we get that aid specifically to the people who most need it? UNRWA and the road routes are so important because they can deliver the amount of aid that is needed in a short period. However, I am not ruling out anything we could do to alleviate this situation. But we must be clear that blocking aid into Gaza has been the responsibility of the Government of Israel, and that should be where our focus is.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify what support the Secretary of State will require multi-agency partners to offer.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 29, I will speak to Amendments 31, 39 and 40. In my previous contribution, I suggested that there were many parts of this Bill about which there are major concerns, and the multiagency child protection teams for local authority areas is the most concerning. The main concern is that statutorily responsible directors of children’s services should not be mandated in statute to develop this way of working. The preference would be that the local working practice should be at the discretion of local areas in how they arrange child protection services.
The problem this is trying to solve—the sad deaths of Star and Arthur—will not be solved by this proposal. The proposal is set to separate out family help and child protection, but that could mean that workers in family help will believe that they are not responsible for child protection, as it is managed by a team elsewhere.
However, the reality of life is that the family help team need to be able to identify when a child or a family situation has tipped into risk and is unsafe, in order for the MACPT to be alerted to get involved. In Star and Arthur’s case, even if the team had been in place, the children may not have been referred, because the workers involved did not recognise the potential risks to both children.
I know the Minister said the other day that the findings of the pilots would be published in spring 2025, but we are about to go into summer, and they have not been seen yet. That means that the model has not been fully tested and has no research to back its veracity. Surely that has to be done before the Bill comes into effect.
The MACPTs are predicated on staff being supplied from the police and health as a core for the team. We know the financial pressures these services are under, so this is likely to be impossible to achieve at this national scale. There is also the uncertainty around the future of the integrated care boards—ICBs—in the health world, and no certainty that safeguarding budgets will not be reduced. There is no additional funding to achieve this. What happens if health and police cannot provide staff for the MACPTs? Where does the buck stop? Many believe that the requirement for MACPTs should be removed from the legislation or that it should be made that they can decide locally how these services will operate.
Amendment 29 seeks to clarify
“what support the Secretary of State will require multi-agency partners to offer”.
There was a conversation here on Tuesday evening about the role of schools, ably led by my noble friend Lady Spielman. Will the Secretary of State be mandating what the partners are responsible for? We know of the discussions about budgets. Will the Secretary of State be determining that money should be ring-fenced, and who will determine what partners are responsible? Health and police are named, education seems to be in question, but there are others that will potentially have a role as well.
Amendment 31 looks to ensure that there is an effective multi-agency team. We are all aware of the need for consistency of involvement in safeguarding. An effective multi-agency team will need to have consistent involvement. There will need to be ownership of involvement, and attendance or participation will need to be assured.
Amendments 39 and 40 seek to clarify how cases that cross local authority borders will be managed. These amendments are clear. It would be good to understand how issues that straddle local authority borders will be managed and where the responsibility lies, because we all know that our borders are porous. I beg to move.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I am really concerned about these child protection teams. Well-intended as they are, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has explained, there are some dangers in the arrangements that are being proposed.
The good intention behind this is that it addresses one of the fundamental problems we have had in child protection in the past: many of the authorities that are charged with confronting the child abuser have become frightened of them. Consequently, when someone should have gone into the house and dealt with it, they have walked away. I am afraid it has happened to the police at times, as well. Generally speaking, it is better that, when it is necessary, there is someone there who is prepared to take on that frightening person who has done so much damage to a child or a baby.
My concern is that if the police are to be included in this team, it will lead to a certain amount of confusion about their role. First, why are the police there? Generally, the police are there to enforce the law and to use the skills they have in that respect. They are not there because they are particularly good at child protection. That is why social services and health visitors exist and why schools receive incredible training and are very good at helping children and their development. For police officers, that is generally not their skill set. They are there to investigate crime and to confront the people who are the suspects.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 32 and 35, which relate to children with disabilities, because these children are, sadly, more at risk and so need our protection. Also, before I begin, could I just say that my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie is sorry that she cannot be here today—frankly, as am I, as she is exceptionally knowledgeable in this area and so I hope she will approve of the following arguments, particularly in relation to children with cerebral palsy, who I will talk about today?
While there are many different forms of ability and disability in children, if policy, systems and practice can get things right for children with cerebral palsy—the most common cause of physical disability in childhood—then the benefits will be felt by children with other conditions too.
Evidence gathered by the APPG for its report Best Practice in Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), Teaching, and Learning for Children with Cerebral Palsy found that many parents of children with cerebral palsy lack confidence in their local authority’s ability to make suitable arrangements for their child. Some even view their local authorities as being obstructive, inconsistent and unaccountable. Provision inevitably tends to reflect what local authorities are able to provide, rather than what the child concerned requires to have the best chances in life.
Much of this stems from the reality that when it comes to issues relating to children with profound disabilities, local authorities are not always the people who have the relevant condition-specific knowledge, nor the experience of the lifelong trajectory of a condition, to be able to make the right assessments of potential and be suitably ambitious for the child.
Section 17 of the Children Act, as referred to in Amendment 35, outlines the local authority’s duty to assess children who are “in need”, and this definition includes children with disabilities, who may require a paediatric developmental assessment to fully understand their needs.
Amendments 32 and 35, when taken together, would provide an acknowledgement of the necessity for a member of the specialist health team involved in the provision of care for the child—someone who understands the condition and has the sector experience to understand what is possible—to be involved in the multi-disciplinary child protection teams, to ensure that these teams are assessing all the possible options.
The persons referred to in new subsection (3) relating to the provision of health who are to be involved in the multi-disciplinary child protection teams are only defined in new subsection (4)(c) as
“a registered health professional, nominated by an integrated care board for an area any part of which falls within the area of the local authority, with experience in the provision of healthcare in relation to children”.
Therefore, the health professional, nominated by the board, could be the same person who represents the health board for all the MDCPT assessments. The text does not specify that they have to know anything about the child, the health prognosis of the condition, the services and interventions that might be best for the child or whether they are—or are not—available in any one particular local authority area, nor be able to form a qualified view of the potential of the child, based on specialist experience of children with disabilities.
In Scotland, children with profound disabilities have a nominated “lead health professional” who is responsible for co-ordinating relevant, cross-sector, multi-disciplinary services and liaising with parents to take responsibility for ensuring that the needs of the child are met. Sometimes these needs, as the Committee might imagine, can be quite specific and technical; for example, when dealing with specialist resources for communication, assistive technology and mobility needs, particularly for children with complex disabilities. This lead health professional, who has practical knowledge of the individual child’s circumstances and health condition, would therefore always be included in a multi-disciplinary team discussion. It would not be left just to a representative of the health board, or a generic paediatric clinician.
Only recently, in her letter to the Times, Professor Eileen Munro warned against shifting child protection responsibilities to less-qualified staff. I therefore urge the Minister to accept—or at least to think about—these amendments, which outline the importance of including a member of the children’s disability team, someone who knows the condition or conditions, and not just a generic professional who ticks the boxes specified in the current text referring to the persons referred to in new subsection (3)(a).
Guaranteeing the right representation on these teams will go a long way to ensuring that assessments are likely to be safer, that children at risk have swift access to the resources they require and, where local areas lack appropriate provision and/or expertise, that there is a voice of knowledge to ensure there is no fear of commissioning, a voice that can work with other specialist providers in the best interests of the child.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 36. I am also delighted to support my noble friend Lady O’Neill on her amendments, as well as those of my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, who was so ably represented by my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton today. All these amendments seek to clarify some of the operational issues with the proposed multi-agency child protection teams.
I do not want to steal from the Minister’s remarks, but she might remind the Committee that the context for introducing these teams came from the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, which the previous Government commissioned and was led by the honourable Member for Whitehaven and Workington. Following a key recommendation from his review, we established 10 pathfinder sites to pilot and test out these teams, alongside a number of wider reforms to early help, targeted family help and support for children in need, as defined under the Children Act. We support the spirit and direction in which this draft legislation is going, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, pointed out, we have concerns about how it will be operationalised in practice.
Noble Lords may be aware that, in a former life before joining your Lordships’ House, I was involved in the establishment of multi-agency teams all around the country to address high-risk cases of domestic abuse, which were known as multi-agency risk assessment conferences—MARACs. We did that in every local authority in the country. At the end, those teams were managing about 60,000 adult cases a year and over 100,000 children. They involved statutory and non-statutory agencies. For better or worse, I am very familiar with the issues that are important when operationalising this kind of work.
The detail is important. Who attends these teams? Is it the same person? How senior are they? Is it the caseworker or a representative covering all cases? As my noble friend Lady O’Neill and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked, who is accountable for the work? How can we share information legally? How does information sharing translate into action planning? How do you involve the family? These and many other issues are so important to get right, and we will explore them in more detail in the debates on the other amendments to Clause 3.
My Amendment 36 simply seeks to understand how the Government expect the new statutory multi-agency child protection teams will interact with existing multi-agency work, particularly the multi-agency safeguarding hubs—the MASH teams. There are so many acronyms in this world; I saw that the department has even snuck in a new one: MASA. Who knew what MASA was? Nevertheless, it is in the documentation. The MASH teams, which are now pretty much universal around the country, are not statutory. Some are great, but some are less so. How does this team interact with the multi-agency risk assessment conferences for high-risk domestic abuse or the multi-agency public protection arrangements for high-risk perpetrators? In a world where resources are tight, we need to avoid duplication.
Equally, however, we know that non-statutory agencies—the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who is in her place, knows this extremely well from her work outside the House—at the very least bring different information to multi-agency work. Frequently, they are really trusted and can build relationships with families that can be harder for statutory agencies, with the powers that they hold. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how she expects the multi-agency child protection teams to work in practice with the MASHs, the MARACs, the MAPPAs and any other organisation that has an acronym beginning with an “M”.
I will pick up on the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady O’Neill. My key question about Amendments 29 and 31 is: can the Minister say how she expects that the involvement of partners, both statutory and non-statutory, will be funded? What we hear from the pathfinders is that it is very difficult to get other agencies outside the local authorities to participate in the teams, and that some of the extra funding the pathfinders have been given has gone to funding police officers to attend a multi-agency child protection team, which in my world feels like a very odd thing for the local authority to do. I assume that the Minister does not believe that that is a sustainable model, let alone for non-statutory agencies, where, all too often, we rely on their good will and do not acknowledge the pressures on their budgets.
I am also very interested to hear the Minister’s reply in relation to Amendments 39 and 40, which deal with cases across local authority borders. She will know that, for vulnerable families, that happens all too often—one parent lives in one local authority and the other parent lives in another; the family are moved from temporary housing in one local authority to temporary housing in another; or a child lives in one local authority but is being groomed by a gang in another. I think I am right in saying that a contributing factor in the tragic case of Sara Sharif was that she moved local authorities but the understanding of the degree of harm she faced did not move with her.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I would like to build on the point just made by my noble friend Lady Barran and add my support for Amendments 39 and 40. I wonder whether, in her response, the Minister could explain how this approach in the current Bill aligns with the move to combine mayoral authorities. It seems as if the devolution agenda is actually encouraging regions and areas to work more closely together, which seems to slightly jar with the approach currently set out in the Bill. I would appreciate the Minister putting it in that broader context when she responds.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 40 and flag—similarly to my noble friend Lady Evans—a pragmatic timing issue, which I have previously mentioned in your Lordships’ House.
Clause 3 is not a political matter. It is a well-intentioned response, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, outlined, to the tragic cases of Arthur and Star that led to the MacAlister review. I would be grateful, as would the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to know whether these changes will in fact solve the problem highlighted in those two cases that led to the review.
Of course, any new Government will bring in operational and structural changes, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that local authorities are dealing with the integrated care board situations at the moment and of course are preparing for perhaps the biggest local government reorganisation since that of Ted Heath.
In terms of timing, I ask the Minister why it is necessary at the moment to do the structural changes to child protection arrangements when the local authorities are dealing with other changes at the time. Many local authorities, even in times of very restricted finance, have shown that they have prioritised children’s social care, and overall, England’s local authorities are on an improvement journey, in that the “good” and “outstanding” Ofsted inspections are increasing.
Why not wait to do any further structural changes until the new devolution arrangements and local authority boundaries are in place and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, stated, when there is more evidence that such organisational changes in Clause 3 will improve matters, rather than inadvertently potentially making matters worse?
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, in relation to the culture that might be changed here. If the family help teams do not see that child protection is part of their role, it risks the cultural embedding that has been happening over decades that is similar to a school, where what you need to embed is that safeguarding is everybody’s responsibility. You might then end up with them thinking, “It’s not my responsibility”: it is kind of like the blue light service over there, which is the child protection team. We could lose inadvertently. No one is deliberately trying to make our child protection arrangements less effective, but I do worry about the cultural loss of everybody seeing it as their responsibility, in the family help team and through into the social workers. So I ask the Minister: why not wait until you have done your local government reorganisation and do this afterwards, or maybe do it at the same time, because for the staff this is an awful lot of change in various departments of our local authorities?
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 36 and 40 and respectfully agree with almost everything that has been said so far.
Amendment 40 concerns cases which cross local authority borders, which can present practical problems and sometimes jurisdictional problems. Families, both parents and children, move around and do not conveniently live together at the same time in the same local authority area. Sometimes, as has been suggested, they move to avoid attention, and there needs to be clarification of how and by whom these situations are to be dealt with.
Amendment 36 seems to be more fundamental. There are, of course, existing established arrangements focusing on children in need. Since at least the Children Act 1989, these can involve child protection conferences and child protection plans, which identify risks and assign responsibilities and expectations. It is perhaps not surprising that there are now operational concerns about the new clauses—in particular, whether they will unnecessarily duplicate or even disrupt workable and working existing arrangements.
In particular, we need to know whether the new teams provided for in these clauses will require the introduction of new personnel in a way that will deprive the family of the continuity and familiarity established by the original social work team. It takes time for a social worker to build a relationship with a child and family, and that should not be jeopardised. Changes bewilder the children and frustrate the parents. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, referred to consistency and ownership. Those are not just clichés, they are important and should, wherever possible, be preserved.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we have not got any amendments in this group, but I will make a few observations. First, it is really important we get this right and we have the opportunity to do so between Committee and Report.
I have personal experience of multi-agency working in terms of child protection—not a great deal, but a few cases. The thing that nobody has mentioned is that, when a member of staff has left the job or moved to another authority, the whole process grinds to a halt; the new person who is busy looking at the case files is not able to benefit from the knowledge that has been gained. It is often very disruptive.
Often in Committee, somebody will get up and make a point that you have never really thought about. When the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, had finished, I thought, “Absolutely right”. But I had not thought about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and he is absolutely right: in terms of police involvement, there can be a real conflict. It just proved to me, yet again, the importance of sharing these ideas so that we get a result which is actually workable.
It is interesting that the Children’s Commissioner suggests a
“threshold for assessment and support”
to bring greater consistency. This also picks up on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised about resources—that it is important that we get the resources absolutely right.
I was interested in the point about sharing practice with those practitioners—that they do not come with their own particular viewpoint but have that training and expertise to share and listen. Cross-border working can be very difficult indeed and can sometimes cause real issues as well, but, if we listen to each other, we can get this right.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, as we start on these amendments relating to the operational delivery of multi-agency child protection teams, I will just respond to a few general points before I go into the details of the points that have been made and the amendments.
First, on the point the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, made both today and on Tuesday, it is not true that there is no support for these arrangements among local authority children’s services and organisations concerned about child protection and keeping children safe. There is plenty of support. Nor has this idea somehow or other fallen out of the sky. In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave us a good explanation of the history of this. Of course, last autumn this Government published Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, which included the provisions that are in this legislation. So there has been plenty of time, and in fact the department has taken the opportunity to talk to a broad range of professionals and others about how we will ensure that all the provisions in the Bill work properly.
The provisions in Clause 3 particularly relate to the duty to protect children with respect to the legislative arrangements on child protection. The experience of child protection is that too often, this most difficult and crucial area of children’s social work has been carried out by social workers who are perhaps less experienced and not necessarily experts in child protection. They have had to do it without the full story of the children they are trying to protect, because of the lack of the strongest possible input from a range of different agencies to create that full story about the child and their needs, in order to ensure that they are protected properly.
On one of the concerns expressed by Professor Munro, as I emphasised on Tuesday, these provisions do not downgrade the quality or nature of social workers who will be working on child protection. They will increase the likelihood that the most experienced social workers will be working in the most difficult area. We are clear that a fully qualified social worker will be responsible within the multi-agency child protection team. Equally, in family help, where the worker is dealing with a child about which there are child protection concerns, that will also be a fully qualified social worker.
On the detail of this and how we got here in the first place, as many noble Lords have said, both today and in other debates on the Bill, nothing is more important than keeping children safe. Ineffective multi-agency working is a key factor where child protection activity fails, and, despite existing legislation, day-to-day operations can be inconsistent and ineffective. In its review, the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel found that inexperienced practitioners, ineffective multi-agency working and poor information-sharing within and between agencies results in missed opportunities to protect children. As I said, this is a situation I am sure all of us are keen to improve.
Often, several practitioners have information about a child and their family but the lack of joint working means that vital opportunities are missed to protect children from serious harm—for example, the GP treating a parent for their substance misuse, the school that notices a child arriving unwashed and unfed, and the police involved in call-outs for domestic abuse. But no one has the whole picture of the day-to-day life of the child. Early results from the 10 local area pathfinders for Families First—a programme that, as we discussed on Tuesday, is embedding family help, multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making in a single integrated system—demonstrate better management of complex issues, reducing crisis points and enabling quicker, effective interventions where children need protection.
I hear again the calls for publishing the first part of the pathfinders evaluation, which I wholly understand. I hope, even if it is slightly later than spring, that it will be available—I know it will be available for the development of these teams. But we are not even waiting for that. We are using already the experiences of those who are going through the pathfinders to help support practice in other local authority areas, through webinars and through the opportunity to share not just good practice but the challenges they are finding. The fact that some pathfinders are finding some things difficult is precisely the point of having a pathfinder: so that you can work out what works, where you might need to change things, how you are going to operationalise it and what additional support might be needed.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister on one point that she raised. I can hear that she feels that the accountability point is probably going to be okay, but, to combine a couple of things that she mentioned, the team can call on the right skills at the right time. That is obviously a major argument for this team. The only skills that the police really bring, because they are not child protection experts or experts in children’s development, is the ability to investigate crime; they bring nothing else to the table, really, apart from the fact that they are generally, I hope, innately nice people and reasonable people. I am not saying that they have no skills—that is really not my point—but the professional skills they bring to the table and the professional powers which are invested in them by law are all about how they investigate. If the team turns to them and says, “So it is your turn now to go and see this father”, or this mother, actually, that is not for them to call; that is for the police to call. That is the fundamental thing.
While I am on my feet, and to save a later interruption, although the Minister may be coming to it, on the point that has been identified about the gap in knowledge where each of the agencies holds data that the others may not have access to, that is why the MASHs were created. That is why we have people sat in groups around the country, as has been mentioned already. That is what they are supposed to be doing. It may be that this report has concluded they are not doing it as well as they could, but I am not sure this team is going to fill the gap. That is what the MASHs were really intended to do.
My final point is on the evaluation, which I know the Minister said is going to be published. The only piece of data I will be really interested in is how many fewer children got hurt or died, or whose development was not interrupted, or to what extent the satisfaction of the families involved was enhanced, as a result of this team’s intervention. They are the two core issues: basically, did kids get protected more by getting hurt less, and can we prove it? The rest, I am afraid, is a bit soft, in my view.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord on his final point. That is exactly the objective in what we are trying to do here. Whether or not the evaluation, after a relatively short period of time, will give us conclusive proof about that, I would be unsure, but that is absolutely the objective.
Working backwards through the noble Lord’s points, I think he is right that the police play a very important role in multi-agency safeguarding hubs. But that, of course, is what happens at the point at which people or other agencies are thinking about referring into the system. Quite often, it helps to provide earlier support or more clarity about whether or not children should be being referred into the system. It is not specifically about child protection, which, as I was saying at the beginning, is probably the most difficult and the most crucial point in thinking about the point at which the child is in the system.
I am surprised at the noble Lord, because I think he undersells what police officers do. He knows that the officers that he was responsible for would have known, when they were being called out to domestic abuse cases, what intelligence they had about the likelihood of children being exploited through gangs or in other ways. They would have known who in the local community were, frankly, getting into trouble and whose children were therefore likely to be in danger. They would have known the events that had happened that had brought disharmony or difficulties into communities. They would have known who was taking drugs and who was dealing them. All of that information, you could imagine, could you not, at the right point in the consideration of a child’s case, would be really, really important for getting that full story about the child. That is why I think it is right that police are involved in this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised the point about funding, which is a fair point. That is why, as I have previously talked about and will talk about again, there is more investment for this initiative that the Government have put in place, but I would also, as I think I have been saying, be clear to policing that this is part of their responsibility. In very many police forces, they are recognising that the multi-agency child protection team enables that to be as effective as possible in the way in which it is put together.
Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and spoken to today by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, which seek to include social workers with expertise in working with children with disabilities in the multi-agency teams, I absolutely agree that the teams should be equipped to identify, understand and respond effectively to all children and their families. I reassure the noble Baroness that there is, as I was describing earlier, already sufficient flexibility for safeguarding partners to determine which social work and health practitioners are most suited to work in these teams. I could imagine that there would be times when it would be appropriate to have a social worker or a health worker with expertise in disability involved.
The point is that it is important to determine in the legislation, as this Bill does, who the key, compulsory members of the team are, then to have in regulations the other agencies that could be called on to support the multi-agency child protection team. It is just not appropriate to list in the legislation every single agency or worker who might potentially be involved, but that does not mean that they are not important.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
I thank the Minister for her detailed response and all noble Lords for their contributions. They have shown their passion for keeping young people safe. Nobody wants to get that wrong, which is why everyone is making such passionate contributions. To do so, you really need as much information as possible, and sharing those pilots is pivotal to all of that. I thank everyone for their contributions and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to confirm that Local Authorities can use their discretion in how the MACPTs are implemented operationally in their areas.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 30 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and to Amendment 37 in my name. Amendment 30 goes to the heart of one of the three major concerns expressed to me by several directors of children’s services. I wonder whether, with the Minister’s permission, we could park what feels like a false argument that is developing about whether directors of children’s services support the aims of these reforms. I think they are all supportive; certainly all those I spoke to—I cannot speak for others—were supportive of the aims. The concerns that we are trying to flag are that they are worried about implementation. I worry that the Minister is not seeing the whole picture, which may be something that she wants to explore further outside the Chamber.
It is not just about those private conversations. Perhaps in gentler terms, the Local Government Association and the ADCS have highlighted concerns about the degree of discretion that local authorities will have in how they implement the new multi-agency child protection arrangements. My amendment would remove some of the prescription in the Bill around membership.
Also, I commend to all your Lordships who are interested in this area the department’s cunningly titled Families First Partnership Programme Guide, because it very firmly states that it is not guidance but—trust me—when you read it and it keeps saying that it is going to set “delivery expectations”, it feels a lot like guidance. That document is prescriptive. In closing the previous group, the Minister talked about flexibility, learning and so on, but that programme guide does not feel very flexible. It says that you must have lead child protection practitioner roles and that, in many cases, independent chairs of child protection case conferences will be removed. It gives an overview of the reform across the whole system.
I can speak only personally, and it may be that I woke up a bit late to some of the problems with Clause 3, but this is whole-system reform. The Minister rightly referred to the document published in November; there is also this document, which was published in March, and there have been a number of others. The Committee needs to think about it in the round, even if only parts of it are in the Bill. The programme guide gives a very tight timescale for directors of children’s services to implement these changes and it is very clear in its expectations about how the additional funding should be spent. I am sure that the Minister is advised to talk about flexibility but, if I were a director of children’s services, it would not feel very flexible from reading the document.
The concerns we have heard would, I hope, be addressed by my amendment, but the spirit of my amendment goes wider in its aim to align autonomy and accountability. Local authorities will ultimately be held responsible for the effectiveness of the multi-agency child protection teams—in part, for some of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who is no longer in his place, expressed in his remarks earlier. With that responsibility, surely more discretion over implementation should be permitted. Could the Minister address that point in her closing remarks?
As I mentioned, the worries I have heard come from some of the details that are set out in what I am now going to call the FFPPG—only those in this Committee will know what that means—which risk disrupting the finely balanced approach that currently exists in the best local authorities between early help and targeted support, under Sections 17 and 47. They also risk adding cost, with the need for additional lead child protection social workers for the separate multi-agency child protection arrangements—where are those social workers going to come from, and how will they be funded? They risk losing the critical fresh pair of eyes that an independent child protection case conference chair currently provides. It is obviously important, as we have seen in many cases, to have that independence, from someone who is experienced and can think again about the risks that remain to a child. Those families in child protection arrangements will now have two social workers, with all the resource and case management implications that brings, and indeed the risk that the family play one social worker off against another.
As my noble friend Lady Berridge said, rather than focusing on the cultural and organisational issues that make all the difference in the quality of social work, the Government seem to be focusing on process. There is a risk of adding complexity, and there is no question that it adds cost. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why. It has been said, but it deserves saying again, that there are real concerns that there is not a sufficient evidence base for this. I will cover that a bit more in the following group.
Amendment 37, in my name, would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the impact of the multi-agency child protection teams. This would work well if, first, the Government publish the evaluation of the pathfinder sites—the Minister has committed that that will happen—and, secondly, address any practical issues arising. As she said, and I agree completely, the whole point of a pathfinder is to find out what works in practice and what does not. The timeline in the programme guide says March 2025 for 12 months; local authorities are expected to have implemented the changes needed in their teams to start these reforms by spring next year. I do not know how we can address practical issues and expect local authorities to do that transformation work with no further visibility on funding at the same time.
Thirdly, it would make sense that the Government agree with some version of my Amendment 30, so that there is some discretion for a director of children’s services in, say, Cumbria to implement these arrangements slightly differently from one in, say, Hackney. There will be variation in approach, and it is responsible and, I would argue, useful for the Secretary of State to report on this, so that we reinforce a culture of learning across the sector and support local authorities to evolve the model based on effective practice. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, having listened to the noble Baroness introduce these amendments, I think they are quite interesting. Let us see what the answer is.
The one that really attracts my attention is Amendment 37: how are you going to assess how the teams have worked? The point that the noble Baroness made was reasonable—that you might want different types of implementation teams in different areas—but if you are doing something new, how do you assess where it has or has not been successful? If the Minister could point out where in the Government’s process that is going to happen—if it is—I would be very interested to hear that. If it is convincing, I hope we can put this to bed and move on.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran on Amendment 30, which builds on the previous conversation in seeking to confirm that local authorities can use their discretion in how the multi-agency child protection teams are implemented operationally in their areas.
In addition to the contributions previously made about the pilots and having the information about those pilots, I want to add two very good reasons why it is imperative to ensure that local decision-making will become effective: how there could be confusion over legal accountability, and how the Bill could weaken local authority leadership.
The statutory responsibility for safeguarding will still rest with the local authorities, as has previously been said, not with the partnerships or multi-agency teams. If all functions are located within a multi-agency team, it may become unclear who is ultimately accountable, especially in the case of a serious case review or legal proceedings. As was referred to previously, current DfE guidance, through Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, emphasises that, although functions can be delegated, accountability cannot be transferred.
I have previously referred to the issue of budgets from other partners, especially police and health, and how that might impact their involvement, but we also need to consider the fact that not all agencies are coterminous. In my area, our police, under the leadership of the Mayor of London, are a tri-borough relationship. The NHS is a six-borough relationship. I quite often get notices from the police identifying a child in Lewisham, and I have to ask my team whether there is a connection to Bexley. There is a potential confusion there and, of course, with that confusion comes the ownership. This could create issues in determining not least the ownership but also the cost implications.
The other risk is weakened local authority leadership. Overconsolidation into multi-agency spaces could disempower directors of children services or the lead members, who are the statutory leads for safeguarding. There is a risk of fragmenting the governance. For those reasons it seems sensible to trust the local authority to use its discretion in how the multi-agency child protection teams are implemented locally in their own area. I support my noble friend Lady Barran’s amendment.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, for several reasons I support Amendment 37 from my noble friend Lady Barran. She and others have spoken about the enormous amount of change being imposed on the sector, both to current structures and prospectively with local government reorganisation and with many processes through these reforms.
We have now heard from enough people here and outside to think that there is good reason to be concerned about poor decision-making arising from the blurring of early help, targeted support, work with children in need and child protection. There are potentially parallels with the SEND reforms a few years ago, when a new model was expected to simplify and reduce costs, and reduce numbers in the system, but has, sadly, done the opposite. On the points that have been made about the blurring of accountability, there is again reason to be concerned.
I was part of a national implementation board after the care review and, in that process, I was struck, more than in most government processes I have been involved with, that many people seemed to find it hard to say what they really thought to Ministers. They perhaps pulled punches a little bit. It is incredibly important to make sure that there is a report that all can see and that is really transparent about how these reforms are working in practice.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We have come on to more understandable consideration of how the teams will work in practice, particularly with respect to local authority responsibility. Multi-agency child protection teams will be effective only if they are truly multi-agency. There is an understandable concern here about the significance of the role of local authorities, but it is probably also worth remembering, as we discussed on Tuesday, that safeguarding partners—local authorities, health and police—have joint and equal responsibilities for safeguarding in legislation. Through the multi-agency child protection teams, we are trying to ensure that day to day, in operational terms, with respect to individual children and cases, there is a practical way for those responsibilities, and the information that those agencies may have, to be brought together in that full picture about the child.
I spoke earlier about the findings from the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel on child protection. To tackle the issues it identified, we need, as I have suggested, multi-agency experts in a room together, sharing information and bringing their different perspectives to decisions that protect children. It is important that we ensure the right people are deployed to those teams so that expert, swift and decisive action is taken to protect children, and we recognise the importance of safeguarding partners reporting on the impact of their arrangements to make sure that is happening. We need to base that, as has been the argument on other parts of the Bill, on the best possible evidence, which is both the professional work that constituted the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and, as others have mentioned, the independent review by my honourable friend Josh MacAlister.
Of course, we also need the evaluation that noble Lords have talked about. It will come in more than one stage. There will be evaluation of the process and some of the practicalities of setting up the process that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referenced, and, later, of the impact of the teams.
Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks local discretion in multi-agency team membership and organisation. Requiring safeguarding partners to nominate a minimum team reflects partners’ collective duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. They will also have, as I outlined in the previous group, flexibility to add other agencies or individuals, reflecting local needs and to tackle local harms. We know from Families First pathfinders that these teams are already making a real difference. In Ofsted’s recent inspection of children’s services, Dorset, one of the pathfinders, received an “outstanding” judgment. The report noted that when children are at risk of significant harm, strategy meetings are well attended by partner agencies and that effective information-sharing and analysis of risk lead to children receiving the right intervention and support. It is right that we celebrate the success of and learning from pathfinders and, as I suggested previously, learn from where things have been more challenging. On the resourcing, as I said on Tuesday, this transformation journey is being supported from our £500 million Families First Partnership Programme funding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, made a couple of specific points. On whether this is doing away with an independent chair, one of the main purposes of multi-agency child protection teams is to have a fresh pair of eyes coming in at the point of the Section 47 inquiry. The new lead child protection practitioner role will work—in fact, is working in pathfinders—in a very similar way to the current independent chairs. I take her point about the need for a fresh view and independence, but that is built into the design of the teams.
On whether this would mean children having more than one social worker, children and families will stay rooted in family help throughout. Multi-agency child protection teams will lead the child protection functions, working with and wrapping support around children, families and the family help lead practitioner. The multi-agency child protection team brings expertise and a fresh focus on significant harm. The lead child protection practitioner will be an experienced social worker but will not be the case lead. In other words, the important ongoing relationship, which I know children feel strongly about, with a person they can understand, work with and gain a relationship with, will remain in place, but additional expertise will be brought to this from the multi-agency child protection team.
On Amendment 37, which would place in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to report annually on the team’s impact and activities, I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it is essential that we understand how multi-agency teams are leading to better outcomes for children and that that learning be shared across the system. That being said, safeguarding partners already have a statutory responsibility to publish annual reports on their multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. This will include reporting on multi-agency child protection teams once the teams come into force. Statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, already sets out the information that should be included in yearly reports, and that will include evidence of impact. Guidance will be updated to include the reporting requirements for these new multi-agency teams. There will be, at the level at which it really matters, a responsibility to account for and report on the nature and success of the multi-agency safeguarding arrangements.
On that basis, and with those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank warmly all those who contributed to this short debate, in particular my noble friend Lady O’Neill for her practical examples of how it works on the ground and the very reasonable concerns she and colleagues have about these reforms. If I am honest, I was worried when I listened to the Minister about the amount of confirmation bias in her remarks that this will work exactly as we all wish. If that turns out to be the case, I will be the first to admit that I am wrong, but most big, complicated reforms such as this do not go exactly as planned: some things go well, and others do not. I hope the Government will keep an open mind on this.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to leave discretion about the qualifications of those who are part of MACPTs to the relevant agency responsible. It also aims for clarity about where the Secretary of State might lift the requirement for qualifications in this work.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 33 aims to leave discretion about the qualifications of those involved in the multi-agency child protection team to the relevant agency responsible. It also aims for clarity about where the Secretary of State might lift the requirement for qualifications in this work. My previous contributions have sought flexibility for those statutorily responsible for the safety of our young people, and this amendment follows that theme. The Minister, thankfully, gave us some reassurances earlier, and I hope this will continue.
Life changes, and the areas will not all be the same. It will need some local discretion, so one would hope that it would not be too prescriptive. In addition to considering the local needs of those responsible, we need to consider what already exists and, if change needs to happen, from what base will it happen? There needs to be flexibility for those who are part of the processes. It is also possible that this being one size fits all risks undermining local innovation, which we all know is important, as well as stunting workforce development.
Consideration will also need to be given to the relative qualifications of all members of the teams and those in other agencies. If it is to be the responsibility of a local area to arrange its child protection services, it will need to consider who is part of the multi-agency child protection team and their qualifications. I beg to move.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments, particularly the clause stand part notice. I have known the Minister to be a listener and Committee is entirely the time to listen. The noble Baroness mentioned that we need to solve the lack of joint working. I think nobody would disagree, and no one would dare to say that multidisciplinary team working for child protection is not the way to do it. But there are, I believe, genuine concerns about whether the functions outlined in Clause 3 are the way to achieve that.
When I first read the review recommendation and the description of multi-agency child protection teams—I have not yet come up with an acronym that I can pronounce quickly enough—I thought that would be an oversight mechanism akin to the independent chair of child protection cases. But the understanding out there among certain practitioners seems to be that it could be an investigative/operational mechanism. I thought it was a mechanism about oversight where you pull together everybody involved in that particular case, to make sure that everyone in the room knows everything that they need to know and there are no gaps in the information.
However, the understanding that is out there and that has been communicated is that, in fact, what could be happening here is a duplication of the investigative function. With this new system, what is understood out there is that, when a social worker has maybe had a very sensitive disclosure made to them—usually after many months of knowing the child and gaining their confidence—there can be a transfer at that moment to a different social worker to take over the investigative role. Obviously, that would be a duplication of resource and it would potentially sever the relationship that the child has.
Currently, as I understand it, the multidisciplinary team investigation is basically built around a lead expert social worker, who then draws in—at casework level—health, benefits, housing and the police interview. There is oversight of that by the independent chair. Of course, if there is any kind of change of that function, a child who has already disclosed may decide, “No, I can’t disclose to somebody else”. There may be that loss of trust, adding to their trauma. So the arrangements that we put in place in Clause 3—which everyone is intending to aid the joint working of all the different agencies—could inadvertently open up new cracks in the system.
While we have seen and are aware of the tragic failings that have led to the MacAlister review, it is important to remember how foundational the Children Act is—that it has stood the test of time, is understood by practitioners and has been built on, particularly in 2004. Many of our outstanding local authorities are not just chosen to be pathfinder places; they are visited by people from many European countries to see how they have embedded over many decades child protection systems that are—I know we find it hard to believe—the envy of some other countries.
Where is the adequate evidence to support this change? Yes, there was a recommendation in the MacAlister review, but where is the adequate evidence that we have used previously to make changes to our child protection system? I know that the pathfinders will be publishing soon, but are these actually what we would usually understand to be operational pilots? Where is the rigorous academic research that has so often been the evidential basis for previous changes to our child protection system over many decades?
While Clause 3 may seem logical and that in principle it will work, could it actually open up different problems? Will the Minister agree—if she has not already done so, because she said that there is evidence out there to support these changes—to meet the director of children’s services who advised the MacAlister review, Eileen Munro and other concerned academics, and the DCSs from outstanding local authorities who are concerned? Those are the practitioners who will have to implement this. The Minister may need to talk to her colleague in the Department of Health, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, as this was precisely the issue with the Mental Health Bill—whether approved mental professionals were behind that change. Are the directors of children’s services behind this change? Although the honourable Member, Josh MacAlister, whom I have met, is passionate about looked-after children and adoption and fostering, the review was not chaired by somebody who was an expert in deciding child protection cases or operationally dealing with child protection cases. That is why I wish that the Minister could meet that type of expert and reassure your Lordships’ House that these practitioners support this.
Although everyone here intends Clause 3 to help, I have thought, as we are required to do, about what the situation would be if the experts who have concerns—it might not be every single expert—about unintended consequences are proved to be right. If a child discloses sexual harm then loses confidence, with a switch of social worker or the multi-agency team that comes in, and then will not talk, and the mum’s partner, as it often is, senses that something has changed with the child, as disclosure psychologically affects individuals, and that person then harms the child to shut them up, what kind of report will come back from the local authority’s child safeguarding panel to the Department for Education? It will not be the responsibility of the DCS that the systems were not working. If the concerns are valid, the report that comes back could very well be, “We advised you not to make this kind of statutory change and you did, and this is what has happened”. I would not want anybody to be in that situation—that inadvertently, while trying to improve the system, with experts advising that there could be unintended consequences, we do not take time to pause and make sure that this recommendation is supported by adequate evidence before it is implemented.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I oppose Clause 3 standing part of the Bill and I fully support Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lady O’Neill. I thank my noble friend Lady Berridge for her support and for her very practical suggestion that the Minister meets those practitioners and experts. I hope very much that when the Minister winds up she will be able to say that she will have such a meeting.
Lord Storey (LD)
I have a few observations to make, although this is not my natural area of expertise.
On Amendment 1, I said it was important that, when we propose to make a change and we run a pilot, that pilot is the lodestone of future developments. First, I am concerned about the comments made by Professor Munro. Secondly, I am slightly concerned by what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said—that directors had frequently spoken to her. Perhaps she can tell us if that was one director or five directors? Was it a professional association? That is important to know. She cannot influence important discussions by saying, “Well, the directors have said”—we need to know who they are and how many there are. I could equally quote directors who have spoken to me and who have different opinions. We have to be very careful about that. The noble Baroness can talk to me afterwards, if she likes.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am more than happy to clarify for the benefit of the Committee. I have spoken personally to three directors of children’s services and one deputy director, and I have encouraged some of my colleagues to talk to their local director of children’s services. I stress that I was surprised at their response. I did not ring up and ask them to tell me about all the problems with the Bill; I rang up and explained that I would be responding on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I always prefer to talk to someone who is directly affected before I give my views, which may or may not be on message. It was an unprompted response. It is for them to decide if they wish to speak privately to Ministers, rather than for me to say at the Dispatch Box who they are. If the noble Lord has spoken to others who say something different, I am sure it is helpful for the Minister to hear that too.
Lord Storey (LD)
Actually, I have spoken to only one director and I would not wish to comment on what they said, because it would perhaps give the wrong impression.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, rightly said that our child protection procedures are the envy of the world. She is right to say that, but it does not mean that we are complacent about the fact that we have good child protection procedures. You have to constantly look at any policies or systems and change and improve them. I am always impressed that children are at the heart of everything we do. When we had the Question on media literacy, and I rather cheekily asked what the Government’s number one priority was, the Minister rightly said that it was child protection. That is symptomatic of how we as a House react. We cannot stand still but, when we make detailed changes, we have to be sure that they are right. We should pilot them, perhaps learn from the pilot, and then use that to change and adapt, and we have to make the resources available.
I am particularly concerned about qualifications—they are the hallmark of safety. You would not want a plumber without any plumbing qualifications to come to your house, nor would you want an electrician without qualifications to look at the wiring. So it is in child safety, where we must make sure that the people around the table are qualified to give judgments and opinions to protect children.
As somebody who has said that he is not an expert by any means in this area, I hope that, when the Minister replies, she might simply spell out for me why she wants to make those changes and why she has not taken the advice of somebody who clearly is an expert and knows what they are talking about, and who has—probably through frustration—had to write a letter to the Times.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
Perhaps I might add a few thoughts from my experience. As Children’s Commissioner for six years, I found that the greatest level of responsibility was around children in care, and I looked in detail at the experience of children in care throughout that time. One of the things that was absolutely clear to me was that the ability of local authorities to focus on early intervention diminished hugely during that period. The amount that was spent on early intervention halved during that period, while the amount that was spent on crisis doubled. You do not need to be a great mathematician to realise that the more you spend on crisis, the less you will have for early intervention.
At the heart of Josh MacAlister’s review and recommendations, which were incredibly and extensively consulted on with people at all levels, from expert practitioners to leaders of children’s services and care-experienced people themselves, was that we had to move and reset the system towards early intervention, and do so boldly in a timely manner, because it was unsustainable for the public purse to do anything other. As important, if not more important, is that more children were being left without support.
Everyone needs to be alert at any time to the consequences of any move towards increasing harm for children. What we now know and have known for some time is that more children are coming to harm now because they are not getting that support early, so it is absolutely essential that there is an urgency about that. As I said on Tuesday, those directors of children’s services that I speak to want to see that change urgently and are very much in line with the proposals that are being put forward. There will always be things that directors of children’s services will want to amend locally and test out—that is absolutely right—but what they want to know is that there is a framework nationally for them to work within and clear guidance. So, it is so important that this is here. That is not to say that those individuals will not have their own expertise in delivering.
When there are experts involved in delivering these expert practitioner roles, they are actually going to use their judgment all the time. It is not going to be about process; it has to be about children and about those families. Anyone who is just following a process because the process is there is not the expert practitioner in that role that we have the ambition for. They are going to be looking at children’s lives and responding to individuals, but at the heart of it, we have to move boldly forwards, to—
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
Yes—I apologise for that on many levels. We have to move forward at pace, but also with confidence and determination, while also checking along the way that we are giving support where it is needed.
Finally, we need to ensure that investment is there, but we have to get to the point where we are investing money to prevent rather than to just pay the costly bills when things have got to acute status.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We are now on group three on multi-agency child protection teams. As I have already said, these teams seek to address the problems we repeatedly see when children are seriously harmed or killed, including poor information sharing, weak decision-making based on single-service perspectives, and inexperienced social workers without the support, knowledge and experience needed to make tough decisions and ensure children and families get the support they need.
One of the areas in which these teams are already being delivered is Warwickshire. Perhaps at this point, before I talk about Warwickshire, I could also respond to the point made in the previous group by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the pathfinders. Actually, two of the pathfinders are not “good” or “outstanding”; they are, in fact, “requires improvement”, so that was wrong.
Teams in Warwickshire have reported, to the department, the lowest number of children on child protection plans since July 2023. This reduction is attributed to a more efficient and targeted approach by the multi-agency team, ensuring that the right children are getting the right intervention at the right time—and, crucially, as early as possible in the system. My noble friend Lady Longfield made a very important point about the nature of the objectives of this reform, which are encompassed in this Bill and in the policy paper that I referenced earlier. The objective is to shift support for children much earlier in the process and, where necessary, for a Section 47 child protection intervention to be carried out by the most experienced and senior social workers, who should be supported by a team that brings together the whole range of agencies that may well have information about the child.
With this in mind, I turn to Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, which seeks to allow discretion about the qualifications of persons nominated to teams and seeks clarity on the qualifications prescribed through regulations. Setting out clear requirements for the skills, knowledge and qualifications of multi-agency child protection team members ensures a consistent national standard and consistent expectations for the practitioners making decisions that protect our most vulnerable children. These children deserve this level of consistency and qualification—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey.
As I have said, we know from national reviews that those on the front line of complex child protection do not always have the support and experience they need. We are determined to change that through the regulations that will accompany this legislation. The point about regulations is important, and I will come back to it again when responding to the clause stand part debate. As parliamentarians, we all know that, while it is important that primary legislation sets out the intent, design and most important elements of legislative change, operational detail is best suited to regulations, where there is more flexibility to accommodate developments in sector standards—for example, if new evidence emerges, this good practice can be reflected in the regulations. We are working with other government departments and will publicly consult on these regulations before bringing them before Parliament for scrutiny.
I turn to the clause stand part debate that seeks to remove Clause 3, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has given notice. Annie Hudson chaired the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, and one of its recommendations led to the development of this legislation. There has been an important discussion about the need to enable sufficient time for appropriate implementation. However, when you have very clear recommendations—as we have here, which I will demonstrate shortly—it is incumbent on Governments to take action on the basis of that. We must ensure that the implementation is right, but we must also, as this Government have done, set out the ambition for the reform necessary in children’s social care to achieve both the strategic change that my noble friend discussed and to overcome some of the shortcomings that we have—sadly—seen evidenced in recent cases. That is what this legislation aims to do.
Annie Hudson said:
“In my time as chair of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel I have seen reviews about several thousands of serious incidents where children have died or been seriously harmed as a result of abuse and neglect. It is the learning from those incidents, and most particularly the repeated lack of join up between agencies, that led to the Panel’s recommendation in our report Child Protection in England about the tragic deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson to introduce multi-agency child protection teams. High quality social work is critical to effective child protection, but we must also draw on the expertise of practitioners from across different professions and agencies (including police, health and education) to meet the complex safeguarding needs of some children and families. The need for multi-agency child protection teams was also clearly evidenced in our recent national review about child sexual abuse in the family environment. This review found that, once concerns had been raised, too often there was a lack of thorough child protection investigation and effective action to protect and help children. This was in part due to ‘silo’ working across agencies, and inadequate multi-agency exploration and sharing of concerns that children may be at risk”.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Can I just clarify a few points that the noble Baroness made in her remarks? She gave the example of Warwickshire reducing the number of children on child protection plans, but of course the number of children on child protection plans nationally fell last year by 1.7% and has fallen by 3.1% since 2020, and that is despite the increase in unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Clearly, we welcome the progress in Warwickshire and anywhere in the country that is achieving that, but I think the impression that she gave was that this was an unusual occurrence, and it is just important to acknowledge that that is a national trend.
Secondly, the regulations the Minister refers to are obviously extremely important in terms of implementation. I can remember other Governments publishing draft regulations during the passage of a Bill so that the House had clarity on their intentions. I wonder whether she would be very kind and take that back to the department and see if that is an option in this and potentially other areas of the Bill.
I am not sure whether I followed the Minister’s comments about the duplication of caseworkers, but page 13 of the department’s guidance appears to suggest that, in Section 47 cases, both the family help lead practitioner and the lead child protection practitioner will be involved. I am sorry to be picky about the money, and of course she is right on the £500 million, but, again, her department’s own documentation states that £253.5 million of that is mainstreamed funding originally for the Supporting Families programme. Again, this is just to be clear about what is new money and what it is for.
Finally, I wonder whether the Minister might pick up on my noble friend Lady Berridge’s suggestion about a meeting. She talked about the general engagement the department rightly has, but can she comment on whether she feels able to accept that invitation?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said that she did not want to undermine the good work happening in Warwickshire by pointing out a general downturn in the number of child protection plans. Good, because, as I suggested earlier, we should celebrate where there has been good work, which in Warwickshire they certainly attributed to the changes they had made.
On the point about draft regulations, there is a tension here, because on the one hand people are asking us to continue to engage on the detail of how this is going to be implemented, yet also to have the regulations alongside the Bill. I will reflect on this and come back to her. On the point about duplication, I have explained it twice, but, clearly, I have not explained it well enough. So I will undertake to write to noble Lords about the operational details, and particularly the role of the family help lead practitioner and the lead practitioner for child protection, and the operational detail that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, was talking about.
On the point about new money, I think I have been pretty clear about what is new money; I said it explicitly. On the meeting, my point was that there will be a whole range of meetings and engagement; I did not say I would not have a meeting. My honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for children’s social care has met many practitioners, experts and DCSs as this process has gone on. I suspect that, between us, we will be able to continue meeting people in the way suggested.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am grateful for that clarification. Let me assure the Minister on what this concern is born out of, as I hope I explained. We can all pick off one or two experts in a group of people, but there are sector bodies such as the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. I mentioned a particular individual because there was particular engagement in the independent review we are all relying on. I assure the Minister that if she comes back at Report with support from those organisations, saying, “We support this; we understand; we have engaged”, these problems will fall away. She has a busy diary—obviously, I do not want to suggest how she allocates her diary—but if she comes back with the support of those representative practitioner bodies, with that assurance, the concerns will melt away.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am not sure that picking off experts is the way the department has engaged in consultation or engagement so far, nor will it do in the future. I am realistic: over my time in both Houses, this is probably my 12th Bill, and frankly, I have never done a Bill about which absolutely everybody was content. I am not going to accept that the only way we can progress this legislation is if every single expert, representative and professional body supports it.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
I thank the Minister for her responses and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Like many of them, I am an absolute believer in early intervention, although my priority around early intervention is better outcomes. If we can change a pathway or avoid a tragedy, we will all have made a big difference. I hope that is where the intention is. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
“(7A) The local authority must provide the resources to enable continuous professional development training to be provided to all teachers and teaching assistants with responsibilities for supporting vulnerable children that interact with multi agency child protection teams.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that schools have the resources to meet their statutory commitments.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, this is really a probing amendment. I am the first to admit that this is not an area in which I have deep expertise, but my questioning comes from the angle of the impact on schools and is on how much time and cost would be involved.
I understand that Clause 3(4) amends Section 16J of the Children Act 2004 to require safeguarding partners—local authorities, police and health—to ensure that multi-agency child protection teams are adequately staffed. This includes representation from education. Schools themselves are not made statutory partners, but safeguarding partners must secure the participation and representation of education and childcare agencies at both operational and strategic levels in local safeguarding arrangements.
I also understand that the legislation does not impose new direct financial obligations on individual schools. The duty to ensure that teams are sufficiently staffed falls on the safeguarding partners, not the schools themselves. However, I presume that schools will incur some indirect costs related to staff time for participating in safeguarding arrangements, meetings and training. How will this change from the current arrangements? What additional obligations are likely to occur?
I listened carefully to the Minister’s point on the new money for implementation—£270 million. I respect the fact that she cannot give any clarity on long-term funding until the spending review in a few weeks’ time, so I do not have an issue with that. However, if we take that money—£270 million—and assume that even half goes to schools, when of course it will be a fraction of that, it is only £6,000 a school. I will come on to this in a minute.
I understand that the Government are planning to provide guidance to support implementation and that safeguarding partners are expected to tailor arrangements to local needs, which may help manage additional burdens on schools. When will that information be available? This is important because of the need for schools to budget. Unforeseen burdens are particularly likely in schools in areas of high deprivation, which are seeing the backwash of so much suffering of vulnerable children. The point, of which I hope the Minister will be mindful, is that we have only 1,265 hours a year of directed time for our teaching cohort, so every hour doing something other than teaching is salami-slicing away our ability to provide good education. Something has to give.
The other area I am puzzled by—this, again, is my ignorance—is these pilots that have been running. I have been trying to find some feedback on these pilots but have not been able to find anything. The Commons Select Committee raised this issue of a lack of clarity, so can any be provided? My noble friend Lady Barran said that some of these pilots had received extra money to juice them up and get more participation, which is great, but will that be rolled out more widely?
I am very worried about this because, as noble Lords know, we are facing something of a financial bloodbath in the school sector. If we have to start hiring supply teachers to enable ordinary teachers to be released to go to safeguarding meetings, these costs will hit us. Can the Minister give us a timeline on the implications for schools and assure us that schools will have sufficient time between the publishing of the guidance and the setting of their budgets? For example, we really need to set our budgets in April to go live in September, because that tends to be when teacher recruitment goes on, as people resign and are appointed. I hope the Minister will understand where I am coming from. I acknowledge that I have a lot less knowledge of this sector, but I am worried about the backwash into the school sector. I beg to move.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton’s amendment. The example that he gave of teachers and teaching assistants, as cited in his Amendment 34, could obviously be replicated for many other agencies, with a valuable contribution to make to multi-agency child protection teams and wider safeguarding activities, including local drug and alcohol services, mental health services, domestic abuse services, housing associations and more. The key point here is that practitioners need to feel confident about how to engage in the process and how any information they share will be used, confident that it will not put anyone at risk and, as my noble friend so ably put it, confident that they have the time in their working day to be able to participate responsibly. From my own experience, I know we make assumptions at our peril about how confident even statutory agencies are in some of these areas, so any programme that promotes safe and effective partnership work is to be commended.
My Amendment 38 seeks to understand what capacity the Government think will be needed on the ground and what guidance they plan to give for this. The Bill says in Clause 3, page 3, lines 16 to 21:
“Arrangements … must include the establishment of one or more multi-agency child protection teams … for the purpose of providing support to the local authority in connection with the discharge of its duties under section 47 of the Children Act 1989”.
In Clause 3, page 3, lines 27 to 31, it says:
“A multi-agency child protection team is to consist of … at least one of each of the persons mentioned in subsection (4), and … such other persons as the local authority considers appropriate after consulting the other safeguarding partners”.
My cracked-record question is this: what does this mean in real life?
I am sure that the answer to this is no, but, as written, it could mean that Birmingham has one team and Rutland has one team. I am sure the Minister will reassure me that that is not the plan. Even smaller local authorities, particularly rural local authorities, have multiple child protection teams already, so adding one more will not be that useful to them if they have multiple existing teams that need that multi-agency engagement.
When I led the charity SafeLives and we did the rollout of multi-agency risk assessment conferences around the country, we gave estimates to every area based on evidence of realistic case loads, resource requirements and so forth—and we had rather less influence than the Government do. My challenge to the Minister is: if a small charity can do that, surely the Government can do something similar or work with the ADCS or the LGA to develop appropriate clarity and guidance. I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain the Government’s plans.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, having read both these amendments, I think it is reasonable to ask the Government what resources are required. When it comes to teachers, we have often dealt with the question of what is required and, if it is a new skill, how they will acquire it. Having enough awareness to call in an expert is another thing we have often talked about in other fields—I certainly have on special educational needs.
If you do not have that training in place, it is a matter of where you go to get that support. Asking for that is one of the things we should do here. I hope the Minister will give us a reply that at least starts to push us towards looking to where these resources are and, more importantly for the people on the ground, where they can look to for support and help, or be trained to do so. Without that linkage, people who are only now being brought into this process on an official basis will fail if they do not know what they are doing.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I was not going to speak to this amendment, but I have to say that the idea that schools have not been at the centre of child protection and safeguarding over the last 20 years is just ludicrous. Under the last Government, the central grant to local authorities decreased by 40%. Real-terms school funding decreased by 9%. In that period, schools became the fourth emergency service as children’s social work, child protection and all the safeguarding systems around the child were absolutely decimated by austerity.
Schools have become extremely good at identifying children in need of safeguarding and protection. They have become extremely good at providing information, support and training to their staff, and they did this very well at a time when the last Government were reducing real-terms support to schools. They have had to become experts in child safeguarding and child protection because the other services that should have been there to work with schools simply were not. Multi-agency professional teams, legally responsible for working with schools to support them to protect children, will strengthen child safeguarding and child protection. CPD, or professional development, is always helpful, but the idea that schools need extensive CPD on this, that they have not been doing this, and that it will be a new thing to them is, frankly, ridiculous.
Lord Nash (Con)
Although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, about schools becoming very good at child protection in recent years, there will be a cost to engaging in this activity. I support my noble friend Lord Agnew and his point about the cost for schools. All schools are facing a very severe funding shortfall, and I am concerned that they will have to make a lot of redundancies. None of us wants to see that but schools are telling me that it is the only way they will be able to balance their budgets. If the Government’s worthy target of getting 6,500 new teachers into the profession is a net figure of leavers and people coming into the profession, then redundancies will make them miss that target. I support the point about money being needed to support this activity.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, schools are absolutely fundamental to knowledge about children. For any child who has started at school, any of that child’s teachers are extremely likely to know more about the child than anybody else except the parents. In some cases, they know more than the parents. The idea that they are being looked at for the first time, as it appears is being said, is, as the noble Baroness said, ludicrous. I hope that the Minister will underline the importance of involving schools at the earliest possible moment. Any amendment that can help with that should be supported.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I was not going to speak in this group, but I want to add my support to my fellow Norfolk Peer and noble friend Lord Agnew and ask the Minister a question. We have talked about local authority resources and the pressure that local authorities are under. Norfolk County Council is the strategic authority and its competences include education, special needs, vulnerable children, et cetera. Its budget is under a great deal of pressure, as the Minister will know. Norfolk County Council said recently that it has to find another £40 million of savings.
As we move towards unitary government, there are plans to bring in unitary government across Norfolk, which basically means getting rid of the districts and maybe replacing them with one unitary council, which would be Norfolk County Council, plus all the other competences. However, if we move to more than one unitary authority in a large county such as Norfolk, and maybe in counties such as Suffolk as well, and have possibly one or two unitaries replacing the county and the districts, what will happen in terms of the dissipation of resources going into this type of work with vulnerable children? Would they be spread between one or more authorities? What are going to be the consequences in terms of replication of services and cost pressures on those authorities, at a time when budgets are very tight anyway?
The other question I have follows on from the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. If resources are not going to be made available, what possibilities are there going to be for teachers and TAs to get that extra training outside their local authority? If they want to enhance their career or widen their experience on their own initiative because there is nothing available for them in terms of provision within the authority, what can they do and who can they turn to to get that extra training?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think there is a misunderstanding about my noble friend Lord Agnew’s remarks. My understanding is that he said that schools have got very good at safeguarding, but there are new responsibilities on schools in this Bill and he asked whether additional training would be required and where the resource would be, rather than saying, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, seemed to infer, that this was a new thing. My noble friend knows extremely well that it is not a new thing.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
In previous groups, I have spoken at some length about the purpose and functions of these new multi-agency child protection teams and how they will be delivered as part of the existing joint and equal duty on safeguarding partners to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area.
On Amendment 34, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for his contribution on ensuring that teachers and teaching assistants have the right training to work effectively in child protection. Statutory guidance is clear that teaching staff should receive safeguarding training at induction and at least annually thereafter. My noble friend Lady Bousted was very clear about that position. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was also very passionate about the need for schools to be involved in this issue, which is precisely why on Tuesday we debated the clause about education and childcare settings being key safeguarding partners, and the improved emphasis on that in this legislation.
However, despite having this assurance, I decided in the spirit of the previous discussion that we were having that I would consult an expert about whether this is in fact the case. I consulted a teacher very close to me about the sort of training that he is receiving. He told me, “Every year, we receive statutory update training at the beginning of the year. This can take most of one of our inset days and requires us to read the updates for KCSIE”—Keeping Children Safe in Education—“guidance. Then we get update training through the year, every couple of weeks in briefing, and then about once a half-term in an after-school CPD”. He is an excellent teacher, although as his mother I am completely biased, and he is in a very good school. I think this makes the point about the current position in terms of training for teachers and teaching assistants.
There is a reasonable point to be made about the education partners. Although they already have a responsibility for safeguarding, they will now also have a more explicit role in the multi-agency child protection teams. I hope I can reassure noble Lords by saying that the statutory guidance is also clear that the statutory safeguarding partners, which include the other partners that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referred to, should support practitioners that work with children, including through creating a learning culture where practitioners stay up to date on best practice. We are clear and confident that the education practitioner in the multi-agency child protection teams will be able to operate as a crucial link to and from education and childcare settings, ensuring that school staff are supported to work effectively with vulnerable children and the child protection teams.
The pathfinder areas have developed multi-agency workforce development plans and delivered comprehensive multi-agency training that has provided opportunities not just to ensure that practitioners have the knowledge and skills they need to deliver effective child protection but to align on shared values and build these vital cross-agency relationships. Training typically covers the reforms, safeguarding responsibilities, local practice frameworks and how different roles fit together across the system. There is both an opportunity within schools and an improved opportunity, from the role of the education practitioner in the multi-agency child protection teams, to ensure that that expertise is there.
I turn now to Amendment 38, which relates to sufficient resource and delegated functions. I spoke on this in the previous group. In fact, we have, understandably, talked about it in several groups so far in Committee. I will briefly revisit the key points. The new teams will be delivered as part of the existing joint and equal duty on safeguarding partners. I have previously mentioned the flexibility in the new measures, which enables teams to operate along police and health footprints, balanced with a sharp focus on multi-agency child protection delivery, where agencies are clear about their responsibilities and accountabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, answered her own question. Of course it would not be the case that you would have the same number of multi-agency child protection teams in an authority such as Birmingham as you would have in Rutland; that would not be logical.
I am not sure that I would characterise this system as simply adding another child protection team alongside the current ones, as I think the noble Baroness said. As I said in my explanations on the previous group in particular, the intention is very much that these teams will be the place where agencies will be able to work together in the consideration of child protection cases and issues. They are quite distinct from the child protection teams that might currently exist.
In terms of resources, safeguarding partners already agree and dedicate resources as part of their local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, and the Government have provided £500 million to support the rollout of the Families First Partnership Programme, of which multi-agency child protection teams are a part, as I said previously.
I do not want to be churlish about this, but I am not sure I would have rolled up to this Committee at this point to focus particularly on how difficult school and local government funding is if I had spent the last 14 years supporting the last Government. Nevertheless, it is an important point that we ensure that there is sufficient funding, which is why this Government have already increased, in real terms, funding going to both schools and local government.
On the group before last, we responded to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, about the consequences and the process of local government reorganisation. I think I gave some reassurance on that, provided to me by my noble friend Lady Taylor.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
It was great to hear about the training that the Minister’s son gets—that is fantastic. Can we therefore take it that these new duties in the Bill will involve no additional training, and that everything is covered by the training that she eloquently set out? Alternatively, will there be additional costs or training implications? It would be interesting to know that. Obviously, there is an array, as she rightly pointed out, but does she foresee that there will be any additional requirements?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Good training is already provided for teachers and teaching assistants, but my point was that the role of the education lead practitioner would both enable and need more training to be provided. I used the example of one of the pathfinders where that training had taken place. I suspect that, with those pathfinders, it would be appropriate if some of the additional money that had been made available contributed to that. I also made the point that it is already the case that statutory partners in safeguarding are providing resources for their safeguarding responsibilities. The point about multi-agency child protection teams is that they will enable that resource to be spent more effectively at the point when it will impact on children’s lives.
Lord Hampton (CB)
I add to the Minister’s son’s view that a lot of this training is already being done. As a working teacher, I note that we do inset days and online and offline CPD. As far as I remember, it is still a requirement of Ofsted that every teacher, when questioned, should have a working knowledge of Keeping Children Safe in Education. A plea that has oft been made to me is to ask the Minister—I have asked previous Ministers too—whether, when Keeping Children Safe in Education is updated, that could be done before the beginning of September, so that inset days can be planned with the new guidance rather than the old.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Lord reinforced my point—I think I am in big trouble with my son for having outed him in this debate. I am glad to hear that other excellent teachers have experienced this training. The noble Lord makes a very fair point. I will certainly go back to my colleagues in the department and say that, in reality, if we want people to be trained and updated on Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance, and if we expect that to happen at an inset day at the start of a school year, it would be a good idea if the guidance was there in time for them to be able to do that. That is a fair request.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I thank the Minister for her answers. I reassure her that I was not trying to suggest that this is a whole new scale of undertaking for teachers. My noble friend Lady Barran was right: I was trying to understand the scale of it, because this is a big and complex Bill. The Minister was helpful in saying that her son, who is dealing with this on the front line, feels that one inset day will be sufficient for the kind of familiarisation that will be needed. I am not trying to put words in her mouth. I am trying to say that, in my experience, a Bill of this complexity will need quite a lot of CPD for our teaching cohort—that is where I am coming from.
We have a specific amount of time available, because of the 1,265 rule, which, again, we will work to. Every hour that is taken away from what teachers are doing at the moment is one that has to be filled. I take absolutely at face value what the Minister has said, and I am encouraged that she has in her immediate life someone who can give her front-line experience. I genuinely mean that, because that is where I am coming from. I tabled this amendment because head teachers in my academy trust had asked me to clarify the situation. It was put forward with the best of intentions.
Baroness Barran
Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment which seeks to question the effectiveness of the drafting of 16LA
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 41, I shall speak to Amendments 45 and 46 in my name. I look forward the speech of my noble friend Lady Spielman, on her Amendment 69, and take this opportunity, on behalf of the Committee, to wish her a very happy birthday.
As I set out in an earlier group, I hope that my prior experience in setting up information-sharing fora at scale in relation to high-risk domestic abuse will be useful as the Committee debates these important changes.
My Amendment 41, as well as Amendment 42, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, would remove the duty to share information in relation to safeguarding welfare for the agencies referred to in new subsection (4), which include the statutory safeguarding partners—police, local authorities and health, education and childcare agencies, and any person who is doing work for either group. That could refer to, for example, an independent chair in a serious case review. Can the Minister be clear about who is intended to be covered by new paragraph (c)?
My concerns about this part of the Bill are that it feels, when you read it, as if it is taking information-sharing in isolation. It seems to imagine a world where a relevant partner—let us say a school or a child-minding agency—has information that it is concerned about a child, which it passes on to the local authority, and then that is it. I know that that is not the Government’s intention, but I am trying to make sure that the Bill does what the Government intend it to do.
In practice, you need information-sharing protocols, and a place where you can discuss the information that you have shared. The Minister earlier referred to Annie Hudson’s comments about people being in the same place. You also need to be together to agree what actions to take in relation to that information. I cannot see how any of that works in the Bill. The Minister may say that it is not for the Government to prescribe these things, but we have a lot here in regulation and guidance, and it would be helpful if the Minister could elaborate and say exactly what the guidance will cover.
My other worry is that, in real life, you often do not know the significance of the information that you hold until you join it together with information from other agencies. We used to say at SafeLives, “You don’t know what you don’t know”. When the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, was the Minister, I remember taking one of her colleagues from the Home Office to visit one of these multi-agency meetings, which I thought would almost certainly be the kiss of death for our future relationship with the Home Office, but we survived. There was a case of sharing information, which I remember very vividly, where the police officer said that they knew about the case, they had attended the address seven times, the woman was always drunk and, on the final occasion, they fined her for wasting police time. As we went around the table, it came to the representative from the A&E team, a nurse, who looked at the police officer as only nurses can and asked him to run through the dates of those attendances, which he did. She said that they had had an attendance on every one of those nights for that woman, she had several broken bones and they had an attendance from the child the next day who had, they were told, fallen off his bike. We do not need miles of domestic abuse training to know that neither party could probably put those things together until they had heard the other side.
Even on a simpler level, any of your Lordships who have been involved in this work will know that in the same family you can have one child who is causing all sorts of trouble in school and is visibly disturbed, and a sibling who wants to stay for every after-school club and is the most immaculately behaved. I know that a Bill cannot address all those permutations, but we just need reassurance that the Government have thought this through in practice.
It is also frequently not responsible to share information if nothing is going to happen with it. We are not just offloading risk from what we know on to another agency. The balancing considerations in the data protection legislation are there for a reason and we should respect people’s privacy unless we think that, by sharing information, we will make them safer.
It is important to have a full picture of a child’s life when considering safeguarding concerns. I wonder how this works where, say, the school shares a low-level concern with health because it is the most relevant statutory agency but, in the same case, the police share different information with the local authority. That is not clear to me. I know who, in theory, should hold the full picture, but in practice how does the local authority social work team hold the whole picture? Crucially, how is that picture kept up to date? Similarly, where is the duty for the lead safeguarding agencies to share back with wider organisations what action they have taken based on the information that was shared? Those organisations need to know how they can help, what they can do that would make a child safer and, indeed, what they could do that might increase risk to a child.
It is also not clear to me from the Bill what the threshold is for sharing. The duty in new Section 16LA(1)(a) and (b) states that a person to whom the section applies—in this case, all the 400-plus schools, nurseries and childminders in a typical local authority that my noble friend Lady Spielman referred to on Tuesday—will have a duty to share information that is
“relevant to safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the child”.
That is obviously incredibly broad and would require a lot of resource if it is followed to the letter. Again, when I look at the impact assessment, I cannot see how that has been fully accounted for. If the Minister could elaborate, that would be very helpful.
I also think that agencies will need guidance about when to disclose information, as the law obviously allows them to do this today, and this does not change those duties. Even statutory partners such as the police benefit from guidance, and we need to strike a balance between hypervigilance, on one hand, and information dumping—sharing everything and risk aversion—on the other.
It is also not clear to me from the Bill whether education and childcare agencies should seek consent, presumably from the parent rather than the child, before sharing information, and where public interest overrides consent. In practice, as the Minister knows, there is a blurry line when sharing information about a child. Say the child came into school unwashed, in unwashed clothes, for the fourth day in a row. That might be something specific about the child that is legal to share, but it implicitly shares information about the parents, where the balancing considerations might play out differently.
In a world where agencies trust one another, this becomes a two-way street. The local authority makes a request of a nursery for information, for example, but can the nursery make a request of the local authority? More specifically, how do the Government think that subject access requests will be handled? I think of my grandson’s former childminder, who was wonderful. How do we expect those mom-and-pop or mom-and-mom organisations to deal with this, both administratively and in human terms?
My noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 49 raises the point about retaining public trust in the process, including by clarifying the need to maintain records of processing disclosures made under this new section. I could go on, but I do not think I need to. Inserting new Section 16LA is the right thing to do, but getting it right in practice is fiendishly difficult. Moving from a world where education and childcare agencies can and do share information with statutory agencies about the safeguarding and welfare of children to a world where they have a duty to do so, without having tested this in practice, may throw up all sorts of unintended consequences, so I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure me. I think it would be unfair to expect her to address each of those points in detail, but will she consider them, comment on those that she can and perhaps find out from the department whether there have been any pilots of this approach? If there have been any in the Families First Partnership areas, how is that going?
I turn to my other amendments. As noble Lords will know, the Public Bill Office here has done a beyond superhuman job in tabling a huge number of amendments. I am ashamed to say that some came from me at a very late hour, and I am hugely grateful, but I think that my Amendments 45 and 46 overlap; we do not need them both.
These amendments link to some of the points that we raised on Clause 3. I am thinking about cases in which information unexpectedly emerges about significant risk, either to another sibling or to an adult in the family or extended family, which is, if I can sneak it back in, why I prefer Amendment 45 over Amendment 46. The former, in relation to a sibling, is easier to deal with. Domestic abuse is an obvious concern, and I know that the Minister shares my concerns about that. Our actions must be prioritised to safeguard the child, but that could in turn increase risk to the victim, which ironically could then make things worse for the child. The victim discloses domestic abuse to the childminder, who then reports it to the local authority and the police. The police turn up and, as we know, in many cases no further action is taken, and that perhaps silences the victim from seeking help. I know the Minister is familiar with the fact that we cannot legislate for every human behaviour, but I am just thinking through the risks, both to the victim and to the child, in such a case.
I will give another true case from many years ago. An abusive father was the carer for his mother, and adult services were unaware of the concerns about his behaviour despite the fact that his mother kept falling out of bed and injuring herself. Within this approach, I wonder how those wider information-sharing gaps will be bridged. My amendment is probing, but I want reassurance that the Government have thought these things through. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and the contributions of other noble Lords.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 53 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield. It is designed to ensure timely implementation of the single unique identifier, otherwise known in the Bill as the consistent identifier.
Timely access to high-quality and personalised education, health and social care services is fundamental for good childhood outcomes and reducing inequalities. Important information on children’s needs and outcomes is, as we know, held by many different services across health, local authorities, police, education and beyond, but so often these services have not communicated with each other and crucial parts of the jigsaw around a child’s life have not been fitted together by professionals interacting with the child. Sometimes that results in tragic cases, as the Minister mentioned earlier.
Clause 4 inserts two new sections into the Children Act 2004 on information sharing. This includes a provision to introduce a consistent identifier for children, which is to be welcomed. Many Peers from around the House, including my noble friend Lady Tyler, argued strongly for the introduction of a single unique identifier for children during the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022, in which I also took part. We know that too many serious safeguarding case reviews—especially the heartbreaking and harrowing ones that hit the headlines—have said that better data sharing between services is urgently needed to properly safeguard children and improve their wider health and well-being outcomes. This very welcome clause is intended to provide a clearer legal basis for sharing information to promote the welfare of children and prevent them falling through the gaps. Through the introduction of this unique consistent identifier, it will be much easier to match records and share information confidently.
Implementation within this Parliament of this crucial measure, as promised in the Government’s manifesto, is paramount. We cannot run the risk of it being lost in a subsequent Parliament if it is no longer considered a priority. That is why many in the sector, particularly children’s charities, are working together to scrutinise the planned timescales and implementation plan.
As things stand, there is a risk that full implementation of this identifier will not take place before the next general election. The NHS and local authorities might be using a common identifier by 2029, but schools, early years settings and the police might not. Partial implementation would fundamentally undermine the benefits of a single identifier. Either all services should be supported to use it soon, or the purpose will be lost and children will continue to be at risk. Hence Amendment 53 would ensure that full implementation of this part of the Bill takes place before the next election, as set out in the Labour manifesto.
I will say a brief word about some of the other amendments. I also have concerns about other possible vulnerable members of the family, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised. I look forward to hearing reassurances on that from the Minister.
On Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, which has not yet been introduced, it sounds to me like a good idea that the data should be consistent, so that those accessing it will understand exactly what it means. I am concerned it might turn into a tick-box exercise, although I hope that would not be the case. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 69 would make provision for a common open data standard for those with responsibilities for individual children. I will start with a couple of wider comments. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, as chief inspector at Ofsted, I reported each year, for many years, on the concerning shift of local authority spend into acute services and away from early help and targeted support. The reasons why that was happening seemed fairly simple: resources were constrained and these were the statutory services, so it was logical for local authorities to prioritise their spend on those.
I was therefore surprised when the Minister cited this concerning shift as a reason for the changes proposed in the care review and in the Bill. There are potentially much simpler solutions, such as rebalancing the obligations or providing funding. Yet this Bill creates a lot of additional structures, duties and complexity, which could unintentionally take more resources and time away from front-line work, which I know everybody would like to prioritise. I would like to get more sense of the thinking as to how the Bill can enable all the players in an extremely complex system, rather than simply direct and control from the ministerial office.
A particular missed opportunity is data and the value of a common open data standard to help facilitate sharing at individual level, but also to make it easier to aggregate and analyse. Every service working with vulnerable children has its own data system. Typically, a number of proprietary systems are available in each sector; each of those is set up and works in different ways. There are no common data standards for the bodies involved. This makes it genuinely hard. There have been obligations to share data between the different parties for very many years, yet every serious case review points out failures in data sharing, almost without exception.
It is right that we have privacy by default, so it is a hard decision each time you decide it is important to share information and override privacy. The process of sharing is itself time-consuming and expensive, because these systems do not work to any common standard. There would be potential improvement in the management of individual cases if we can reach the kind of common open data standard that is being developed and used in other sectors.
In the care review, everybody realised quite how hard it often is to put together a national picture with data about social care. The understandable protection around individual children, and the kinds of disconnect that have already been referred to, mean that information about those who are causing harm, or the children or others who are collateral damage in the same situation, is not necessarily neatly joined up. It is genuinely hard to find out about types of abuse and all its different aspects, and who is implicated. This is a real problem; it should not be down only to journalists armed with FOIs to go hunting for things that we should already know about and be acting on.
As chief inspector, I served until the end of 2023 on the national implementation board for the care review. I was sitting alongside the eminent professor, Sir Anthony Finkelstein, who is a data systems expert and gave me valuable input into the framing of this amendment.
Data was an important strand of the initial care review and the report, and an important part of the initial plan for its implementation, but it seems to have got largely lost. So, I have put forward this amendment to bring this strand to the fore. The Minister should make sure that this opportunity is not lost to enable all the players in this complex system. By making this provision now, she will have the flexibility to set a sensible, reasonable and proportionate timescale for all these proprietary providers to start creating the kinds of alignment that can help us going into the future to do the best for all children.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I cannot resist picking up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said about the two children whose approach to education was so different. It happened exactly in my family. What I can tell noble Lords is that, as a parent, it makes life very interesting.
I particularly support the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, and her Amendment 69. I also take this opportunity to strongly support Clause 4, and I will give two examples of its unbelievable importance. First, when I did the Cleveland child abuse inquiry, it was absolutely obvious that nobody was speaking to anybody—the police, social workers, paediatricians and the psychiatrists. Literally nobody was sharing information about anything.
Okay, that was a very long time ago. However, I was very recently at a conference where we were discussing certain aspects of safeguarding. A senior police officer told me that he was trying to work with Peterborough local authority, which would not speak to him about the issues he wanted to discuss. I have wondered ever since what on earth I could say about it, so I am raising it here today. It was last month that I was being told that.
The real problem is getting people to talk to each other. I understood and listened with great interest to the various problems that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised, but at the end of the day, what really matters is that Clause 4 be agreed to with whatever alterations are necessary, because nothing could be more important than these two things: information sharing and sensible, adequate data.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry not to have been able to speak at Second Reading, but I take a great interest in the effectiveness of public services and improving them where we can. I was sorry that there was not much discussion that day of the importance of information-sharing across agencies involved in social care, although the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, spoke about it, and we have of course heard eloquently today from the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, in introducing her amendment.
Of the 12 million children in the UK, about 400,000 are in the social care system, which is far too many. History and avoidable scandals show that in this sector, poor recording and sharing of information, as well as, of course, poor follow-up, are sometimes responsible for failures in our care system, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has borne witness to that again today. This lets down children, young people and the families who are served, and it is bad for social services, which find it harder to recruit, and spend time fighting fires rather than improving people’s lives. As the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, has already said, intervention needs to be timely.
The fallout from mistakes also increases the ever-rising cost of the system and delays essential appointments and training, so there needs to be much more success in getting things right first time and intervening early enough. All of that means the sharing of information in a timely fashion is critical to the reforms to social care. In scrutinising this Bill, we need to be sure that the system of data collection, use and aggregation to improve the system learns from the best, and we need to understand how much of that will be in subordinate legislation—a question my noble friend Lady Barran has already asked.
I support Amendment 41 and other probing amendments in my noble friend’s name. She is rightly seeking answers to some important questions on consent, on the threshold for information recording and sharing, and on the compliance cost across the many bodies and agencies involved, including, as she said, even childminders.
However, I want to go somewhere different. I read with particular interest page 219 in section 8.8 of Josh McAllister’s Independent Review of Children’s Social Care. The report, I believe, is the inspiration for much of the Government’s reforms. For today’s purposes, the proposal for a national data and technology taskforce is of particular importance. The case study on the positive experience in Bristol, using the Think Family Database, is instructive. It brought together data from 30 sources, including the council, the police, the DfE, the NHS, the DWP and social care itself. That is the kind of joined-up approach we need—and it is happening here and now. I just hope that this is not one of the areas with issues.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I make just one point about the proposed new sections to be added by Clause 4 to the 2004 Act, as probed by these amendments. They would introduce an all-important duty to share information and, it should be noted, a discretion to withhold information. It is important to appreciate that, as drafted, the duty to share and the discretion not to share depend only, as I read it, on the subjective views of the person holding the information as to the relevance of that information to safeguarding or welfare and as to the potential detriment of disclosure. Those are crucial factors, but I question whether what happens or does not happen should depend solely on the subjective views of the information holder, which is what appears to be in the new section. I suggest it should be an objective test: if the information is relevant, it should be disclosed; if disclosure would be more detrimental to the child than non-disclosure, it should not be disclosed. Those decisions should not necessarily depend on what the individual information holder considers appropriate. Surely, the holder should be expected to apply an objective test when considering what is best for a vulnerable child.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, the Minister may mention this in her response to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s question about the data task force, but I just wanted to mention the Cabinet Office Evaluation Task Force, which is tasked with improving and addressing data across every area of government. Obviously, it cannot do that with every area of government, so it picked 10 priority areas, one of which is children’s social care. I mention it in the context of the excellent amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, because it could make a huge far-reaching difference. If it were to be looked at, then perhaps speaking to the Cabinet Office might be useful.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, briefly, these clauses are going to be incredibly important to empower information sharing, but I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for having raised so many of the practical concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has just asked for some objective criteria, but from my experience in general practice and, many years ago, in paediatrics, there did not seem to be a clear line very often—there were of shades of grey, an index of suspicion and a sense that something might not be right long before you could establish any objective evidence. The objective evidence sometimes came far too late.
I will never forget a child who, 50 years ago, had been dipped in boiling water. I was the admitting person in the A&E department as a junior doctor, having only just started in paediatrics. There were children admitted with injuries, and then when we went into it, we discovered that things had been going wrong for a long time previously. Later on, when I was on the health authority for Gwent, we had some tragic cases there, which I cannot disclose details of, but one of the recurring themes was that people had not put together the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle or connected the dots to realise what was happening.
So I worry that we will not ever be able to have absolute criteria; we have to allow discretion, which is what this amendment does. I note that subsection (7) of the new section states that:
“A disclosure of information … does not breach any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure.”
That is helpful, because, hopefully, you will see the person over and over again once you have an index of suspicion to try to ascertain what is going on before you trigger the referral, and the Bill says that each of those encounters must be documented. So you would document why you had not triggered at that point but you might trigger later.
It would be really helpful if, when the Minister responds to this debate, she can outline the way that the system is thought to work in practice and where the central repository of data will be. There is a concern that you can put data into a system, whatever the system is, but if you do not mine that data—if you do not have flags that come up that put the pieces together—you may get a lot of people, all saying, “Oh, but I reported it in”, and it goes into some kind of data black hole without really being joined up. There will need to be a responsibility for saying, “This looks like more than a one-off occurrence. There’s something going on here and it needs to be investigated”.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, since the very first inquiry into the tragic death of Dennis O’Neill in 1945, we have seen time and again that poor information sharing lies at the heart of serious child safeguarding failures. It is a persistent and deeply troubling issue, and if we are serious about protecting children, we must be serious about fixing this. I think there has been in this group of amendments with respect to this clause a pretty strong consensus around this House on that point.
The introduction of an information-sharing duty in Clause 4 marks a step forward in that mission, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, identified why, despite there being some progress, there is nevertheless still a need for the clarity and the permission provided by the duty in the Bill. In speaking to the amendments, I recognise that they raise important questions about how we will make this legislation work in practice. I will attempt to respond to as many as possible, and where I do not, I will try to ensure that I provide that information later.
Amendment 41 challenges the clarity and effectiveness of the duty to share information as set out in new Section 16LA. Let me be clear: as I have suggested, the new information-sharing duty is a significant development. It places a legal obligation on relevant organisations to share information to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. These organisations are already bound by a statutory duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when exercising their functions.
I think it might be at this point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked who was captured in new Section 16LA(4)(c) of the information-sharing duty. New paragraph (c) relates to those relevant people undertaking functions on behalf of those organisations with Section 11 duties—so, for example, GPs who work on behalf of NHSE and other individuals relating to those organisations with Section 11 duties. It responds directly to feedback in the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, which found that, despite legislation permitting information sharing for safeguarding, practitioners often see it as a barrier due to confusing organisational agreements and arrangements.
In developing this duty, officials have worked closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office, practitioners and other government departments to draft the measure. The duty is not about increasing the number of referrals to children’s social care—in fact, precisely the opposite, we could argue. It is about enabling practitioners to share and request information so that they can understand what life is truly like for a child and the significance of the information they hold. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave a good example of a whole range of different sets of information coming together to create a very different and worrying story about a child. I would also argue that it is probably a good example of a multi-agency child protection team being able to bring all that information together to decide on the action needed, but it exemplified how we can get a much clearer picture if we promote information sharing, which is what this duty is all about.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed response, and I look forward to her letter on some of the even more detailed points that I think deserve clarification. It was reassuring to hear her confirmation that there will be user testing going on, as she said. I wish her and colleagues in the department good luck with the consent guidance, because it is hard. If you are in a nursery and you are worried that a child is being neglected, getting consent from the parent is not a comfortable conversation, but not telling them and them finding out could put the child at greater risk. It always was hard and does not get any easier.
On my noble friend Lady Spielman’s amendment on open data standards, it was good to hear the Minister’s response that work is going on in that area. Maybe in future debates we can get clarity about some sense of timing. Going back to the earlier debates on Clause 3, one of the biggest blocks to multi-agency work is just how slow it is to get data out of different systems to be able to share it. Can the Government do anything to smooth that along? I thought the experience of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was extremely helpful in that regard.
We have at least two examples—there may be more—of doing these big data transformation projects quickly when we need to. The first was the linking of primary and secondary healthcare data—not schools—during the pandemic, so that we could predict ICU bed capacity needs. The second is, as the Minister knows, my favourite: attendance data. That has been a game-changer and, happily, we are seeing attendance start to improve. I am glad to hear that the department is taking that seriously.
Baroness Barran
“(3A) 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.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require that decisions made not to disclose information must be recorded.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, my Amendments 44, 47 and 48 all relate to the recording of information-sharing decisions, and they cover the two obvious situations: one where information is shared and one where it is not shared because the relevant person considers that sharing it would be more detrimental to the child than not sharing it. These amendments seek to clarify what the expectations are on all agencies, from the smallest childminder to the largest college, in terms of recording their decisions and the reasons for those decisions.
Keeping good records is obviously essential but it takes time and requires secure storage and access rights. Good record-keeping can improve safeguarding situations; for example, where there are changes of staff or somebody is on holiday and a new or temporary member of staff may not know the history of the case. Similarly, an agency may decide not to share information at one point and then decide at a subsequent point that it is in the best interests of the child’s safety and welfare to do so.
I would like to press the Minister on cases where the decision is made not to share information because of the fear that it would be detrimental to the child’s safety. As discussed earlier, we do not know what we do not know. So one piece of information might not seem overly worrying but, when pieced together with others, as we have discussed, the picture changes. Also, we need confidence that practitioners are considering these decisions with care. No one expects perfection in these areas but, rather, defensible not defensive decision-making.
Will the Minister comment in this regard on subsections (5) and (6), which I assume will be clarified in regulations? Having a clear decision-making process, to record as simply as possible the decision taken and the reasons for it, will improve the quality of decision-making. In a serious case incident, by which I mean when a child is killed or seriously harmed, it will be vital, so I ask again: how is this going to work in practice? I can see that, if you are a strong local authority, a strong trust or a large college, this might be close to business as usual, but what about the single small primary school head who has to deal with this, along with 55 other responsibilities, or the nursery or the childminder? I look forward to the Minister’s remarks. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in group six, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendments 44, 47 and 48 seek to require practitioners to keep records of decisions made when processing information under the new information-sharing duty. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that documenting such decisions is important for the reasons that she outlined. This principle is already embedded in the non-statutory guidance Information Sharing: Guidance for Practitioners and Managers, as well as in the Information Commissioner’s Office’s A 10 Step Guide to Sharing Information to Safeguard Children, both of which promote clear and proportionate record keeping.
In relation to the points that the noble Baroness made about smaller organisations having to carry this out, I shall read an extract from the non-statutory guidance that I think is helpful. It includes the advice:
“Record the reasons for your information sharing decision, irrespective of whether or not you decide to share information. When another practitioner or organisation requests information from you, and you decide not to share it, be prepared to explain why you chose not to do so. Be willing to reconsider your decision if the requestor shares new information that might cause you to regard information you hold in a new light. When recording any decision, clearly set out the rationale and be prepared to explain your reasons if you are asked”.
Furthermore, data protection legislation includes key principles such as lawfulness, transparency and, crucially, accountability, which require organisations to demonstrate compliance with data protection obligations.
Our plan is, as the noble Baroness surmised, to introduce statutory guidance covering matters such as appropriate record keeping. Agencies must have regard to the guidance in discharging the duty, which further strengthens the position of recording decisions. We think this strikes the right balance by ensuring that audit trails are in place, as she outlined, without placing unnecessary administrative burdens on practitioners who are already, as she said, working under significant pressure. I hope that has reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Could the Minister perhaps show us an example of the kind of guidance that is already given to a childminder or a small primary school? Presumably that is going to be enhanced—I think she said that earlier. Are there, say, 30 questions? Is it just a small form? Is there an online option? Generation Z, of course, is increasingly keen to report online.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I did read an extract from the non-statutory guidance that already exists, Information Sharing: Advice for Practitioners Providing Safeguarding Services for Children, Young People, Parents and Carers. As I also said, there is the Information Commissioner’s Office’s A 10 Step Guide to Sharing Information to Safeguard Children. I am sure they are 10 straightforward steps.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Only 10 steps. I am reassured that the Minister has considered this carefully. I think my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is right to probe gently in relation to the smallest organisations, where familiarity with this degree of responsibility may be less great and it could cause some anxiety. So, in addition to the guidance, there might need to be some support for those organisations—but I am sure the Minister will consider that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Cash
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable a general discussion of inserted section 16LB.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 50, tabled by my noble friends Lord Lucas, Lord Farmer and Lady Barran, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group: Amendments 54 to 60 and 62 to 63A. I list them at the outset because some of the same points apply in respect of several amendments. These amendments were tabled in the same spirit of probing and collaboration that has seen this House at its very best this afternoon. I pay tribute to the extremely experienced and knowledgeable voices we have heard, including from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others across the House who unfortunately have departed but who shared their expertise of working in this area and with this challenge.
It is reassuring to us all that we are united in support of data sharing—there appears to be no dispute on that—and the questions are about how we do it and how we make sure that it is easily accessible and safe. It was in that spirit that these amendments were tabled in respect of the consistent identifier. We would be very grateful to the Minister for her assistance in answering some of the questions they give rise to.
It is 52 years since the country first woke up to the dangers of not sharing information, in the case of Maria Colwell. Her school, neighbours and social worker all had concerns, but they were not pieced together. Fifty-two years later, we are here in this House, in spite of the efforts of all parties in the other place to do their very best to find a way to data share at different times since. Thirty years later, the Victoria Climbié case highlighted the same, and we know that, recently, too, no common identifier and shared case file was the issue in the terrible case of Sara Sharif.
However, there are problems with data sharing. In fact, the last time that noble Lords on the opposite Benches were in government, in 2004, the introduction of ContactPoint under the Children Act 2004 had to be abandoned for privacy reasons, to the great regret of all of us who are concerned with these matters and work in this area in some capacity or other. In this sense, I declare my interest as the co-founder of Parent Gym and the owner of Mind Gym.
I turn to the individual amendments, some of which are quite self-explanatory. As the Minister will have seen, Amendment 50 is a general probing amendment to facilitate a discussion looking at the use of a single consistent identifier and the data issues.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I advise noble Lords that, if Amendment 50 were agreed to, Amendments 51 to 64 could not be called because of pre-emption.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, these are probably the sorts of things that we should be doing in Committee. The noble Baroness introduced these amendments very well but I did, I am afraid—having known him for a long time—see the hand of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in them. It is definitely his style, as all those who have known him for a long time would say. These are definitely the sorts of questions that we need answered, about the practicality of what is going to happen. All systems will have their flaws, but this is about having the structure to cope with those flaws. Getting that through would be very valuable.
To give fair warning, I will not move my amendment on the NHS number identifier later on.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I support Amendment 50, as well as the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who gives his apologies to your Lordships’ Committee, as he is unable to be here to speak to his own amendments. I do so in the spirit of my noble friend Lady Cash, because these are probing amendments by and large, from a position of broad support for the objectives that the Government have laid down in this part of the Bill. Nevertheless, they are amendments that seek clarity in respect of the proposals that the Government are putting forward.
We need more information about the Government’s intention in adding new Section 16LB to the Children Act 2004. Such scrutiny is essential given that it would enable the Government to set in train a process that will be achieved through regulations—secondary legislation —but nevertheless is very far reaching and potentially re-establishes a regime that, as we have heard previously, was abolished in 2010 by the coalition Government for reasons that I will come on to.
It is hard to disagree with the logic that a single unique identifier would prevent children getting lost in systems that are meant to keep them safe, for example, if they are known by different names or their names are not spelled correctly, as happened in the tragic case of Victoria Climbié. I absolutely concur with my noble friend: the name Maria Colwell and other tragic cases hang over someone like me, who served on a social services committee, and many social workers and other professionals over many years. Ensuring that children do not slip through the net or disappear without services knowing where they have gone is paramount, as so many appalling national scandals involving dead or desperately abused children have shown.
It is appropriate that we look at the history and genesis of ContactPoint. It is important to be mindful of the need for qualitative data, not just quantitative data collection; there is a difference. Hence in 2003, in his report about the death of Victoria Climbié, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, recommended the establishment of a new national children’s database for all children under the age of 16. While scrutinising this report six months later, the Health Select Committee in the other place expressed reservations, saying:
“We believe that establishing a national database for children along the lines envisaged by the Laming Report would represent a major practical and technical challenge that should not be underestimated”.
The committee was instinctively open to the concept, likely for the same reasons that many are advocating for it today: if good data can save children’s lives, it of course needs further exploration. The committee went on to say that the implementation difficulties should not be a deterrent and endorsed the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for a feasibility study to explore the value and practicality of setting up a national database for children.
In 2004, as we heard, trailblazer pilots were conducted to assess the feasibility of implementing a children’s information index. Nine local authorities piloted a range of IT applications and a government study of the indexes concluded that implementation was operationally and technically feasible. By 2009, the Children’s Information Sharing Index had been renamed ContactPoint, with the aim of all local authority ContactPoint management teams having access to the database by autumn 2009. In old money, the estimated development and set-up cost of ContactPoint was £224 million and the estimated maintenance cost in 2009-10 was just under £44 million; most of this latter sum was for local staff to operate, maintain and ensure the security of ContactPoint.
Some giving evidence to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee in the Commons—and arguing strenuously for the SUI—were among those running ContactPoint back then and benefiting from those sizeable contracts. In their defence, they saw this as part of a bigger package and emphasised the need for early intervention in communities and strong relationships with families. The Children’s Charities Coalition said that,
“to really shift the dial we need further investment in early intervention and early help across our communities, and much greater focus on embedding that consistently and universally”.
It also called for further clarification on how the single unique identifier will be effectively applied.
Returning to the ContactPoint database, which was, as I said, abolished by the incoming Government in 2010, it was designed to contain names, ages, addresses and information of all children aged under 18, as well as information about their parents, schools and medical records. Respected organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust quantified the scale and financial cost of data collection, the methods used to maintain and secure the data, and the treatment of critical issues such as consent, as part of a wider study. Its researchers found that children are among “the most at risk” from what they called Britain’s “database state”, with three of the largest databases set up to support and protect children failing to achieve their aims.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 59, ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Cash, and Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer. The points made by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough about some of the risks with the consistent identifier are incredibly important to get right. Nearly all of us in this House support the introduction of a consistent identifier, but the points about data protection, privacy and malicious use that he raised, as well as a potential extension of scope, need to be resolved before it can be implemented safely at scale.
My thinking behind probing Amendment 59 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lucas was to ask the Minister—if she can bear it at this stage of the afternoon—to run through again how we think this will work in practice for the smallest organisations. In the last group, she set out clearly the non-statutory guidance around balancing considerations and recording information. It sounds straightforward when read out like that, but, as we know, it is more complicated in real life. We are expecting those very small organisations to input and hold data on a consistent identifier in a way that is secure.
I do not think previous speakers raised the risk of data hacking. We recently had concerns over the cyberattack on the legal aid database, where personal, sensitive information was stolen by the cyberhackers. Clearly, this is not the kind of thing that should happen with children’s data. What thought have the Minister and her team given to that?
Can the Minister also confirm whether the use of the single unique identifier has been tested with all types of practitioner? I think she mentioned the pilot in Wigan, but does that include the smallest practitioners as well as the largest, and what practical implementation lessons can be learned from that?
Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer—who cannot be in his place today—which was very well introduced by my noble friend Lord Jackson, is a small but important amendment. Noble Lords have referred to the terrible death of Victoria Climbié. I remember reading the report many years ago; if I remember rightly, eight different files were held on her, partly because she had lived in two local authorities and partly because her name kept being spelled differently, which was one of the reasons why the risk of harm to her was missed. That is an argument in favour of a consistent identifier, but information can still be inputted incorrectly, including numbers—we will have a debate soon on dyscalculia. It is a very serious issue, as is the point, which I had not thought of but should have done, about how malicious information that is shared and recorded could ever be removed. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and thought-provoking debate on an important topic: namely, how we use a unique identifier in the interests of safeguarding our children. Noble Lords have quite rightly raised some crucial questions for the Minister to answer, particularly relating to privacy and aiming to clarify His Majesty’s Government’s purpose in this clause.
We hope that the Minister will be able to shed further light on both the specific and broader issues. I believe Amendment 56, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, and Amendment 63, in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer, are both important as they seek to outline what should be in future regulations. We are interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on these, and seek to clarify if the Government would consider publishing draft regulations during the passage of the Bill.
Similarly, Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer highlights the crucial issue of accurate and secure data collection, as well as the recording and storage of that data. I appreciate that technology has moved on, but many noble Lords will remember the child benefit data loss in 2007, the cyberattack and theft of data from the Legal Aid Agency only last week and the current disruptions from a cyberattack that one of our major high street retailers is facing. This is a real and present danger, which is only going to increase. The loose nature of the clause creates veritable and justifiable concerns.
On more specific issues, we are particularly interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on Amendment 54 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer. Can she please give the Committee an example of a similar set of identifiers that is of general application? We also look forward to the Minister’s response to Amendment 59, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, which would, if accepted, allow this project to move forward on a much lower risk and much more affordable basis.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in group 7, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Lucas, and ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. There has been consensus, once again, on a consistent identifier for children, also referred to as a single unique identifier, which has long been recognised as a powerful tool to improve information sharing across agencies. It featured prominently in both the Children’s Commissioner’s Family Review and theIndependent Review of Children’s Social Care, which described its potential to
“ensure that data can be easily, quickly and accurately linked”.
The reality is that, without a consistent identifier, professionals are forced to rely on a patchwork of variable data—names, dates of birth, addresses—all of which can change, be misspelled or be incomplete, as has been pointed out. This not only slows down the process but increases the risk of mismatches and missed opportunities to intervene early.
If we are serious about improving multi-agency working and safeguarding outcomes, then we must be equally serious about the infrastructure that underpins it. A consistent identifier is not a silver bullet, but it is a foundational step towards more integrated, responsive and effective support for children and families.
I recognise the spirit in which the amendments have been proposed and I will answer almost all the questions—in fact, I will be more ambitious and say that I will answer all the questions in my response.
Amendment 50 provides an opportunity for a broader —and welcome—discussion of the consistent identifier. This amendment, however, seeks to remove the provision for a consistent identifier for children, despite it being a clear manifesto commitment. I understand why that is the case.
I say in response to that probing amendment that we have deliberately made provision for the specification of a consistent identifier through regulations, rather than in the Bill. This allows us the necessary flexibility to pilot the use of the NHS number, for example, and to address the wide barriers to effective information sharing. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that we recognise in the piloting the need to ensure that this can be implemented for all organisations, including some of the small organisations that she identified, and we will test this through the piloting. Let me be clear: we will proceed only when we are confident of the benefits, costs, security, and governance of such a system.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I have a factual question. How many wrong NHS numbers are there each year, and is there a viable and reliable process for sorting them out?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thought I was doing quite well, but I am afraid that I do not have the answer to that. If it is possible to find it out, I will let the noble Baroness know.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister profusely for the detailed response and thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It has been a very helpful, probing debate and an opportunity for expression by so many experts of their concerns in this respect.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in such detail the consideration already given to these matters, particularly by reference to the conversations that have been taking place with medical professionals and the Information Commissioner. That is extremely reassuring to know, and we hope that that will continue and will be helpful.
The Government have an unenviable but laudable task ahead to implement this. I am sure I share the view of many of my noble friends in wishing them extremely strong success in achieving it, in the interests of all children and to safeguard against all future possible tragedies. The Minister will be grateful to know that I have nothing further to add, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 50.
Baroness Barran
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision relating to the consistent identifier.(2) For the purposes of this section the NHS number is the consistent identifier.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the single use identifier is described on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, my remarks on this group have shrunk somewhat, thanks to the Minister’s earlier reply, so this is really an opportunity for her to confirm and clarify some of her earlier comments in relation to the use of the NHS number, which is addressed through my Amendment 51, which I think shares the aims of Amendment 52, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, presented in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, earlier.
The context for considering this group of amendments is the long debate that has run for many years about whether there should be a consistent identifier for children and, if so, what that number should be. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, has campaigned on this very actively over many years, so I am sure she is here with us in spirit.
I was very reassured to hear the Minister say that there would not be a database and therefore that we do not have to worry about some of the concerns surrounding ContactPoint and other similar projects today. As your Lordships’ House knows, the Children’s Commissioner and leading children’s charities all support this move and believe that a consistent identifier
“will enable a child to be identified with more confidence”
across the multiplicity of information management systems that we know exist and therefore allow information
“to be shared more efficiently and securely when consent has been received or a safeguarding decision has been made to do so”.
Rightly, the assumption in their statement is that is that information can be shared only with consent—or, to be fair, if a safeguarding decision has been made to do so, which implies that there is no consent. So obviously, this will apply in both cases.
My amendment would do two things. First, it would put in the Bill that the consistent identifier would be a child’s NHS number. Many commentators on the Bill have said that it is important to do this rather than leaving it to regulations, and we need to be clear that the Government are not tempted by another major IT adventure in this area. Secondly, it would allow the Secretary of State by regulations to make provision relating to the consistent identifier. Our intention is to get clarity in the Bill that it is the NHS number, but then give the Secretary of State the flexibility she needs to keep the approach up to date. I know that the Minister has said—I do not want to put words into her mouth—that the Government are exploring using the NHS number, and it looks like the front-runner. Those are definitely not the words she used. I wonder whether she could elaborate a little, to the extent that she feels able, on whether it is really the NHS number or whether anything else is realistically in contention. Therefore, if that pilot was not successful, how much time and money would this set us back?
In debates on earlier groups, other noble Lords mentioned the limitations of the NHS number. Of course, there are children who do not have one, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, but the Minister has already given a constructive way through that, and there are also adoptive children. I know there are real concerns that adoptive children should have a single NHS number that does not change. I felt there was a hopeful hint behind her words, but maybe she can expand on that. I think there have been cases where changing numbers and not having that history of a child’s health has not been in the best interests of the child.
It would also be good to hear the Minister’s reflections on the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Jackson about families who might be driven away from registering with a GP because of concerns about how their data might be used, thus preventing access to basic healthcare for their children. How real a risk does she believe that to be? Either way, we think that those risks just pale in comparison with those of another new IT project and a number created purely for these purposes. If I have understood correctly that the NHS number is the front-runner, could she expand a little more on the Wigan pilot? Is it the only pilot that the Government are intending to run? How long will it run for? Will there be others? Will they be evaluated? Can she give us any hint on a timeline? I assume there will be no wider rollout until that work is complete. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and strongly congratulate the Government on having picked up the concept of a unique child identifier. I was part of the group, with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, when we did not get there on previous legislation, and we were told that one reason was that the Department for Education could not see how it could do that and link with health, so seeing the Department for Education involved is particularly cheering.
I will make a case quite strongly for the NHS number rather than anything else, partly because I think we need to learn lessons from other number systems. If we look just at hospital records, different hospitals have different numbers and then there is the NHS number, and that has resulted in all kinds of clinical muddles and potential errors. The other thing is that children move around. People do not stay in the same area all the time, and the NHS number moves with them. If they have one number and move to a new area and register with a GP, for example, and then go to register with a school, if there have been major concerns then eventually those case notes will come through and people will become aware.
Going back to my previous experience, sometimes we found that the families with the highest risk had multiple addresses, out of town and in different cities. The other advantage is that, although we have devolved healthcare systems, we have a unique NHS number so, if people move between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, that number will persist. That is not a central database; it is simply saying that the number is there.
Children’s names change and their “known as” also changes. They may be known as another name but the number, a little like their genetic make-up, is fixed, which is really helpful. It will also avoid problems of lots of children having the same name, which is when muddles happen. I am from Wales, and we have a lot of people called David Jones and David Evans, and quite a few called David Williams, let alone Siân and Ceri. They are great names but, if you are trying to differentiate between them, you have to be really careful.
The final reason why I think this is particularly important is about transition and children who have learning difficulties and neurodiversity. Transition is an extremely difficult time for children. In those late teens, hormones are kicking in all over the place and all kinds of things are happening. Their relationships with the people who have been their carers through childhood change, and they can be at particular risk during those times, particularly during puberty if they have real learning difficulties.
I really hope that the pilot with the NHS number continues. When the Minister responds, it will be very helpful to know what kinds of numbers are being evaluated in those pilot areas—I hope there are more than one—so that the studies are sufficiently powered to be valid. Where have the objections come from? Who has not complied with being engaged? There may be some education needed to remove any sense of threat, because it will make safeguarding easier for people who have responsibility for children.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to intervene but, after hearing my noble friend, I cannot help but recall having to deal with some of the children of a man who, on inquiry, had had 11 sons by 11 different women. Because he was the sort of man he was, he insisted that each of them had his name.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Speaking as a Smith, I can say that those of us with very popular names recognise the point made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston —although obviously not in quite the same way.
Before starting, I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that there are no publicly available figures specifically detailing how many incorrect NHS numbers are issued annually. If there were, obviously I would have them at my fingertips. The Personal Demographics Service is responsible for managing and correcting NHS number issues, including duplicates, misassignments and demographic errors, but those numbers are not publicly available.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
As the Minister was speaking, I was thinking that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has been campaigning for this for a very long time. I hope that she will be able to confirm that her officials would have involved the royal college in any discussions over any difficulties and doubts, because I think it would want to be very helpful. It represents, of course, the group of doctors who end up seeing some of the most severely damaged children.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am pretty certain that officials will have already consulted with the royal college, but, if they have not, I give the noble Baroness an undertaking that they will.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I again thank the Minister for her reply. I am not sure I heard exactly whether there will be more than one pilot or quite what the timeline was, but, at this hour on a Thursday evening, I will not press her on that. I trust her to update the House when she is able to say more.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her intervention. It is a reminder that we are so fortunate to be surrounded by such experts, and such patient and persistent ones—in a good way. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hampton (CB)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that SUIs can be used for research and commissioning purposes in order to improve outcomes for babies, children and young people.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will be quick. In moving my Amendment 61, I put on record my thanks to Laura Anderson of the National Children’s Bureau, not only for her help on this amendment but for her heroic collating of the many briefings from the children’s charity sector for a group of interested Peers.
We have talked about the SUI a lot. We know that information sharing is urgently needed—we do not need any more serious case reviews to tell us so. We know that when a child is interacting with many different services, it is important these services communicate with each other, particularly in the case of, for example, disabled children who may need the support of health services, as well as special education provision in their school, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
A single unique identifier can mean a better, more joined up assessment of a child’s needs and a better understanding of the impact that services make on a child’s progress and development. However, this benefit should be considered not just for individual children but children as a population group. A more holistic view of children’s needs across the local area will lead to better commissioning. A more holistic view of children’s outcomes will ensure we can evaluate what interventions work best. Yet currently, the legislation explicitly excludes research studies and evaluation from the mandated purposes of the SUI.
Using an SUI across anonymised, linked datasets could have a transformative effect on identifying risks across cohorts of children and conducting research about service impact. This would not add any considerable risk to children, as the legislation does not change or weaken any existing data protection but states explicitly that the duty to share information does not authorise or require the disclosure of information if the disclosure would contravene data protection legislation. The Government’s intention for the SUI appears focused solely on direct service provision. However, enabling local commissioners and researchers to use anonymised linked datasets could transform our understanding of the impact of particular interventions across traditional service boundaries.
Information is the new gold. We have already seen how relevant and rich data can be used to form policy in education and health, so why not take advantage of this new source of information? There seems to be a lot of saying that they are not going to be databases. Will the Minister define in her answer what she means by databases? I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I very much hope that the NHS number works, so that we can get on with data sharing. When I spoke in an earlier group, I explained the importance of feedback loops in a successful organisation. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is about using the single unique data system to inform research and commissioning. I think he has a point. The precedent of government-supported HDR UK, which I spoke about in the earlier group, is highly relevant as we found a way to anonymise such data on a consistent basis for research purposes. Indeed, the Minister might find HDR UK a useful collaborator in speeding up her excellent work and avoiding Big Brother fears.
We have heard that the single unique identifier will not be used to create a giant database. I am therefore interested in how the Government can gather aggregated data, for example by NHS trust, social service area, education authority, type of family or medical condition. Examination of such group data can reduce future mistakes and costs, target resources and improve efficiency—all the things that I tend to talk about—and make social services and the police more effective. So I would appreciate an answer about how this can be done if we are ruling out a database—by letter if need be, because it obviously goes slightly beyond the scope of the amendment. I am grateful for all the information that has been given today. It has been very reassuring.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the very good amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. If we are spending significant amounts of money on collecting this data and building a database and we have some of the best research facilities in the world, it seems to be sensible when looking at longitudinal studies to utilise that data properly.
My second and more prosaic point is that maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that subsection (5) and subsection (14) are at variance with each other. They are quite loosely drafted in new Section 16LB. Will the Minister comment on that, because the great thing about the noble Lord’s amendment is that it has pointed out that there seems to be a discrepancy between the two subsections?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I shall briefly speak in support of these amendments and of research. We do not need to have a national database established in order to do research because, first, research has to go through research ethics committees, so that is carefully scrutinised. You could take a representative sample of areas and use properly anonymised data. We can do that now. We can anonymise properly rather than using the old-fashioned pseudo-anonymisation, which was not helpful.
But in all these areas, I am afraid, we lack the evidence that we need to make sure that all our services are best targeted. When we are looking at very vulnerable children, we need to know which flags that are currently yellow flags should become red flags and which items do not show a correlation—although there has been an urban myth that they do correlate—so that the index of suspicion is appropriately targeted. To pick up on the point made by my noble friend earlier about having criteria, it is only through good research that we will get good criteria to determine the point at which we trigger an alert that a child is at risk and get that to happen earlier. It may well be that we are missing some important pointers just because they are not in people’s current consciousness, and there is a real danger in reacting to what I would call urban myths.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches are very supportive of Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Of course, there is detail to be worked out, although we have already heard some encouraging ways through about how to use this anonymised data in practice. Clearly, if it could be aggregated and anonymised in whatever cut—so to speak—that would help us interrogate it and get some answers to some of the systemic issues that exist in child safeguarding and welfare.
We are interested in both parts of the noble Lord’s amendment: namely, research and commissioning. Having a better understanding of the patterns of safeguarding issues, which children are most likely to be affected and what works would be invaluable for practitioners and policymakers alike. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, understanding what does not work and where the glitches are in the system is equally valuable. The more transparency we have on these issues, the better the commissioning of services will be. This made me think back to my noble friend Lady Spielman’s Amendment 69 on open data standards, and I know the Minister said that work is going on in that regard. If that was successful, it could be shared for some of the same purposes as Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I wonder whether that might be another way through, if the Government are unable to accept his amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, having listened to what has been said about Amendment 61, I say briefly that it is very sensible, providing that the data can be kept safe. That is the caveat. If the Minister could address that point, that would inform the Committee as to where we can go with this.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I hope I can provide some reassurance to noble Lords about this. Amendment 61 seeks to ensure that the consistent identifier could be used for research purposes. I understand the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—and I commend him for his persistence in sitting this long to move his amendment—that the provision may appear to limit the use of the consistent identifier for research, which many stakeholders, and many noble Lords today, have rightly highlighted as a potential benefit. However, to be clear, these measures make provision for the Secretary of State to specify which agencies must use the consistent identifier and in what circumstances. Importantly, this does not prevent a consistent identifier being used for research purposes, provided that any such use is authorised in accordance with data protection and other relevant legislation.
We recognise the role of data in improving outcomes for babies, children and young people. As I say, this legislation is about when the consistent identifier must be used, rather than when it can be used, as regulations will mandate the number and the organisations required to use it. The consistent identifier could be used for research purposes, if this is authorised in accordance with UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act. We are aware of concerns around this, and officials are discussing this with key organisations. I hope that provides some assurance about the possibility of using the consistent identifier.
We have, in this legislation, deliberately prioritised use of the consistent identifier to facilitate the exercise of safeguarding and welfare functions directly. That is the basis on which we are testing its implementation and benefits through our pilot programme. If additional benefits, such as those for research, are realised, we will be in a strong position to explore how this could be facilitated. For the reasons I have outlined, and with some of the reassurance that I have provided, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, having achieved his objective.
Lord Hampton (CB)
I thank everybody who took part in that debate and say how optimistic the Minister’s answer has made me. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Child contact centres(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations—(a) require all child contact centres and organisations that offer child contact services to be accredited in accordance with national standards in relation to safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse;(b) require all child contact centre staff and volunteers to undertake mandatory safeguarding and domestic abuse training which must establish processes to centre the voice and experience of the child and parent or carer at all stages of parental involvement;(c) establish mechanisms to support and develop the role of contact centres in multi-agency risk assessment at a local level;(d) set out a system-wide approach to risk assessment and risk management in child contact centres, including the provision of specialist support for parents, carers and children;(e) ensure adequate funding and investment into child contact centres to ensure locally accessible and affordable provision.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I realise I am coming between noble Lords and the Whit Recess at this stage. Before I speak to Amendment 65, I declare my interest as patron of the National Association of Child Contact Centres and celebrate all the work it does. Amendment 65 is a probing amendment. I thank warmly the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Burt of Solihull, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for kindly supporting the purposes and contents of this amendment.
I believe that we benefit greatly from having a good number of and variety of facilities for child contact centres—places where, in the event of a breakdown in a relationship or a marriage, the absent parent or carer can spend time with their children in a safe and comfortable environment. There is a particular issue that we tried to address in a previous Bill, which I will come on to in a moment: effective safeguarding of adults and children, particularly from the risk of domestic abuse or harm.
We benefit greatly from the network of child contact centres, but they are patchy. I pay particular attention to the fact that distances—especially in the north of England, where people have to travel further—increase the costs for parents and carers in reaching contact centres. These contact centres play a crucial role: they enable thousands of parents and carers to have contact with their children safely, and approximately 20,000 children are visited in this way each year. Their facilities are offered both in private law proceedings and by local authorities during public law proceedings.
Amendment 65 is based very much on a report written in June 2023 and drafted from research into child contact centres in England by Cordis Bright, commissioned by the Ministry of Justice. This was required under Section 83(1) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. I pay fulsome tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for moving the amendment so eloquently and vigorously during that Bill’s passage through the House of Lords.
While the amendment was not agreed to by the Government at that time, they committed to building the evidence base on the robustness of current safeguarding policies and practices across contact centres. This amendment reflects that and is based on the results of that research and the recommendations contained in that report. The amendment recognises that there is a high prevalence of referrals to contact centres with a history of domestic abuse and the research in the report that reflected that there was at least one referral with a history of domestic abuse in the 12 months preceding the publication of the report in June 2023. I believe that that justifies the need for training and management of a particularly sensitive nature, as set out in the amendment.
I hope that the amendment speaks for itself. I will not go through each proposal in turn, given the lateness of the hour. I was delighted to attend the briefing hosted by the Minister and led by the Secretary of State for Education, which I think shows the commitment and interest of the Government in this Bill. That was appreciated. The Secretary of State, and indeed the Minister, showed a real interest in this matter. I hope that the Minister sees fit to adopt and accept the provisions as set out in Amendment 65, accept that they are needed and agree to them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I support these very useful proposals, which, as my noble friend has just outlined, would ensure that child contact centres are adequately funded and their staff and volunteers properly trained to guard against domestic abuse.
However, I would add a further recommendation, also made within the final report of the Ministry of Justice on research into safeguarding processes in child contact centres in England. This urges a greater exchange of learning and good practices, to improve consistency across contact centre procedures and policies. Child contact centres themselves can benefit from learning networks, across and beyond their region or local authority, by comparing notes on what is necessary and what works best, including not only the prescriptions of this proposed amendment but the advocacy of certain other proven expedients, whereby the spread of knowledge of their collective efficacy then serves to raise standards, both here and abroad.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her generous words.
These centres are really important for children who have come from extremely disturbed backgrounds. One thing that they need to be able to do is to have contact with the parent with whom it is not safe for them to be in custody in another area. As they grow up, if they do not have that contact, they can end up feeling resentful towards the state, and that the state separated them from the parent, rather than understanding what happened. I will not go into the various cases and stories, but there are certainly quite a lot to illustrate that issue.
The reason this amendment is important is that we know that there is a lack of basic safeguarding training in some contact centres; in others, it is at an extremely high standard. There is variability of practice around picking up and escalating concerns, and challenges are faced by the courts in identifying safe and affordable contact arrangements. As has already been alluded to, the harm panel report of 2020 highlighted that child contact centres have a role.
I could speak for a long time about them, but I will not. I hope that the amendment speaks for itself, and that we might be able to have some conversations beyond Committee and before Report about whether there is some way that the Government would like to incorporate in the legislation the principles behind this amendment, accepting that they may not like the wording as it is on the page at the moment.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I would like the Government to incorporate the wording of this amendment into the legislation—it seems admirable. I am asked by my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss to indicate her support for it as well. Accredited child contact centres are safe, neutral places providing for both supported contact and supervised contact arrangements—that is an important distinction. They allow children in separated families to see and enjoy contact with the non-resident parent and sometimes other family members.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will speak incredibly briefly. My noble friend has supported this and, having listened to the debate, I am absolutely convinced that she is right. I hope the Government will give a positive answer.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, this has been a valuable discussion, and I thank all noble Lords for their insightful and knowledgeable contributions. Child contact centres do indeed play an integral role in allowing parents to see their child in a safe environment for both parties involved. They allow parents not only to see their children, which is precious, but can act as a service to reconnect following significant time with no contact. Wherever safe and possible, parents should be able to see their children, and child contact centres allow this to happen.
Amendment 65 seeks to introduce regulations on child contact centres to ensure that they are accredited as regards safeguarding and prevention of domestic abuse. Child contact centres appear to be mostly under the umbrella organisation, the National Association of Child Contact Centres. This is a charitable organisation and, while these regulations appear sensible, we are concerned about the ongoing cost of implementation and structure. It would require inspections to take place, which would be a further financial burden, requiring additional staff to ensure compliance with these standards. We know that charities are already under pressure from increased national insurance contributions.
Of course, we respect the views of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Finlay and Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and we absolutely agree that these child centres should operate as a safe and enjoyable place for children to play, but we believe that this amendment has the potential to act as a regulatory burden on those very charities that are providing the service.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I slightly question the noble Lord’s assumption that inspection would be required at the level that he has outlined. Very often, you have a very caring parent who is extremely worried about the welfare of their child or children, who is then having contact with another parent about whom there has been a great deal of concern. If that very caring parent finds that the contact centre to which they have been referred has not had mandatory training—and I would expect them, in this day and age, to look up on the internet details about the contact centre on its website—they are likely to raise a complaint early, and waiting until there is a formal inspection may be too late. The problem is that, if we do not require training and set some standards, it becomes extremely difficult for a court determining what is to happen to a child to be able to go in-depth and know whether its recommendation and judgment are going to be in the best interests of the child.
So I respectfully slightly challenge the noble Lord over that and suggest that other people, such as grandparents and aunts and uncles, who are very concerned too about what will have been a tragic situation in their family, would be very likely to check out whichever contact centre it is and would want to know the standards that should be there—because they can see whether they are happening or not. A bit like the Care Quality Commission doing spot checks on hospitals, that is how they will get the data: not through a formal inspection. So identification of problems could emerge if this is written into the Bill.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her intervention and contribution. It was very interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Meston, say that a lot, if not all, of the contact centres are accredited. According to the NACCC website, there is DBS checking and there is provision in place. I take on board what the noble Baroness is saying, and that is why we are having this discussion—to get everyone’s views aired and come to an agreement.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, just to add to what has just been said, my understanding is that accreditation depends on the centre having been approved by the national association, and that accreditation lasts, I think, for three years.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
On a point of clarification, I can confirm to my noble friend that what we are asking for, and what we asked for in the earlier amendment, is proper training and management, so that in those cases—perhaps only one a year, but to me that is sufficiently important—of domestic abuse that present to a child contact centre, the volunteers will be properly trained and will be able to manage the situation. It is not a case of inspection and increasing fees; it is giving them the confidence so that they know how to deal with that situation.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her intervention and I very much look forward to discussing this further.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
That last intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was very interesting and useful in helping us through this amendment. There is absolute agreement about the need for contact centres, given the very important work that all noble Lords recognise they have done, also to be able to safeguard in the sorts of circumstances that she outlined. The question is whether that is most appropriately done through the provisions in this amendment, which would require all child contact centres to be nationally accredited and regulated by the Secretary of State and all staff to undertake specific training on safeguarding and domestic abuse. I hope I can provide some reassurance and outline why it is not necessary in this case for the Secretary of State to undertake the regulation and accreditation in the way that the amendment—if not the way it has been introduced—suggests.
We recognise the enormous importance of child contact centres in enabling children to spend time with a non-resident parent in a safe environment and the important work of the National Association of Child Contact Centres, which accredits centres across England and Wales and ensures high standards among its members via its national standards, which cover points such as risk assessments, safeguarding and hearing the voices of children. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, identified, Research into Safeguarding Processes in Child Contact Centres in England, commissioned by the Ministry of Justice and completed in 2023, identified limited evidence of unaccredited centres. In other words, most centres are accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres.
Here we come to the crux of whether there are ways of ensuring that children can be safeguarded in those circumstances. Since the 2023 review and report on child contact centres, which some noble Lords have referenced, the Ministry of Justice has worked with the National Association of Child Contact Centres to consider where action can be taken. The national association has now introduced a mandatory coercive control training course for its members and has reviewed and updated its national standards to take account of the findings of the report. It has also revised materials such as its risk assessment template. Additionally, the Ministry of Justice has established a child contact centre forum with representatives from across the family justice system to discuss the issues facing the sector and its role within the system.
In addition, as we have heard, in private law cases judicial protocol guidance, endorsed by the President of the Family Division, encourages judges and magistrates to refer families to NACCC-accredited centres only. This limits the extent to which unaccredited centres are used. We are becoming increasingly confident that NACCC accreditation delivers the protections that people rightly want to see and that there are very few unaccredited centres.
This amendment, however, would mean that there could never be any unaccredited centres. It is worth saying that there are limited circumstances in which unaccredited centres might be used. This could include, for example, unaccredited centres for specific and short-term purposes because of the individual circumstances of the case. One example might be when a child has a foster care placement some distance away from the nearest accredited contact centre; rather than requiring the child to travel a significant distance to undertake contact, the local authority might assess it to be in the child’s best interest to remain at a location closer to their home. However, in doing that—when considering child contact with parents and children—the local authority must ensure consistency with safeguarding and promoting the child’s welfare.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken—my noble friend Lord Dundee, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston—and for the support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in her absence.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, put her finger on it: it is not so much the accreditation. I am very aware of the protocol, which is a great step forward, and I would like the Bill to reflect where we are in that protocol. It would be extremely helpful to have a very short meeting between the authors of the amendment and the Minister, because it is not so much the accreditation as the fact that her predecessor, my noble friend Lord Wolfson, felt that the evidence was not available at the time of the Domestic Abuse Act.
The beauty of the Cordis Bright report is that we now have evidence of the cases involving coercion and other forms of domestic abuse. We do not think that this is necessarily being sufficiently catered for by all the contact centres. We want them all to work to the same standards, whether they are a private or a public facility, and I would like to have the opportunity to take that forward with the Minister.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, indicated, the wording that I have come up with might not be the most sophisticated—so it will be a wonderful opportunity to have that meeting so that we can reach agreement and have that in the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.