Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate these regulations, which I think can fairly be described as routine. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency charges fees for most of its services and, to ensure continued cost recovery, updates its fees every two years. This regularity provides certainty to customers and enables better financial planning. This statutory instrument helps to achieve this by doing three things.
First, it updates the fees that the MHRA charges in relation to its activities in regulating medical devices and blood components for transfusion. These fees were last updated in April 2023. The implementation date for the proposed changes is July 2025 and they will ensure cost recovery until 2027. This will apply UK-wide, with the fees being the same across the United Kingdom. The total cost to those who pay the MHRA’s fees from this instrument is estimated to be £0.7 million per year after inflation.
Secondly, the instrument introduces a fee for a new, optional service: a regulatory advice meeting for medical devices. In addition to publishing guidance and addressing written inquiries, this new service will further support manufacturers in their understanding of the application of the UK’s regulatory framework to their products. I am glad to say that this service was well received in the consultation. It will be mainly for those developing novel and/or complex products where the application of legislation is not as straightforward or easily understood as it might be. We have had many discussions on removing obstacles to getting products to market which support better care for patients. I hope that this will make a contribution in this regard.
Thirdly, the instrument will introduce a new payment easement for small and medium-sized enterprises for the MHRA’s medical device clinical investigation fees. While this easement will not reduce the overall fee, which would require cross-subsidisation, it will enable the fee to be paid in two instalments, providing flexibility and, I hope, supporting the businesses concerned.
It might be helpful if I highlight the important role that the MHRA plays in safeguarding public health and the importance of the agency continuing to be properly funded to deliver its role. The MHRA is a world-leading regulator of medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion in the UK. It plays a vital role in protecting and improving public health. It is, I suggest, an engine for UK growth and innovation; it is certainly an indispensable part of the UK health system and plays a major role globally, working with international partners.
The principles for how the MHRA charges fees are set by HM Treasury in its guidance, Managing Public Money. The basic principle is to set statutory fees to recover full costs. This means that the regulated bear the cost of regulation and that the MHRA does not profit from fees or make a loss that would then have to be subsidised by government departments or the UK taxpayer. It is, of course, standard practice for government bodies that operate on a cost-recovery basis to update their fees. It is also standard practice for other regulators, which is the reason why I described this statutory instrument as “routine”.
All fees are set by taking into account various factors that reflect the cost of the activity—for example, the activities involved in delivering a service, the time taken and the number and grade of staff involved. This process is informed by the recording of staff activity, which is the practice of monitoring and recording certain activities performed by the MHRA’s staff to establish how long they take and, so, how much they cost. In addition, also in line with the HM Treasury guidance, the MHRA includes the costs of necessary corporate overheads and system investments. Regular fee uplifts ensure financial sustainability and enable the MHRA to deliver the responsive, efficient service that its customers rightly expect.
It is worth noting that this instrument does not change the MHRA’s fees in relation to medicines regulations. Given the different legal positions in relation to the powers to make regulations about fees relating to medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion, two statutory instruments have been used for the MHRA’s fee uplift. A second instrument for human medicines fees has, therefore, already been laid before the UK Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly and has already come into force.
In summary, ensuring that the MHRA is sufficiently resourced will help it to deliver its services more reliably and to provide patients, the public and industry with the service that they expect. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the purpose of these regulations so eloquently and succinctly. It is clear that the change to the fee structure for regulating medical devices and medical products is part of a realm of profound importance both to public health and to the future of healthcare in the UK. As Liberal Democrats, we unequivocally support a robust, efficient and well-resourced Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, but it is important that our regulatory bodies possess the financial stability to ensure the safety, quality and efficacy of medical products and blood safety, which touch the lives of millions throughout the year.
I am not going to speak on these regulations at great length; I just want to tease out a couple of issues about which I would like a little more information from the Minister. First, increasing the fees will mean that costs will be covered automatically. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that efficiency and effectiveness are in place, rather than just ballooning costs that it would be assumed the industry would absorb? I am not clear from reading the impact assessment or the regulations exactly how the Government will ensure that the cost really is the cost and is not excessive cost.
Secondly, it is clear in the impact assessment that most of those who gave feedback to the consultation question were against these fees. How have the Government taken into consideration the reservations, not just of the “no” element but in particular that the fees were seen in some cases to be disproportionately high and to exceed inflation? How has that developed? Why are these costs disproportionately high and why do they exceed inflation?
Finally, it is important to increase the fees to ensure the agency’s work can continue but, critically, the impact assessment demonstrates a lack of concrete detail on how these increased fees will translate into tangible improvements in these MHRA services. Although the rationale for increased fees is often framed around enhancing regulatory efficiency and speed, the document provides insufficient assurances of the measurable commitments as to how the additional revenue will be specifically utilised. There is no clear framework for accountability that demonstrates how these funds will lead to faster approvals or increased safety. How will the department measure such improvements? In particular, what improvements are expected on the back of this fee increase?
These regulations are a serious matter. They impact on the health of our nation and, to some degree, the vibrancy of our life sciences industry, but we must ensure that our regulatory framework is not only robust but forward thinking and truly serves the best interests of every patient in the UK by ensuring that the increased cost will both increase efficiency and, we hope, improve the services that the MHRA provides.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for introducing these regulations succinctly, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said. Perhaps in common with the Liberal Democrats, we on these Benches—the numerous people on these Benches—do not seek to oppose this statutory instrument. Rather, we just wish to reflect on its purpose and practical implications, and ask a few questions for clarification that I hope the Minister will be able to answer.
As noble Lords have said, this instrument amends three pieces of legislation. We understand that these changes are intended to enable the MHRA to increase the fees to manufacturers, suppliers and other regulated entities involved in the approval of medical devices and blood components. Noble Lords understand that the current model relies primarily on contributions from industry and that the MHRA’s fees were last comprehensively reviewed in April 2023, as the Minister said. Of course, we have seen a rise in operational costs, particularly relating to staff and overheads, so we completely understand that the intention behind these regulations is to bring the MHRA’s income more closely in line with the cost of delivering its services. It is also to place the agency on a more sustainable financial footing, thereby reducing its reliance on central government funding, which I think is something on which we all agree.
As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, the impact assessment accompanying this instrument identified the primary benefit of this additional income—to enable the MHRA to continue fulfilling its responsibilities —but, as was raised by some in the industry and in the other place, it is less clear how these changes will directly benefit patients, healthcare providers or, indeed, medical innovators, in particular those operating in the small and medium-sized business sector. We understand that the Government decided to pause their proposed reforms to the medical device registration fee following concerns raised by stakeholders. That decision is welcome, and I thank the Minister and the Government for that. The paused proposals would have had a disproportionate impact on companies registering a large number of products, particularly due to the proposed fee model linked to the global medical device nomenclature codes. However, the broad uplift in the other fees will still go ahead, and it is in this wider context that we seek some reassurance about these changes.
I shall look at some of the areas on which some clarity would be welcome. First, we recognise the MHRA’s need for stable funding, but we want to make sure it does not create barriers to innovation, in particular for start-ups and SMEs, which, as we know, often operate on much narrower margins and already navigate a complex regulatory environment. What assessment has been made of the cumulative impact of these fee increases on smaller firms? Do we know how these changes compare with the regulatory costs faced by manufacturers in other major markets, such as the EU, the US or Asia? Is the Minister able to give some international context here?
Secondly, the impact assessment confirms that the staffing costs remain the largest cost driver for the MHRA and assumes a 2.2% annual pay increase through to 2027—below the current rate of inflation. Has any thought been given to whether that is a realistic assumption and basis for planning? If the actual costs prove higher than forecast, how will that impact the MHRA’s progress towards the full cost of recovery? Would the agency be forced to scale back its services, or would the taxpayer be expected to cover any shortfall?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am most grateful to both noble Lords for their constructive contributions and their support for these measures. I welcome their questions and will do my best to respond to them.
I will first make a few general points that may assist. Noble Lords acknowledged the role of the MHRA, the essential services it offers and the crucial role it plays. It is also understood that it needs financial backing to do that. Therefore, in supporting these regulations, we will enable the MHRA to continue to contribute to the Government’s health mission and to balance its responsibilities to maintain product safety and champion innovation. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, that is so important to us as a country and an economy, as well as to the National Health Service.
The MHRA is not alone in how it is funded. Most regulators levy charges for their work, and—in response to the question about international comparisons—it is also accepted international practice for healthcare product regulation to follow this trajectory; for example, the European Medicines Agency and the US FDA also charge fees. I certainly feel that the cost recovery approach, which neither noble Lord questioned as a fundamental, ensures that services are paid for by those who use them rather than by the taxpayer—namely, patients.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised some questions about small and medium-sized enterprises. While I understand that increases in costs can place more relative strain on SMEs compared with larger companies, the MHRA has existing SME payment waivers and easements, and the instrument creates a new SME payment easement for some fees for the medical device clinical investigation service. We have sought to be responsive in this regard.
On supporting innovation and maintaining the UK’s attractiveness as a place to develop and launch medical products, I certainly want to see the UK as the go-to country for that. It does this in several ways— for example, by providing scientific advice and stream- lining regulatory processes to help reduce costs and the time to market. This is a high priority within our Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised questions relating to where costs have exceeded inflation, why this is and what the Government are doing about it. All fees are set to recover costs and it is the case that some services were found to be underrecovering more than others, so this is putting it back in the right place. It is not related directly to inflation but to the real costs and, in some areas, there are concerns about that.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Maybe I was not clear in my questioning. It is not about where it goes but this: if there is an automatic assumption that industry will cover the cost, what mechanisms are in place to make sure that there is efficiency, rather than a bloated approach where people think that, as costs will be recovered, they can do whatever they wish? That was the question, particularly regarding the inflation issue.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is understood. I am going to come on to that, because I think it is important. Of course, with any uplift in fee, I would expect that to be the case, but I have a particular response as I continue. The uplifts we are speaking about today ensure ongoing, reliable delivery. They are necessary for the continued delivery of initiatives that promote growth and innovation. We are not just standing still; we are looking to the future. To the noble Lord’s point, industry has been clear that it supports these fee uplifts as long as they are accompanied by reliable performance.
Although noble Lords have not specifically raised this, I add that the MHRA recognises that there have been some delays in some of its regulatory services of late and these delays were felt by those who pay fees. I am pleased to say that, from 31 March this year, all backlogs were cleared that relate to its statutory functions. Throughout its work to eliminate these backlogs, the MHRA put patients first and prioritised licence applications according to public health need, including those needed to avoid medicine shortages. Importantly, the MHRA is working to ensure that this continues, so that we have predictable, optimised and sustainable services across all the functions.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that the MHRA is taking steps to improve its performance and efficiency, not least because it does not wish to get into the situation of a backlog again. This includes a modernised RegulatoryConnect IT system and improved agency structures and processes. On accountability, it will also publish performance targets and report against them online and in its annual report and accounts. There are also mechanisms in place for monitoring the impact of these changes. Ministers, including me, meet the MHRA regularly and the MHRA and the department monitor the impact via stakeholder feedback and ongoing performance and finance reporting. I assure the noble Lord, because I know it is a particular interest, that we have key performance indicators in place to monitor the delivery of these services.
I return to the point about small and medium-sized enterprises that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised. In most cases, SMEs are dependent on grants from the NIHR and others, so there is no cost to them as a company when they submit an application to the MHRA. The noble Lord also asked about the assessment of increased fees on SMEs. Benchmarking fees compared to those of other regulators is somewhat difficult, to be quite honest, because of the difference in the way that the regulators operate and their different funding models. For example, a different model is where the regulator is subsidised, which is not the case here. With regard to employer national insurance contributions, the noble Lord is correct that the MHRA is subject to the increases in employer national insurance contributions. The agency believes that these fees will cover the costs of the increase in NI contributions. If there are any shortfalls, efficiency savings will have to be used to manage them appropriately.
Lord Scriven (LD)
If fees equal cost, I am not clear how calculations have been made that say that the NIC increases have not been put into that cost to be part of the fee increase, because it is a known cost. I am not clear why that suddenly becomes a potential cost reduction or inefficiency gain within the service.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I may not have been as clear as I would like to have been. I will try again. The national insurance contributions increase is an increased cost and that will have been factored into the new fees that are being put forward. The gentle challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, was about whether the MHRA could manage it. I am saying that if there were any difficulty in management, it would not be a case of putting up the fees further; it would be a case of managing efficiency costs within the MHRA.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Just for clarity, is the NIC cost known and has it been included in these fee increases? It is an important point. I do not want to push the Minister in terms of the actual figures, but I assume that the NIC figure is known and has been included in this fee increase. Therefore, there would be no need for the agency to deal with any difference, because it is a known figure and will be in the fee structure.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Perhaps it would be best on this occasion if I review what the noble Lord has said and what I have said and write to him to clarify anything that is not quite clear.
In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and for their support for the MHRA to ensure that it has the resources that it needs to continue delivering reliable services and can deliver its important public health role.
Motion agreed.
Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Hub and Spoke Dispensing etc.) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Hub and Spoke Dispensing etc.) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, as I know we all acknowledge, community pharmacies play a vital role in our healthcare system by ensuring that patients have access to medicines and acting as an easily accessible “front door” to the NHS. They dispense around 1.1 billion NHS medicines every single year.
Traditionally, all dispensing processes have been done in a single pharmacy or by a dispensing doctor. In hub-and-spoke dispensing, routine tasks such as sourcing, preparing, assembling and labelling medicines are carried out at a central “hub”, which is separate from the “spoke” pharmacy where the prescription is received. Hubs often make use of automated processes to realise economies of scale and to increase efficiencies. Such arrangements already exist in the UK, but the Medicines Act 1968 restricts their use to community pharmacies that are part of the same legal entity. Not all pharmacy businesses are able to invest in their own hub-and-spoke model, as compared with the larger pharmacy chains.
The Government are committed to supporting the community pharmacy sector and to cutting the red tape that frustrates it. The proposed changes have been a long time coming. If approved today, as I hope they will be, they will allow all pharmacies, including small independents, and dispensing doctors to utilise hub-and-spoke arrangements if they choose to do so.
Staff in hub-and-spoke arrangements report a calmer, more focused environment—I think we would all welcome that. In hubs, there are fewer disruptions and the use of automation reduces the risk of dispensing errors. At spokes, staff have more time for complex cases and patient care, making better use of their skills—something that the Government aim to support. The legislative changes we are debating will help all pharmacies and dispensing doctors realise these benefits, instead of limiting them to a few.
Turning to the details of the SI, we propose to amend the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and the Medicines Act 1968, using the powers in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. The proposed changes to the Medicines Act 1968 adjust the definitions of “wholesale dealing” and “retail sale”, and remove the legal restrictions that prevent hub-and-spoke dispensing between different legal entities. The amendments go beyond simply removing the barrier that currently limits hub-and-spoke dispensing to pharmacies within the same legal entity. Noble Lords will, I hope, be pleased to know that the amendments include additional elements to ensure the safe and effective implementation of the policy by putting in place provisions to ensure accountability, governance and transparency for patients.
The proposed changes to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 create a new model of hub-and-spoke dispensing, establishing a framework for the sharing of patient information between the hub and the spoke, and set criteria for the newly permitted arrangements. These criteria are: that both a hub and a spoke must be pharmacies registered with the pharmacy regulator, unless a spoke is a dispensing doctor practice; that there must be written arrangements between any hub and spoke, which must include a comprehensive statement in relation to their responsibilities, to ensure that each party is clear about the processes and activities for which they are responsible; that the medicine label includes only the name and address of the spoke, so that patients know who to ask any questions about their medicines; and that the spoke must conspicuously display a notice on its premises and online in relation to the dispensing arrangements.
The changes also establish an information gateway. This achieves several purposes, such as the conditions for lawful sharing of the relevant patient data between the different legal entities that operate these arrangements.
On the timescale, it is proposed that all legislative amendments come into force in the October this year across the UK. This will allow time for secondary legislation to be amended, as appropriate, across all four nations, and give the pharmacy sector time to explore the relevance and possibilities of the new hub-and-spoke arrangements to its businesses.
I hope that I have been able to set out what we are proposing and the rationale behind it. I look forward to what will, I am sure, be an informed and constructive debate. I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I broadly support these regulations. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not mind my intervening briefly to ask a couple of questions; I have no wish to detain the Committee.
Obviously, I understand that community pharmacies have been playing an increasingly expanded clinical role in treating minor illnesses and improving medicines’ safety and optimisation. To improve the efficiency of dispensing, these regulations will help support community pharmacies in taking on a more clinical role. The purpose of these regulations, which is to free up smaller pharmacies and enable them to undertake hub-and-spoke models, is, I am sure, a good one. First, does my noble friend the Minister have any idea of how welcome this will be to smaller pharmacies? Is it expected that a great deal of them will undertake these new arrangements outwith the previous restriction on being in the same legal entity?
Secondly, having recently been to my local pharmacy and having talked to the pharmacists there, I was struck by the strain that they are under, both in terms of their workload and financially. Am I right in thinking that this hub-and-spoke model, which will be made more widely available, will in some way help smaller pharmacies deal financially with the situations that they face? Am I wrong in thinking that there is a financial dimension to this? If there is, I would be very grateful for any reply that the Minister can give, but, in summary, these regulations are a step in the right direction.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the comprehensive way in which she introduced this instrument, including how it corresponds with all the documentation that we have. I am glad to see that it applies to Wales; we have many small pharmacies with cross-border flow and many roads going across the border, so this SI will make things much easier.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I have some questions. I hope that at least some of them will be answered; some of them may need time. One of my concerns is about how the finances of this will work, because pharmacies depend on a dispensing fee. Who will get the fee? Will that be down to local negotiation? Will the fee be split?
However, the principle of freeing up time for the pharmacist to undertake more clinical duties is to be welcomed. They are often the first point of call for patients now. They often know the patient. They spot the person who looks less well and can advise them appropriately. They can also advise on drug side-effects, if a person goes into the pharmacist and asks about new symptoms that they might have.
However, I wondered where the liability sits if there is an error. If I understood right, it would sit with the hub if it were in what is dispensed, but there may be a difference in liability for information given to the patient. One hopes this will never happen, but some of those governance issues need to be thought through in detail.
I note that the pharmacists are already taking impressive extended roles in some areas. For example, there is a scheme in Bristol where pharmacists are taking blood for PSA assessment and reaching a population who would not otherwise present for screening for cancers. If we have pharmacists doing more health screening that would certainly free up GP time. Again, pharmacists will need to be remunerated for that.
I was interested to see that the international evidence is a little variable. Germany, Finland, Belgium and Denmark already using a hub-and-spoke dispensing model but the evidence is not overwhelmingly conclusive. In hospitals, where you have a single large building and a large number of prescriptions, automated pharmacy has in many ways revolutionised the administration of medicines.
One of the concerns is the time lag from a dispensed medicine going from the hub out to the spoke. I hope that will be thought through, so that we do not have patients, perhaps with mobility difficulties, having difficulty getting back to collect their prescription, and that those things will be factored into such arrangements.
Another area that I have a slight concern about relates, not surprisingly, to my own area, palliative care. We know that the availability of controlled drugs is poor at times, yet they are often needed urgently. I hope that consideration has been given as to how the dispensing of controlled drugs in particular can be rapid and efficient, especially when the clinical situation has changed and new medications are required at speed for a patient to be able to remain at home, rather than ending up taking an unnecessary or inappropriate voyage to hospital, with possible admission. Those travel systems also come into it.
The last area that I hope this model will tackle is waste, because there are a lot of things that patients are prescribed but never end up taking. Those of us who have been in a house after someone has died will often have been given several supermarket bags—I will not name the supermarket—full of packs of medicines that have been dispensed. They can be extremely expensive but have not been taken. They cannot be taken back in at the moment and cannot be recycled. The schemes that recycled some of the opioids, such as diamorphine, have not continued over the years. This is an enormous financial waste to the NHS, because some of these medicines have been very expensive.
I hope that this model will free up pharmacists and incentivise them to dissuade patients from accepting prescriptions when they are not actually taking those medicines. I could spend hours relating numerous stories of patients who were either not taking their medicines or giving them to somebody else. I have even once been presented with some children trying to sell me grandmother’s pain relief at the foot of the stairs, which helped me understand why I could not get grandmother’s pain under control. There is a real problem of waste in the system. If this instrument will decrease waste without jeopardising pharmacist’ income from prescribing fees, that would be very welcome.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the purpose behind and need for these regulations.
On these Liberal Democrat Benches, we are of course open to innovation and efficiency in our healthcare system. We recognise the potential for modernising practices to streamline operations, to reduce burdens and, ultimately, to try to improve the delivery of medicines to patients. However, for something as sensitive and fundamental as dispensing medicines, the devil, as always, lies in the detail—as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, pointed out—so we must scrutinise these proposed changes with the utmost care.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument in her usual succinct way and all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. We on these very efficient Benches—so efficient that we have only one person here today, which is very good for productivity—recognise the Government’s intention to modernise pharmacy through the introduction of hub-and-spoke arrangements and to increase efficiency and free up pharmacies to focus more on patient care, finally getting away from the 1945 model that we have been stuck with where patients try to get an appointment with their GP in the morning and, if they are fortunate enough to see them, get triaged off to a pharmacist or to secondary care. This is much more efficient, and we welcome it.
I also welcome what many other noble Lords have said about more diagnosis and testing occurring at the level of the pharmacy. As we saw, one of the silver linings of Covid was the fact that people got more used to home testing. If we can see more home testing and more pharmacy testing out in the community, maybe we can reach those communities that we have found very hard to reach until now. We thought about this lots when I was in government; all Governments think about how to reach those hard-to-reach communities.
That said, while the aim is understandable and commendable, we have some concerns. First, the Government have chosen to proceed with only one model—the patient-spoke-hub-spoke-patient model—rather than the two models proposed by the previous Conservative Government, the other of which was patient-spoke-hub-patient. We see this as a significant narrowing of options, particularly when the consultation revealed a divided response from stakeholders. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, while large pharmacies were very much in favour of the model that the Government ended up choosing, many smaller and independent pharmacies remained opposed, as well as patients and providers who may have benefited from the second model, where patients are dispensed to directly.
In the world that we live in, with Amazon, eBay and the advent of direct-to-consumer online pharmacies, which will dispense only if there is a valid prescription—they are not just selling stuff off prescription—it is really important that we encourage that innovation. It would be wonderful for patients, particularly those with limited mobility who find it difficult to get to pharmacies, to be able to order on the NHS app, have it approved and know it will be delivered to them within so many hours or days. That would be a far more efficient model. I hope that we are not inhibiting online pharmacies with all those safeguards.
I completely understand that there is always a balance between innovation and safety and precautions. Can the Government explain why they chose only one model? Was it because of concerns over safety, good lobbying or the interests of larger pharmacists being heard over the smaller pharmacists? We would be very interested in that. We are concerned about limiting it to a single model, particularly when we know that community pharmacies dispensing for GPs and distance sellers are finding innovative solutions.
Secondly, there is funding and support. The updated impact assessment openly admits that there is considerable uncertainty over the cost of establishing these hubs, their operating expenses and the level of uptake. Once again, there is an impact on smaller pharmacies. How do the Government intend to avoid the risk that smaller providers could be left behind or forced out of the market, reducing choice for patients and challenging the role of small community pharmacists? Are they concerned about this? In addressing that, have they looked at any incentives or ways to help smaller pharmacists who may not have the resources for that upfront investment?
Thirdly, the question of oversight and transparency remains. The Minister will be aware that I ask a lot of questions on patient data and accountability of data. The Government are yet to clarify who will be responsible for collecting and publishing data on the implementation and impact of these new arrangements, particularly in light of the abolition of NHS England. This oversight is crucial not only to ensure patient safety and quality of service but to understand the broader impact on costs and service delivery.
Let me be clear: we support the idea of the single patient record and the federated data platform. One of my jobs when I was a Minister was to make sure that we joined up and digitised the data as quickly as possible. We know what efficiencies that could lead to in our healthcare, but patient safety and data protection must be addressed with rigour. The framework for sharing patient information between hubs and spokes is a key feature of this reform, yet the SI and the supporting documents provide limited detail on how patient confidentiality will be maintained and how the risk inherent in multiparty data sharing will be mitigated.
We do not oppose the principle of modernising pharmacy dispensing through the hub-and-spoke model. We were disappointed that one model was chosen, as we thought we could have some innovation with the other model. Without clearer information and incentives to smaller providers, we worry about smaller community pharmacies being pushed out, particularly in the light of having only one model. How will the Government make sure that that risk is avoided? We urge them to engage more fully with all stakeholders, clarify their plans for funding and data governance, remain open to innovation and not close down other options prematurely. With that, I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords on all sides of the Committee for their helpful contributions to today’s debate. I get a sense of support for where we are going and questions about how it will happen, which I completely accept. This instrument is part of a package of measures to relieve pressure in community pharmacy and improve patient care and the ability of the NHS to serve patients, particularly in a community setting—one of the main pillars of change for our NHS fit for the future. It builds on legislation that is already in place to enable pharmacies to increase efficiency by dispensing medicines in their original packs. Pharmacy technicians are now able to act under patient group directions to supply medicines, and the Government will shortly bring forward legislation to enable them to be authorised to do more in the pharmacy.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate raised a number of issues; he asked how it has been received and raised the financial sustainability and attraction of these measures. I reiterate that the changes being introduced are enabling. They are purely voluntary. It is entirely up to pharmacists, which are independent businesses—it is important to remember that—to decide whether they feel that engaging one, two or several hubs is going to be beneficial to their business model. It is up to them to decide.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I appreciate the response from the Minister. She said that she will keep this under review. As part of that review, are the Government or officials looking at ways in which they could mitigate concerns about model 2 in terms of those relationship and safety concerns? That would perhaps enable investigation of a future model 2.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It would be fair to say that the review will be on how well this is working rather than an attempt to move to model 2. In all the modelling, we believe this is the best way to go. Patient safety is paramount, as it always should be, as is the expansion of services to individuals, but we will keep the whole matter under review.
There were two other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about the fee structure. The spoke will still receive the fee for dispensing and the paying hub for the services it provides. We are not planning to dictate how the fee structure will work between hubs and spokes, as I said in an earlier answer.
Lord Scriven (LD)
This is an important point. This could create market distortion. If there was a hub with a number of community pharmacies as part of its parent group, is the noble Baroness saying that it could give an advantage to those pharmacies against an independent pharmacy that was not part of the hub group and therefore could charge that pharmacy a higher fee for providing exactly the same service? That could create market distortion. It is important that we understand that that could not happen within these regulations. If the Minister cannot give that answer, I ask her and her officials to go away, think about this carefully and write back. It is an important point.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The whole point of the regulations, as well as cutting red tape, is about levelling the playing field. I understand the point the noble Lord is making, and I re-emphasise that arrangements between hubs and spokes are for them to make, rather than us to set. I am happy to look at the point the noble Lord makes and to write to him further with more detail.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I will pick up on this because it is a concern. In her summing-up speech, the Minister spoke about the business interests of the hub and the spoke. A concern is whether you could have a hub, which will be a large, possibly even multi- national, provider that could create a monopoly. As has been recognised during this debate, in rural areas, in particular, dispensing doctors are often a small group. Pharmacy services have a relatively low turnover but are important to such communities that are a long way from other places and where the services provided by the pharmacist are particularly important. Yet, as a small spoke, they may not have the power to negotiate with a strong central hub that may well be driven by shareholders and profit. There is a little bit of me that would really like this to somehow be a not-for-profit arrangement over the whole of it, but I realise that that is not feasible.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Perhaps it might be helpful to noble Lords if I refer to the Competition and Markets Authority in this regard because it noted that the proposed amendments that we are speaking of today are broadly competitive. It also acknowledged that there could be potential long-term competition risks if the market develops in such a way that pharmacy access to medicines, for example, is through an increasingly limited number of hub suppliers.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, suggested could happen, we might have only a few larger hubs emerging. I understand the concern that that could affect the availability of medicines for patients and their pricing. However, because of the recommendations from the Competition and Markets Authority, the department has committed to review the impact on competition once the hub market is sufficiently established. We will then assess whether action is needed to alleviate any barriers to the development of what, I believe, we all want to see: a dynamic, competitive hub market.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I am sorry to pursue this, but, in the impact assessment, the Government do not state how many hubs will be created. How can they reassure communities that these regulations will not distort the market? It is a very important issue for community pharmacies, which are dispersed. There is now a genuine concern that the Government do not even know how many hubs will be created—that links to the exact point that the Minister just made on the number of hubs.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It is not possible to predict—although I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is asking me to do so—how many pharmacies will take up this arrangement, because it is an enabling piece of legislation, not a requirement. It is also a matter between those businesses. To remind noble Lords, we already have provision in place for suitable pharmacy provision across the country, whether it is rural or urban, and that sits outside the regulations we are talking about today.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about the regulation of hubs, and I can assure him that they will be registered pharmacies regulated by the General Pharmaceutical Council in Great Britain or the PSNI in Northern Ireland. The General Pharmaceutical Council has great experience in inspecting hubs and has substantial intelligence on what practical arrangements have been adopted by hub-and-spoke operators that work well. The pharmaceutical council will also ensure that all standards for registered pharmacies are met and—to the point raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kamall—that patient safety is protected.
To conclude, I emphasise that hub-and-spoke arrangements are not new, as large companies already operate their own hubs. This is probably a discussion for another day, but some people might suggest that that was an example of some market influence, if I can tactfully put it like that. In the meantime, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, consideration and questions, and I beg to move.
Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 23 April and were debated and agreed by the House of Commons on 20 May. I am most grateful for the opportunity to join the Grand Committee’s proceedings.
Before outlining the provisions made by this draft instrument, I will briefly provide some context. The DESNZ Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning—OPRED—minimises the impact of the offshore sector on the environment by controlling air emissions and discharges to sea and by reducing disturbances over the life cycle of operations, from seismic surveys through to post-decommissioning monitoring. OPRED recoups the eligible costs of its regulatory functions from industry in the offshore oil and gas sector—which I shall refer to as the offshore sector—rather than from the taxpayer.
OPRED’s recoverable costs are covered in two ways: first, by using regulations that are covered by the fees regulations; and, secondly, by five charging schemes that do not require legislative change and will be amended administratively. OPRED’s average annual fees income is about £6.7 million and is recovered from around 100 companies. Currently, the fees that it charges are based on hourly rates of £201 for environmental specialists and £104 for non-specialists. Environmental specialists are technical staff who carry out the functions of the Secretary of State and non-specialists are support staff.
I turn to the details of this instrument. The current hourly rates have been in force since June 2022. Having reviewed the cost base, OPRED concluded that the existing rates need revising to reflect today’s costs for regulatory services. The fees regulations will therefore amend the charging provisions by increasing the existing hourly rate for environmental specialists to £210 and increasing the hourly rate for non-specialists to £114. This will allow OPRED to recover its costs but not to make a profit.
OPRED’s fees are determined by adding together the recorded number of hours worked per person on cost-recoverable activities, multiplied by the hourly rates for both environmental specialists and non-specialists, respectively. The new hourly rates were approved by His Majesty’s Treasury in December 2024 and calculated in line with the Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance. They cover the expenditure on all resources used by OPRED to support its activities—for example, staff salaries, accommodation, IT and legal services.
There is no formal requirement to consult on the proposed changes. However, OPRED informed the offshore sector of the planned revisions to the hourly rates in February 2025, and no representations were received. OPRED’s fees regime guidance will be revised to reflect the new hourly rates.
I conclude by emphasising that the revisions to the hourly rates introduced by the fees regulations will allow OPRED to recover the eligible costs of providing regulatory services from those who benefit from it, rather than passing those costs on to the taxpayer. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we are in favour of and support these proposed changes. The original regulations allowed the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning—OPRED—to recover the eligible costs of providing regulatory services from the offshore sector rather than the taxpayer. It is entirely appropriate that those who benefit from these services bear the associated costs.
The regulations before us simply propose to increase the hourly rate for offshore workers: for environmental specialists from £201 to £210, and for non-specialists from £104 to £114. As the Minister said, the current rates have been in force since June 2022 and these regulations have been updated in the past. OPRED has reviewed its cost base and concluded that these revised rates are necessary to reflect today’s costs for regulatory services, calculated in line with His Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance.
I have had a chance to look through the statutory instrument, the methods used to calculate the costs and the chargeable hours calculations, and they all look fine to me. This is basically an inflationary upgrade, and we are happy to support it to ensure that people who fulfil these specialist, vital jobs are adequately recompensed for their work. I made the mistake of looking at the debate in the other place on this, and I was a little surprised that a simple fees increase managed to be described as ideological and destructive madness driving us closer to economic decline. I wish to make it clear from these Benches that nothing could be further from the truth.
Since we are here, I will ask the Minister a couple of very quick questions. The changes are minor. I recognise that there was no need to consult this time, that industry was informed and that there were no responses, but can I confirm that there is a process for consultation if there are larger changes in future? I notice that a lot of micro and minor industries are associated with this, so will the Minister confirm that, as far as the Government are concerned, there is no cumulative impact of such fee increases on them? I assume that there is not, but I take the moment to check. However, these Benches fully support this basic upgrade in people’s wages.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this may appear to be a narrowly focused measure but it speaks to some wider strategic choices being made—or not being made—by this Government on energy, the environment and industry. It revises the fees charged by OPRED for its regulatory oversight. The current fees have been in place for a while and are being updated in line with revised cost assessments and Treasury guidance for full cost recovery, with the new rates being £210 for specialists and £114 for non-specialists, with the aim of ensuring that the industry, rather than the taxpayer, bears the cost of its own regulation. We on these Benches accept the principle that the polluter pays, and we recognise the importance of cost recovery where it is applied fairly and transparently.
However, although we do not oppose the principle of updating these fees, there are several areas where greater clarity from the Government would be welcome in the broader sense. First, there is strategic clarity. This comes at a time when the Government are shutting down the North Sea oil and gas industry. A windfall tax remains in place and the long-term future of the basin is uncertain. In this context, even modest fee increases risk sending mixed signals. How do these changes align with the Government’s stated ambitions on energy security, net zero and investment in our own homegrown energy?
Secondly, there is investor confidence. The Government may argue that this is a minor adjustment but, for businesses already navigating a complex mix of fiscal and regulatory pressures, predictability matters. Offshore Energies UK has said that the sector could invest up to £200 billion this decade across offshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture. Can we be confident that the regulatory framework and its associated costs are evolving to match that ambition?
Thirdly, there is the role and future of OPRED. OPRED was designed to regulate the offshore hydrocarbons industry, yet its remit is expanding to include the regulation of net-zero activities, such as offshore wind, hydrogen storage and carbon capture. How will OPRED be restructured and resourced to meet this broader role? Are the cost recovery mechanisms fit for that future?
Fourthly, on fairness across the sector, the Government invoke the “polluter pays” principle, and rightly so, but is this principle being applied consistently across the offshore space? Are our non-hydrocarbon actors, such as offshore wind developers or electricity interconnectors, contributing equitably or is the hydrocarbon sector being left to shoulder a disproportionate share of the regulatory cost?
Fifthly, on employment and skills, the offshore energy sector supports approximately 120,000 jobs across the UK. To preserve and grow the workforce through the energy transition, we need continuity not just in investment but in regulation. What assurance can the Government give that the fee policy is not operating in isolation from the broader industrial skills strategy?
Finally, on transparency, the Explanatory Memorandum notes that OPRED reviewed its costs and consulted with the industry in February 2025 but no responses were received. Should this be interpreted as assent, or does it point to confusion—even disengagement—from an industry uncertain about what to expect from the Government?
In conclusion, although the SI may be modest in scope, it prompts important questions about how we fund and structure environmental regulation in a rapidly evolving energy system. We on these Benches do not oppose the measure, but we urge the Minister to place it within a broader strategic vision—one that balances accountability with long-term investment, climate ambition and energy resilience. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, which reflected the relatively uncontroversial— I would have thought—nature of the regulations.
As I said, these fees regulations will enable OPRED to recover its costs for the provision of regulatory services under the offshore oil and gas environmental regulatory regime, as opposed to such costs being passed on to the taxpayer. The change to the hourly rates will increase OPRED’s annual fees from £6.7 million to around £7.3 million per annum, reflecting the current cost of providing environmental regulatory activities to the offshore sector.
On chargeable activities, OPRED considers the environmental implications of all offshore oil and gas operations before issuing permits and consents covering areas as diverse as seismic surveys, marine licences, oil pollution, emergency plans, chemical permits, oil discharge permits and consent to locate permission for offshore isolation. This SI is not ideologically based. In essence, it is the specialists putting up the fees by £9 and the support staff doing so by £10. The work that OPRED undertakes is very important for the rest of the industry and the North Sea.
I want to answer some of the points noble Lords raised. As far as micro industries are concerned, these regulations will affect only about 100 companies working in the North Sea. As far as consultation is concerned, any further fee increases will be subject to industry consultation and strategic clarity; that is important. None of those who were consulted this time round responded, but I think that this means that people were content with the fact that they were seeing these fees go up by £9 and £10, which increased the burden on the whole of the industry by £500,000. OPRED’s costs ensure that we can continue both to provide effective environmental regulatory services and to adapt to changing requirements, such as changes to the environmental impact assessment guidance.
As far as the North Sea basin is concerned, I do think that it has a future; we are going to be taking fossil fuels out of the basin for decades to come. It will also be an area where we can transform from taking fossil fuels out of the sea to wind and carbon capture, to ensure that we progress to net zero and that our energy is homegrown. As noble Lords know, gas prices are sorted out internationally, so if we have homegrown energy, we will have more control over it. That is what we want to see. With that, I hope that the Committee can agree to the fees going up by £9 and £10. I beg to move.
Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the Grand Committee do consider the Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to these regulations, which were laid before the House in draft on 12 May. This instrument has been considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and was not drawn to the special attention of the House. It is part of a package of statutory instruments that, together, make a number of changes to the legislative framework for land-based casinos.
If these regulations are approved by both Houses, I intend to sign two related statutory instruments that follow the negative procedure: the Gambling Act 2005 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2025 and the Gambling Act 2005 (Premises Licences and Provisional Statements) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2025. The former extends existing casino entitlements, and the regulations we are debating today introduce protections—equivalent to those for 2005 Act casinos—for converted casino premises as a result of the extended entitlements.
The premises licences and provisional statements regulations amend existing procedures so that a converted casino operator can apply to its licensing authority to vary its premises licence to enable it to exercise the extended entitlement. We published the negative instruments in draft on 12 May, the same day that these regulations were laid, to provide transparency about the range of changes we are proposing and to allow for proper scrutiny. None of the interconnected legislative instruments will be made unless the protections in these regulations are approved by Parliament.
The Government are focused on economic growth. I believe that enabling a responsible gambling sector to grow is compatible with creating an even safer one. We have already brought forward measures to improve consumer protections, including the introduction of stake limits for online slot games and establishing a statutory levy on gambling operators, to fund the research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms. Our manifesto also committed to working with industry to ensure responsible gambling, and we acknowledge the difficulties that land-based gambling businesses, particularly casinos, have faced since the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, following a consideration of the best available evidence, we intend to proceed with a series of reforms for the land-based casino sector.
Since being appointed, I have visited casinos and witnessed the contributions that they bring, with jobs, tax revenues and support for the night-time economy. The casino sector directly employs around 10,000 people, with many in non-gambling roles such as hospitality. Venues are often steeped in history and feature bars, restaurants and, in some cases, theatres. The sector generates £866 million in gross gambling yield each year, with up to 50% of this paid in gaming duty. We intend to implement measures that are estimated to increase this GGY figure by £53 million to £58 million.
Many of the restrictions that apply to land-based casinos derive from legislation that had not envisaged the rise of online gambling. In light of this, restrictions on product availability in casinos are now less important for protecting customers than factors such as the design of products and the quality of monitoring. We therefore intend to change the restrictions that apply to the supply of some products, giving casinos greater freedom about what they offer customers. None of this will be at the expense of protecting customers from gambling-related harm.
There are two types of casino licence. The first is for those who were already operating when the Gambling Act 2005 came into force, which I will refer to as “converted casinos”. The second are those created by that Act. The Act created two types of casino within this licence category, which I will refer to as “small casinos” and “large casinos”. Converted casinos are generally allowed only 20 gaming machines, or at least one is a category B machine, regardless of their size. This compares to up to 80 machines for small casinos and 150 for large casinos.
To support the sector, this package will give converted casinos the option of having the same gaming machine allowance as small casinos. For converted casinos with a gambling area that is smaller than the minimum required for a small casino—500 square metres—a sliding scale will apply for gaming machine allowances commensurate with their size. This will more closely align the rules for all casinos.
Converted casinos will have to abide by a number of strict conditions in order to increase the number of machines they offer. If they wish to site 80 gaming machines, they will need to meet the same size requirements as small casinos. This means that they must have a gambling area of at least 500 square metres, a non-gambling area of at least 250 square metres and a table gaming area of at least 250 square metres. They will become subject to a maximum machine-to-table ratio, meaning the number of machines in the casino cannot be more than five times the number of tables available for use. An additional protection prevents these casinos from siting more than 80 machines within casino premises that are connected to each other. Smaller converted casinos will be allowed to increase their gaming machine entitlement depending on their size. Their table gaming and non-gambling areas will need to be at least half the size of their gambling area.
These rules are vital to ensure that customers are offered a mixture of gambling and non-gambling opportunities when they visit a casino. The strict requirements on how much space can be allocated to each activity will mean that, even with an increase in the number of machines, casinos will not be overwhelmed with an electronic offering. This instrument also introduces a maximum gambling area for converted casinos. In allowing converted casinos a similar entitlement to small casinos, it is fair and consistent that they are subject to similar restrictions. Therefore, all converted casino premises will be limited to a maximum gambling area of less than 1,500 square metres, matching the maximum gambling area allowed for small casinos. However, a conditional exemption is made for casinos that currently operate with a gambling area of 1,500 square metres or more.
This package of instruments will also allow betting to take place in all converted casinos. The current regulatory framework prohibits these casinos from offering betting products, whereas venues licensed under the 2005 Act can do so. The prohibition makes little sense, as a casino customer can place a bet on their mobile phone while in the venue but not with the casino itself. This change will allow converted casinos not only to offer a new gambling product but to invest in other parts of their venues, such as sports bars. A limit would be put on the number of separate betting positions or self-service betting terminals that can be offered by the casino.
Finally, I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to two changes that this instrument will make to small casinos. They are currently required to comply with a maximum machine-to-table ratio of 2:1, whereby for every table in use, the casino is permitted to offer a maximum of two gaming machines. This ratio will be updated from 2:1 to 5:1, to align small casinos with large ones and to prevent operators from having to provide tables for which there is no customer demand. Small casinos are also currently required to have a minimum table gaming area of 500 square metres; as a result of these regulations, this requirement will change to 250 square metres. This will amend an anomaly whereby the minimum gambling area and minimum table gaming area were required to be of the same size.
This is a sensible package of measures that will update the outdated restrictions that currently apply to land-based casinos. It strikes the right balance between supporting the sector to grow, while still ensuring that those who visit these venues will be protected from gambling-related harm. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for setting out what is, in many ways, a very technical SI, as well as the two related SIs to which she referred.
I understand that a lot of the pressure and motivation —if not the only motivation—behind this measure is economic growth and the international competitiveness dimension. However, I certainly had some concerns on reading through the SI. Perhaps I am unique in this —I do not know—but it seems to me that the regulations would potentially alter the split between gaming machines and table-based gaming, which I think the Minister referred to, from 2:1 to 5:1. That is quite a considerable shift. The latter form, table-based gaming, represents a less intense gaming experience and is, I would argue, potentially less harmful to consumers. The Minister will know that 25% of casinos in this country are in the poorest decile of the country; we should therefore be concerned about the connection with gambling harm. Has there been a corresponding increase in space and opportunities for customers to take a break from gambling? There has been an increase in the space available for gambling machines. If there has been an increase in the areas for non-gambling, what is that increase, and what sort of facilities do these areas represent?
It is very clear in the analysis and the evidence that the annual increase in income for the gambling sector after three years is between £52 million and £63 million per annum—the gross gambling yield, I should say—with a median figure of £58 million. I recognise that that is obviously subject to costs and tax, but it still represents a considerable increase. Should we not at the same time be increasing the amount that is put aside to help with gambling addiction and gambling harm? There is no indication of that happening here in the measure.
If one looks at the theme of the analysis and the evidence, which I have done, it is quite clear. Page 4 of the impact assessment states:
“There is a risk that this measure increases the prevalence of gambling-related harm”.
Page 37 states that
“there is a risk that gambling harm will increase with the implementation of this measure”.
That is my concern: we should be doing something about that. I am not against the measure as such. Clearly, economic growth is desirable, but should we not at the same time be concerned about gambling harm, which it is quite clearly an ill in society, including in some of the poorest communities of the country?
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I share the concerns that he expressed. I am not going to oppose this statutory instrument but I want to raise some concerns about it, not least in terms of the potential impact on increasing gambling harm.
The Minister has been very generous with her time in speaking with me on a number of occasions recently; I am very grateful for that. She already knows that I have considerable concern about the Government’s current approach, which seems to suggest that, in the wider desire of the Government to increase the whole state of the economy in the country, they also want to grow the gambling industry as part of that. I have argued with the Minister—although I know that she disagrees—that it is simply not possible to grow the gambling industry without also having an increase in gambling harm, whereas she and the Government believe that it is possible both to grow the industry and to reduce the level of gambling harm. You would not increase the tobacco industry and expect it to reduce the consumption of tobacco; the same is true for products in the gambling sector. No doubt this debate will continue between me, the Minister and others over the coming months.
If I look at this statutory instrument, I have some real concerns about it. We have with it an impact assessment. A few minutes ago, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, asked a simple question: could we have some more data about the length of time spent on these machines? He will be delighted to know that, on page 19 of the impact assessment, that data, which we are told is
“a useful insight into how customers currently play on gaming machines”,
is provided. Unfortunately, however, all of the figures are blacked out. We are advised that this is helpful information, yet it—together with many other bits that would be very helpful to us—is blacked out.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, is concerned about some of the parts of the report that talk about the possibility of these measures leading to increased gambling harm. Paragraph 2.68 says:
“Overall, the existing evidence on the causal link between increasing the number of gaming machines in casinos and harm is inconclusive”.
So it is not convinced. It goes on:
“Although we have data on gaming machine participation rates and harm, we are unable to confidently state the nature of the causal connection between the two”.
This evidence that we have, the most useful bits of it blacked out, suggests that even the Government are not sure about the level of harm.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, is right: nothing catches the eye in an impact assessment like a redaction, and there are a number of them in this assessment. I know that some of the information will of course be commercially sensitive, but, if we are to have evidence-led policy, it is important that we can share as much as possible. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about the reasons for the redactions that have been made here.
We on this side of the Committee remain broadly committed to a regulatory framework for gambling that seeks to strike the right balance between addressing harm, upholding consumer protections and recognising the significant role that land-based casinos play in the UK’s leisure and hospitality economy, in the ways that the Minister outlined in her opening speech. We support the principle of reforming the rules governing casinos to reflect changes in technology, consumer behaviour and market pressures, which have been seen over the past two decades.
The proposals contained in this statutory instrument are, as the policy rationale section of the Explanatory Notes makes clear, grounded in the gambling White Paper, which was published by the previous Government in 2023. That White Paper acknowledged the outdated nature of land-based regulation and set out a number of sensible, evidence-led proposals, including changes to the machine-to-table ratio, adjustments to minimum casino floor space and lifting restrictions on in-casino betting. A consultation followed and, in May last year, the previous Conservative Government confirmed their intention to implement these modernising reforms.
The regulations before the Committee today follow directly from that process, so we welcome the fact that the Government have brought them before us. They aim to provide much-needed flexibility to land-based casinos, which have been hit particularly hard by rising operational costs and the impact of the pandemic, in contrast to the growth seen in the online gambling sector. We recognise that a standardised 5:1 gaming machine-to-table ratio, applied fairly across casinos regulated under both the 1968 Act and the 2005 Act, is a proportionate change.
We also support the reduction in minimum table gaming space for small casinos to 250 square metres, which will bring consistency and allow smaller venues to remain viable. Permitting all casinos to offer betting, subject to proportionate safeguards, also aligns the land-based sector more closely with online operators, as the Minister said. So these changes reflect much of what operators have long called for: a level playing field across the different licensing regimes, as well as the ability to offer a wider mix of products and experiences to their customers.
While we support these parts of the reforms, we note that the Government are largely following through on decisions that flowed from the White Paper in the previous Parliament. What is needed now is a clearer vision of how the Government will support the land-based sector going forward, particularly in the face of sustained inflationary pressures; increased taxation, including the rises in national insurance contributions; and rising regulatory compliance costs. We continue to have concerns about the rise of the gambling black market and urge the Minister to do all she can to ensure that her colleagues at His Majesty’s Treasury do not proceed with their tax hike, which we think will hurt bingo halls and much-loved sports across the UK and could fuel the dangers of the black market.
We remain clear that any regulation must be accompanied by rigorous safeguards. As my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, made clear, gambling is never without risk of harm. The land-based sector may not present the same immediacy of risk as online gambling, but the need for effective harm prevention measures remains in this form of gambling as it does elsewhere. The statutory levy, the requirement for casinos to maintain non-gambling areas and the obligations to monitor and intervene with customers who are at risk must be properly enforced. We would welcome assurances from the Minister on how those safeguards might be monitored and what role the Gambling Commission will play in doing that.
I thank the Minister for her very clear introduction to these statutory instruments. I have four questions for her. First, how will the Government ensure that the Gambling Commission is adequately resourced and empowered to enforce the new machine-to-table ratio and the betting provisions across all forms of casinos? Secondly, given the significant transition costs outlined, what specific support or guidance will be offered to smaller and medium-sized casinos to help them adapt to these reforms without risking closures or job losses?
Thirdly, what mechanisms will be put in place to evaluate the impact of these reforms on gambling-related harm and the sustainability of the sector, and when might we expect the first published review? Fourthly, and finally, can she clarify why the Government are taking a different approach to machine reforms in adult gaming centres? I am sure that she is aware of the widespread concerns raised in that part of the sector.
While we support the objectives of these regulations, which rightly aim to bring greater coherence and modernisation to the regulation of land-based casinos, these changes must be the start of a broader, evidence-led strategy for growth, investment and safer gambling. We will continue to press the Government to deliver on that ambition and to ensure that the sector remains sustainable and socially responsible.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords for their insightful contributions. It is clear from today’s discussion that all noble Lords share the Government’s intention of and commitment to protecting the British public from gambling-related harm. I am keen to do that while ensuring that those who wish to gamble can continue to do so safely and have protections around them to enable them to do so. As outlined, these changes will modernise the regulatory framework for land-based casinos and allow the sector to grow while still protecting its customers.
I turn now to specific points raised about the instrument. The noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Foster of Bath, raised concerns around gambling harm. Casinos are a highly regulated environment. They have a significant amount of player supervision alongside a number of protections on gaming machines themselves. Importantly, this instrument contains a number of protections that will ensure that customers will continue to be offered a range of gambling and non-gambling opportunities that help to reduce the risk of harm.
Casinos will be allowed to increase the number of machines they offer only if they meet a number of strict requirements. Operators will have to submit an application to vary their licence to their licensing authority, setting out how they meet these conditions and enclosing a new plan. The licensing authority will have to approve this application before more machines can be offered.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, raised concerns about dormant licences. As noble Lords will be aware, there is only a limited number of casino licences. Converted casinos can move only within their permitted area and instances of relocation are very rare. Stakeholder engagement suggests there is highly unlikely to be a significant increase in the number of these licences that are revisited. The 2005 Act casinos cannot move from the location that their licence granted them. Therefore, no new casino licences will be granted as part of this process.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I may have got this wrong and I would be grateful if the Minister can put me right. My understanding is that there are 42 currently dormant casino premises licences, which would enable 42 casinos to open. This is not about a casino that exists moving to another location; I am well aware of the rules around that. My simple question was: what prevents them opening under this new, perhaps brighter economic climate that the Government are now providing to casinos?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is a licence rather than the premises that cannot be moved. My understanding is that a licence cannot be moved out of the local authority area.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I know that. I apologise for pursuing this but perhaps the Minister will agree to write to me about it. It seems important. I am not talking about casinos moving their licence to somewhere else. They have a licence. They are already allowed to operate within a particular local authority, where its gambling policy allows casinos to do that. There are 42 of those licences outstanding, as I understand it—those are 2020 figures. How are we going to prevent them opening under this new, brighter economic climate for casinos?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This may be where the noble Lord and I diverge in opinion, because the Government’s view is that the casino sector is one of the most well-controlled environments in the sector. There are clear restrictions on the licences. As the noble Lord is aware, there are 186 converted licences, with over 130 in use. They are allocated to permitted areas and cannot move to new areas. No new converted licences will be created. Our stakeholder engagement and analysis suggests there will not be a significant increase. As the noble Lord indicated, there may be some increase if people think that these licences are more profitable but, as noble Lords would perhaps describe it, this is one of the more regulated parts of the sector. It is not necessarily, in our view, a bad thing that the sector is seen as more profitable to those people who have casinos. I am happy to write; I am not sure I will be able to give a different answer but we will look into that and I will revert to the noble Lord in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised a number of questions. On how these measures will be enforced, the Gambling Commission will work together with local authorities on enforcement and licensing applications. There is no requirement for any casino to take up these entitlements. DCMS and the Gambling Commission have jointly commissioned an evaluation of the gambling White Paper measures, and we published the plans for evaluation last year. I will draw those plans to the noble Lord’s attention; we can write to him on that.
The noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Foster, raised—potentially from slightly different perspectives—the issue of adult gaming centres. There were a number of measures in the gambling White Paper in relation to this. We recently set out, in a letter to industry that followed these casino reforms, that we will look at ways of supporting the bingo sector and family entertainment centres. We have paused any reforms to the 80:20 rule, as I want to understand better how the adult gaming centre sector protects its customers from gambling-related harm. I have not ruled out making changes in future, but it felt appropriate to consider this in greater depth. The Government are taking action where it is needed. In our view, these casino reforms are a key part of our wider growth agenda.
On the impact assessment, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Foster, redactions are standard practice for commercially sensitive information. I will check again with the department on the question of the redaction around the costs; I will write to the noble Lord on that point and copy in other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
I hope that I have managed to cover most of the pertinent points made by your Lordships in this debate. I am really grateful for all the points raised and for your Lordships’ interest in both the land-based casino sector and gambling more broadly.
Learning Disabilities Nursing
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to develop and maintain the specialist branch of learning disabilities nursing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise the vital role that learning disability nurses play in supporting those with learning disabilities, and we are committed to developing that workforce. We continue to work with partners to attract people into the profession through various routes, including apprenticeships, and provide a non-repayable grant and additional learning disability nursing payment. Later this year we will publish a refreshed workforce plan to ensure that the NHS has the right people with the right skills in the right places.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
I thank the Minister. The Darzi report highlighted that people with learning disabilities have greater health inequalities than the general population and are four times more likely to die from treatable causes. The Mencap campaign Nurses Not Hearses confirmed that services where there are learning disability nurses have fewer such deaths. However, this nursing workforce has reduced by 42%, universities are closing their courses—there is not one left in the south-east—and the profession is at risk of extinction. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that learning disability nursing is embedded in upcoming policies, including the 10-year plan?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her work as a campaigner in this area, particularly through Team Domenica. I know that through my office she will be meeting the Minister for Care next month to discuss all these important issues. It certainly is the case, and is totally unacceptable, that people with a learning disability die earlier on average than the general population. In England alone, we are talking about 1.5 million people with a learning disability, and they have significant health inequalities. Learning disability nursing is one of the four specialist fields of nursing, and those areas will be attended to in the forthcoming workforce plan. That will tie in with the 10-year plan, which is the first plan that will be published and noble Lords will not have to wait too long for it. The commitment to improving care for those with learning disabilities, and, if I might say so, with autism, is absolutely going to be in there; the noble Baroness will recall the discussions that we had, for example, on the Mental Health Act. I hope that this will show the way in which we are going, but I certainly agree with her about how much more there is to do.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, will the Government undertake to ensure that in their workforce plan the training of undergraduate nurses in all courses, and for undergraduate medics and allied health professions, includes training on managing a situation where people have degrees of impaired mental capacity, and that judgmental views on disability are removed from any aspect of discussion because they are prejudicial to the way that people are handled when they present as emergencies? The problem is that people with learning disabilities can present at any time of the day or night to any of the services.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right. One of the difficulties is that sometimes there is misdiagnosis, where it is incorrectly assumed, for the very reasons that the noble Baroness gives, that the presenting condition is the learning disability when actually it is a different condition. I agree about the need that the noble Baroness outlines. In reports such as the LeDeR review and Transforming Care, there is a national focus on reducing health inequalities and increasing awareness of this very point about diagnostic overshadowing. I will ensure that that is key to what we are doing.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Minister just referred to the LeDeR report, which points out the persistent avoidable deaths of people with learning disabilities. Yet we now have a seven-month delay for the latest annual report, which shows a lack of urgency. Does the Minister agree that this leads to a genuine perception that the sector’s critical concerns are not being prioritised, and that this in itself hinders promotion of learning disabilities nursing?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It is probably helpful to say to your Lordships’ House that there have been significant changes to how we respond to care for individuals with learning disabilities within the UK. Like in other specialist areas, there is a move towards multidisciplinary teams, which I certainly welcome. I also emphasise the role of learning disability nurses, who are absolutely key, as is the training of all staff. That is why we are so committed to rolling out the Oliver McGowan training, which I know is highly regarded by all staff.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, we inherited a shortage of nurses and doctors, and it is important that we train and recruit new nurses. But does the Minister agree that, in the meantime, we have some marvellous people from the Philippines who are acting as our nurses and supporting our health service, and that it is important that we do not cut them off while we train our own people?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree. We have many excellent staff from countries around the globe who are very committed, professional and hard-working. I presume my noble friend is referring to changes in international recruitment. I can assure him that that is why, certainly in respect of care staff, there is a transition period until 2028 to make sure that we have the recruitment in the right place.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, the NHS England 2025 best practice guide has a number of suggestions for growing the learning disability nursing workforce, including requiring CQC-registered providers to provide staff with training for learning disabilities and autism. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing to ensure that this is implemented equitably across the integrated care systems?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We are very focused on that, and NHS England is working with all areas of the country and local services to ensure that that is the case. There is a national plan for learning disability nursing that has been developed with key partners and focuses on four priorities: attracting, retaining, developing and celebrating the workforce. It is very important that we elevate the standing of learning disability nurses, to whom we are all grateful.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Monckton for raising the important issue of a workforce that understands how to deal with those with learning disabilities. Given the importance of this, will the Government consider committing to a targeted health promotion strategy, perhaps in partnership with local community organisations and sections of the private sector, to enable all children with a learning disability to access early promotion, intervention and prevention services to help them develop healthy habits and to improve long-life health outcomes for this vulnerable group?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is indeed a vulnerable group, as the noble Lord says, and it is probably best that I refer to the upcoming 10-year plan, which will deal with inequalities throughout a number of sectors, including the most vulnerable and including this group.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, coming back to original Question, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, alluded to a drop in recruitment of 42% and only one place where such learning disability nurses are trained, is there not a need to expand ways of getting more people to train for learning disabilities without the penalty of fees for three years and for them instead to train as apprentices, where they do not have to incur such fees? Is that not an impediment to the recruitment of more nurses?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Certainly, apprenticeships are important, and that is one of the ways we have expanded the routes into the nursing profession, including learning disability nursing. That means that the apprenticeships we are applying allow opportunities for people from all backgrounds and in underserved areas, which is another important area of ensuring that we remove the barriers to training in clinical roles.
E-scooters, E-bikes and Pedal Bikes: Legislation
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce legislation to provide for the registration, insurance and other matters relating to privately owned e-scooters, e-bikes and pedal bikes.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to legislate for the registration or insurance of e-bikes or pedal bikes. This would be likely to put many people off cycling, with negative environmental and health benefits. However, it is illegal for private e-scooters to be used on public roads. The Government will consider both registration and insurance for e-scooters in any future legislation. I look forward to further exploring this important subject with the noble Baroness in our forthcoming meeting.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, and I look forward to meeting him tomorrow. Presumably, the Government are seeking a safe space for all road users, including pedestrians, car drivers, e-scooters, e-bikes and bikes. Currently, 1 million e-scooters are being used illegally on public roads without insurance. Damage caused by their accidents is recovered through Motor Insurers’ Bureau claims, 47% of which involve e-scooters, including pedestrians between the ages of seven and 80 being struck by an e-scooter. Although I share the Government’s aim to increase and improve micromobility at every level, will the noble Lord ensure that the Government apply the law as it currently stands and review the possibility of extending to e-scooters, e-bikes and bikes both registration and insurance? It is inappropriate that only car drivers are currently covering the cost of this insurance.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I feel that this is a rerun of the noble Baroness’s previous Question. She is right that the road network, including the pavement, should be safe for all varieties of road users, including all the people she mentions and pedestrians. It clearly is an issue, and I respect her view, and that of other noble Lords, that it is an issue. The previous Government started a rental trial in 2020 and announced primary legislation in May 2022 but failed to deliver it. This Government are giving serious consideration to these issues, including the issue of insurance, and I am sure that this subject will come back—probably weekly—until this legislation.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister consider banning e-bikes and e-scooters on pavements and introduce a special lane on the road for these vehicles to rescue pedestrians from what is currently a major risk?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
We have limited road space in the towns and cities of the United Kingdom. I have wrestled with this issue personally, when I ran Transport for London for nine and a half years. It is extraordinarily difficult. The answer is a set of laws, and people conforming with those laws, that leave pedestrians safe, disabled people safe and road users of all sorts safe. There is an issue about enforcement—the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, raised that issue in this House a few days ago and produced the very competent Sergeant Ford of the City of London Police, who has done a lot on enforcement regarding illegal e-cycles. The answer is proper behaviour, a road network that copes with all its users and proper enforcement.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, phone thefts using e-bikes and e-scooters, and general antisocial behaviour by those using such vehicles, plagued the residents of Stratford City in my former constituency, spreading fear and intense feelings of unease. What sanctions can be deployed against such bike users, and are there any plans to increase the sanctions?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government understand that position completely, and there is enforcement. Last year, the City of London Police seized 324 e-cycles for having no insurance, and the Metropolitan Police seized 1,076. Of course the issue, as my noble friend relates, is not merely illegal use of the cycles; it is the disorder and crime that goes with them. My noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint stood at this Dispatch Box a few days ago talking about the additional measures the Government are putting in place to allow easier confiscation of these bikes when they are used in the wrong way. We encourage police forces to follow the lead of the City of London Police and the Metropolitan Police in understanding that the use of these things illegally leads to further crime.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the investigative reporting by Jim Waterson at London Centric on Lime bikes, and the huge increase of broken legs and serious injuries at A&Es, known locally as “Lime leg”? What plans do the Government have to ensure that comprehensive insurance is in place for hire bike operators?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a good point. I and the department have read the investigation by Jim Waterson. It is concerning that these bikes apparently seem to cause so many breaks of the lower limbs, and I will write to her about the actions that can be taken both about insurance, which hire bike schemes should have, and with the company about the design of its bikes and the damage that they seem to cause on a regular basis.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, on at least two occasions recently when I have asked questions about e-bikes and e-scooters and the Labour Government’s policy towards them, the Minister has replied by telling me about the previous Conservative Government’s policy towards them. It is becoming increasingly clear that the reason for that is that this Government really do not know what their policy towards them ought to be. Will the Minister answer the question I asked last time? Are the Government, essentially, happy for the current state of drift and danger to continue on our streets pretty well indefinitely?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Last time the noble Lord said that to me, I repeated the answer I gave him on 1 April, which is that
“I do not … care to be lectured about drift by somebody who represents a party that did an experiment in 2021, published some results in 2022 and then did nothing”.—[Official Report, 1/4/25; col. 117.]
That answer is still the same. The Government, as the noble Lord heard in answer to the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, are considering what to do. It is a complex problem. I have explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, among others, that we have to make some decisions about what needs to be in legislation. It is not a simple thing to do, and it is a great shame that his Government did not contemplate and do something about it.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, somebody has to speak up on behalf of pedal bikes. I say that as somebody who cycled from London to Vienna and back many years ago, when I was younger, and somebody who was also knocked down by a pedal bike two or three years ago. Is it not the right policy to encourage the widest possible use of pedal bikes? It is healthy and good for the environment.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I have cycled only as far as Amsterdam on a pedal bike, so I admire him for going to Vienna and back. I am not sure that I could do it now.
The reason why I answered the original question the way that I did is that it is very important not to put people off a mode of transport that is environmentally friendly and safe and, when done in the right way, is a huge benefit to our society. That is why registration and insurance of pedal bikes is such a difficult issue, because it would undoubtedly put people off cycling. But we also have to recognise that there are behaviours about cycling in general, and the use of e-bikes and e-scooters, that are very threatening and damaging to pedestrians and can cause very serious accidents and death. That is why the Government intend to introduce appropriate offences to the Road Traffic Act 1988 about the more serious offences caused by dangerous, careless and inconsiderate cycling.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, many of us have children and grandchildren. To go on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, can the Government confirm absolutely that there is no move at all to register bicycles for anybody, but particularly for young people? Otherwise, we will have six and seven year-olds who want to learn to ride a bicycle being registered for some foolish reason, when the only person they are a danger to, sadly, is themselves.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I share the noble Lord’s enthusiasm for teaching kids to cycle, which is why I said to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that the Government have no plans to legislate for the registration or insurance of e-bikes or pedal bikes.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Minister keeps telling us that this is complex and difficult, but meanwhile he is not doing anything either. Does he understand not only the dimensions of the harm that is being caused, particularly to pedestrians, of riding on pavements, dumping on pavements and sailing through red lights, as well as the corrosive effect that this normalisation of anti-social and unlawful behaviour is having on public confidence in tackling lawlessness?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The one thing that I did not say was that the Government are doing nothing. The Government are considering very seriously what needs to be done to deal with this issue, and noble Lords will know—because I put it in the Library—that the range of legislation affecting particularly e-bikes and e-scooters across Europe and beyond gives us some difficult and serious choices about how to legislate and in which way. In the meantime, as my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint said in response to the Question last week from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, the Government are taking serious action on dangerous and inconsiderate cycling as well as about confiscating bikes when they are used for crime. I have sympathy with what the noble Baroness says, and we are doing something about it.
Cladding: High-rise Buildings
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made on removing cladding from high-rise buildings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, over half—57%—of all 18 metre-plus buildings identified with unsafe cladding have started or completed remediation. For 18 metre-plus buildings with aluminium composite material—ACM cladding—like that in Grenfell, 96% of identified buildings have started or completed remediation. We have been clear that those responsible must make swift progress or face action. We will update on the remediation acceleration plan this summer.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Many blocks still to be done contain the same panels as Grenfell. Can we be assured that the companies identified in the Grenfell report as using dishonest strategies and making false claims, such as Kingspan, Celotex and Arconic, are not involved in any replacement work? The companies are reported to have manipulated test data and manipulated the market. The Minister and other noble Lords will have read the exposure of the crooks running Arconic in a devastating article in the Sunday Times two days ago. Why are these people not behind bars?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the Cabinet Office announced investigations into seven organisations, a few of which the noble Lord mentioned. These organisations were named in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report, enabled by the Procurement Act 2023, which came into force on 24 February 2025. The Cabinet Office is considering options under this Act. This is rightly independent. While this process must run its course, further actions outside the debarments regime against those involved in this tragedy have not been ruled out.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, eight years after the Grenfell tragedy, the Public Accounts Committee in the other place reported that 3 million people are still living in unsafe buildings, unable to sell their properties and move on with their lives, facing high service charges and high insurance premiums, and in some cases facing repossession. The Minister’s own department says that this ordeal will not be completed until 2035, 10 years away. These leaseholders are the innocent victims of negligence and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said, of greed. Do they not deserve a better deal?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great expertise and makes a very important point. This Government have been taking decisive action to address the building safety crisis so that residents do not need to wait a day longer than necessary to feel safe in their homes. We continue to work closely with industry, local authorities and residents to accelerate remediation efforts while ensuring that those responsible for unsafe buildings cover the costs. On the important point of insurance, work has been ongoing to reduce building insurance premiums for leaseholders. On lending, we have seen improvements for leaseholders who previously found themselves unable to sell or remortgage their homes, but we will remain vigilant and continue to hold the 10 major lenders to account following their commitment to lend on properties even if remediation is not yet complete.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the divergent opinions of fire safety remediation standards under what is known as PAS 9980, and in particular the undefined metrics of proportionality and tolerable risk which still leave residential blocks such as Meath Crescent, Bethnal Green, and Royal Artillery Quays in Greenwich, and thousands of others, with combustible elements which should never have been included under the building regulations applicable at the time of construction. What is his department doing to address the resultant long-term degradation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, but also the basic failure to meet construction standards in regulation at the time of construction? What is happening about that?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, as part of the work set out in our remediation acceleration plan, we intend that by the end of 2029, all 18 metre-plus high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding in a government funded scheme will have been remediated. Our intention is that every building of 11 metres-plus with unsafe cladding will have been remediated or have a completion date, or the landlord will be liable for severe penalties. On 26 February, the Government published the Construction Products Reform Green Paper, which sets out comprehensive proposals for system-wide reforms of the construction products regime. The Green Paper is a significant step towards a construction products regime that has safety at its heart. We welcome the extensive engagement from across the sector.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I want to focus on tenants of social housing. The Minister has referenced the remediation acceleration scheme. There was supposed to be a report specifically on social housing in the spring, which has yet to be published. What plans do the Government have to help registered social landlords, housing associations and councils, so that they have the funding to remediate their flats and social housing tenants can live in safe homes?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I have some excellent news for the noble Baroness. Fresh from the spending review, we can confirm over £1 billion of new investment between 2026-27 and 2029-30 to accelerate the remediation of social housing by giving social housing providers the same access to government funding as private building owners. This will support providers of social housing to supply more affordable homes while also improving the living conditions of tenants. This Government recognise that social landlords face significant barriers to accelerating remediation of building safety risks, including access to upfront funding.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that the situation is even worse in Scotland, where money allocated under Barnett consequentials precisely for this purpose has been diverted into futile legal cases and the added costs of ferries? Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Treasury to make sure that money allocated for this purpose is earmarked in the future?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I will take my noble friend’s request forward. I am always happy to talk to colleagues across other government departments, and let me assure my noble friend that I am always happy to talk to him.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, last Saturday was the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and we send all our thoughts and prayers to the bereaved, the survivors and the communities of north Kensington. Can the Minister say when the £85 million earmarked for the regeneration of the Lancaster West Estate following the Grenfell Tower disaster is expected to be delivered—if it is still intended to be delivered at all?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Let me echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness in relation to the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The Government are committed to taking the next steps respectfully and carefully. We have accepted all the inquiry’s findings and will take action on all 58 recommendations to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system to deliver safe, quality homes for everyone. I will write to the noble Baroness on the issue of funding.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, on 15 June 2017, the Metropolitan Police began a criminal investigation into the Grenfell fire. Can the Minister tell the House how many individuals and corporations have been charged and prosecuted in the past eight years?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I hope my noble friend understands that this is still a live criminal investigation, so it would be remiss of me comment. However, let me reassure him: this will take time, as the Met Police has said. It is one of the largest and most legally complex investigations ever conducted by the Met Police, with 180 officers and staff dedicated to the investigation. We fully support the police in their important work. On funding, I can also reassure my noble friend that the Home Office will provide the Met Police with up to £6.6 million in 2025-26 to support the cost of the investigation.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I add my tribute to the Grenfell bereaved families, who have campaigned for so long to have their voices heard, and to firefighters and emergency workers who were on the scene.
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry report was damning about the role of central government in deregulating and indeed privatising fire safety building control, and the cosy relationship with the construction industry. Can the Minister reassure us today that the policy of deregulation will never happen again?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My noble friend makes an excellent point, and I echo her tribute to the victims of the tragedy and all emergency service personnel. To be clear, companies must be held to account for their role in the Grenfell tragedy. On 26 February, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office announced that the Government will launch investigations into seven organisations—which brings me back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Rooker. It is totally wrong that construction product manufacturers have faced so little accountability. That is why we have adopted all the findings and will take forward all 58 recommendations to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system to deliver safe, quality homes for everyone.
International Vaccine Programmes: Funding
Lord Browne of Ladyton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to maintain funding for international vaccine programmes, such as GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK has long been a strong supporter of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. We have committed £1.65 billion to the current strategy covering 2021-25, and we have provided over £5 billion since 2000. This has enabled Gavi to vaccinate over 1 billion children and save 18 million lives. The outcomes of the spending review are being used to inform how the official development assistance budget will be used. The Foreign Secretary and I look forward to attending Gavi’s replenishment summit on 25 June.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, often what we categorise only as aid is also a form of national security spending. In the case of biosecurity, this is reinforced by the fact that the national risk register identifies pandemics as the greatest risk we face in the UK today, and the strategic defence review identifies engineering biology and new pathogens as a clear and present risk. Against that backdrop and the United States’ proposed defunding of Gavi, would my noble friend the Minister agree that renewing our support for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, would not only be a form of philanthropy but a pragmatic investment in our national security?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend put that incredibly well. This is about security. I would not call it philanthropy; I would call it a partnership with countries that benefit from the ability of Gavi to vaccinate at scale and with value for money. I point out that countries do not just stay as a recipient of Gavi vaccines but progress to become donors to Gavi—look at India and Indonesia—such is the success of this approach.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I very much appreciate the Answer that the Minister has given, but does she agree with me that there is far too much satisfaction shown by financial spokesmen on the reduction in overseas aid, given that the certain outcome is more illness and more death, particularly among women and small children?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not sure which financial spokespeople the noble Lord is speaking about. On behalf of the Government, I can say that the decision to reduce our ODA spend was taken in order to invest more in defence. That is a decision I support; it was the right decision to take at that particular point in time. It is our hope that, in time, as the economy improves, we can increase our spending. We understand the long-term benefits of enabling countries to develop and to become safe and more secure, more prosperous and able to stand on their own two feet. This is what countries are telling us repeatedly. They want to be partners with us and move on from simply being recipients of aid.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister is facing some really tough decisions about where the substantial cuts to international development will fall, and I hope she will look favourably on Gavi for the reasons she has set out. On the cuts more broadly, is the Minister able to say when the details of the cuts will be published following last week’s spending review?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the question and acknowledge her work in international development over many years. She has remained a stalwart advocate for the benefits of development ever since, and I thank her for that. We will be publishing the more detailed decisions that we are currently taking shortly. We will be consulting over the summer with partners, stakeholders and countries, to make sure that we are getting this as right as we can in, as she says, the constrained financial circumstances that we are in.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, we know that any reduction in vaccine availability has a massively disproportionate impact on girls and young women. In the light of the recent government announcements of cuts and the deprioritisation of gender, as the Minister stated to the IDC in the Commons, the Government were challenged by the charity community to demonstrate how they were meeting their obligations under statutory equalities tests. The Government replied last week, and I can inform the House that they said that the tests do not apply because those impacted are not UK citizens. Can the Minister please assure me and the rest of this House that, when it comes to vaccine availability for children, a child in need of a vaccine in Malawi is just as needy as a child in Manchester, and that equalities are universal for this Government and do not end at the channel?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is somewhat overinterpreting what has been said. We have been very clear that we are going to prioritise humanitarian, health and climate initiatives. Because of his work in this field, he will understand that, when you are talking about health, principally, the beneficiaries are, quite rightly, often women and children. We will be making sure that a child, wherever they live, can access what they need. Gavi is a very good way of delivering this. We will be making our decisions, doing the impact assessments and, unlike the previous Government, publishing the conclusions of the impact assessments, because we want to be as transparent as possible.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, are the Government aware that we have a serious vaccine crisis in this country? It started with Covid. There is a lot of disinformation. Measles, mumps, rubella and a number of other vaccines are vital. We are well below the safety thresholds in many parts of the UK. Can the Minister give some indication of what the Government are doing to reverse these trends?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would be straying somewhat beyond my remit to talk about vaccine hesitancy in the UK, but I point out that pathogens do not respect barriers. It is in the interests of health security in this country to make sure that having children vaccinated becomes the norm, wherever those children are growing up.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, nearly every minute a child dies from malaria somewhere in the world. That death toll is easily remedied by the application of vaccination—vaccines which we have partially produced in the UK in our industries, research institutes and academia, and which have been partially subsidised in their application to the populations of need by Gavi. Apart from that huge humanitarian gain, have His Majesty’s Government estimated the positive economic impact that a successful Gavi replenishment, which is due very shortly, can have on the investment in and growth of our biomedical and pharmaceutical industries?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a very important point. On the economics of this, we know that for every £1 invested through Gavi there is a return of around £54 through lives saved and fulfilling lives lived. As far as the UK is concerned, the noble Lord is right to remind us that we are leaders in devising vaccines and vaccine manufacture. Without a doubt, there is going to be a benefit from supporting Gavi further to GSK and others here in the UK. That is good, and it is important that we support that work, but the principal aim of this must always be health security and supporting developing countries in making sure their populations are vaccinated, for their good and everybody else’s, and that they can use that partnership to develop and support their own vaccination programmes in time.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I think there is widespread agreement across the House on these programmes. To be fair, as the Minister pointed out in her initial Answer, the previous Government committed £1.65 billion between 2021-25, supporting Gavi to immunise some 300 million children and save up to 18 million lives from vaccine-preventable diseases. This is a vital programme. I understand that the Minister cannot give specific numbers at this stage, but perhaps she could set out the general role that the Government should play in global vaccine equity.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is right; I am not going to give a number this afternoon, because the replenishment is taking place next week. I will be attending, alongside the Foreign Secretary, and we will be making the announcement he talks about. I pay tribute to the previous Government for investing in and supporting Gavi. I am proud that it was started under a Labour Government and continued by successive Conservative Governments. We will continue to support it too, because it is such a successful initiative.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, the success of Gavi, which I have seen for myself as a former ambassador for Gavi in both Ghana and Tanzania, has been based on partnership with local health ministries and with the workforces in those countries. That partnership is strained by the recruitment by our National Health Service of doctors and clinicians from Nigeria and Ghana and throughout the Commonwealth. That is undermining the health service delivery in those countries. If we are going to continue to recruit from those countries, will the Government please give some consideration to making direct budgetary funding available to the health departments in the countries of which Gavi is a part?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We work very closely with our partner Governments. We should respect the fact that they need not only vaccination partnerships but a sustainable workforce strategy themselves in order to deliver the healthcare that they require. We will continue to work closely with them. I know that the Health Secretary has his eye on this issue as well. I have every confidence that, across government, working in partnership with my colleagues at the Department of Health, we will be able to proceed in a way that my noble friend would support.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thought it would be helpful to the House, before we move on to the Third Reading of the Holocaust Memorial Bill, to remind people of the usual procedures and courtesies. I am aware that some noble Lords may wish to speak, and any speeches should take place after Third Reading on the question that the Bill do now pass. It is customary that contributions at this stage should focus on brief thanks. I ask colleagues to minimise the number of contributions and keep speeches very concise. As set out on page 154 of the Companion:
“Any remarks should be brief and should not seek to reopen debates at previous stages of the bill”.
I hope all noble Lords will respect this as we complete the passage of this Bill through the House, but I have asked the Government Whips on the Bench to intervene if necessary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, it has been my great privilege to steer this Bill through the Lords. I thank all noble Lords who have dedicated so much of their time to scrutinising the Bill. I hope I have demonstrated my personal commitment to seeing it passed through my engagement with noble Lords from all sides of the House. Through this Bill, the Government are moving a step closer to delivering on the long-standing commitment to build a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre next to Parliament, where it rightly belongs.
As has often been repeated throughout the Bill’s passage, this commitment has cross-party support and the endorsement of every living Prime Minister, as well as the support of leading representatives of the Jewish community, other faith and community leaders, survivors and the wider public. The most important group of supporters is, without doubt, the Holocaust survivors, who have dedicated their lives to sharing their testimony so that the truth of what happened in the darkest, most appalling period of history is understood and remembered. I was delighted to see the Holocaust survivor Manfred Goldberg, whom I met in February and who is a firm supporter of the memorial, receive a well-deserved MBE in the King’s Birthday Honours List. We owe it to survivors to ensure that there is a permanent memorial to honour the 6 million men, women and children who were murdered in the Holocaust, together with a learning centre, so that they can be confident their testimony will live on for decades and centuries to come.
The Bill has been amended to include a new clause on the purpose of the learning centre. As I said on Report, I am sympathetic to the intentions of this amendment, but it will now be for the other place to consider the amendment and respond. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her unstinting support for the Bill, and the many noble Lords—I will not mention them all—who have spoken so passionately throughout its passage. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, for his unwavering support. I cannot mention every civil servant, but all my officials have been instrumental behind the scenes.
I finish by quoting the words of Dov Forman, the great-grandson of Lily Ebert, a most remarkable Holocaust survivor. His words encapsulate what we want to achieve by creating the new national memorial and learning centre:
“With education comes remembrance—this memorial will give people somewhere to remember and reflect. When we no longer have survivors like Lily among us, this memorial will help to ensure that their experiences are never forgotten. We can create the next generation of witnesses”.
Lily has since sadly passed, in October 2024 at the age of 100. We now need to get this memorial and learning centre built so that we can indeed create the next generation of witnesses. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his courtesy during the passage of the Bill and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on her leadership of those of us who felt there were problems with it. I thank all those who pointed out the risks and drawbacks of the choice the Government have made about the location of the learning centre and express a hope that, on reflection, the Government may in time make a different choice.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, one has to congratulate the Minister and the department on their patience and persistence, and indeed perhaps on a record. Rarely can a one-page Bill with three clauses have achieved the potential of doing so much damage to the environment, to local facilities, to restoration and renewal, to security—what a shame that the House did not see fit to follow the wise words of the expert noble Lord, Lord Carlile—as well as damage to the beauty of the locality, to the understanding of antisemitism and Jewish history past and present, to intra-community relations, to the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s 2015 Holocaust Commission, and to the public purse.
Once we are free of the fears of this Government that any alternative is somehow giving in to the antisemitism of which the party was accused a few years ago—that is simply not the case—we will go forward with a planning process that might yet rescue this botched plan. It is not too late to tweak it and build not a monument to death and the Nazis but one dedicated to the need to preserve and understand Jewish life. At a time when a new version of the desire to destroy Jewish life in the Middle East and elsewhere is playing out as we speak, we could have a learning centre that extended to the achievement of the survivors of the Holocaust in building what was a safe haven for Jews: a land of their own. Is it not ironic that this Government are so respectful of 6 million dead but so cavalier about the fate of 7 million of their descendants in Israel right now?
There is indeed much to be learned, not just close to Parliament but inside our debates. We who understand what is at stake will continue to press our case. The fight is not over.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his enormous courtesy and patience, and for being willing to go that extra mile to ensure that everybody gets a fair chance to get their view across. I am very encouraged by his remarks with regard to the noble Lord’s amendment. It is a sensible one, and we need something to ensure it is absolutely clear that this cannot drift into a museum of general genocide.
The Minister spoke about survivors; to me they are represented by just one survivor, Sir Ben Helfgott. He was an enormous inspiration to get this job done. I am sorry that he is no longer with us and will not see it, but I am delighted that his wife, his children and his grandchildren will see this wonderful memorial built.
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott for the way in which she showed equal patience. I think she and the Minister have been the last two people with responsibility for the memorial and learning centre. It was an inspiration to bring the model into the House, so much so that I recall how one of my noble friends demanded that it be brought back again. I think that showed that it was actually quite an attractive model; in particular, the fins are quite attractive.
There has been some misinformation—I am sure unintentional—about who designed the fins, and it was Adjaye, but I express my particular gratitude to Asa Bruno, who was the architect in the architectural practice. As the Minister will know, sadly, that very talented young man died of cancer, leaving behind a young family and a wife. I hope that that family will, in the coming years, come to see that the last project that Asa was involved in was a project of global importance, and will come back and see it with great pride. May his memory be a blessing.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, bearing in mind the words of the Chief Whip, I congratulate and thank the Minister, who, throughout a rather long and torrid Committee and Report, showed tremendous courtesy. I thank him for that. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for her contribution to this, which I thought was very great. As somebody who cares hugely about the Jewish Holocaust and the ghastly thing it is, the site for the learning centre is wrong. It will be cramped and is not worthy of what we wish to commemorate. I say to the Minister and others that back this that I do not believe they will be built, because they are going to be so many problems once we start destroying Victoria Gardens to do so. But, on that note, I again congratulate the Minister and the Chief Whip on his words, and I will let him carry on.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, while agreeing with the noble Lord who has just spoken, I would also like to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in her tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for all her work on this Bill—right up to 1.15 last Thursday morning, and all the work that she put in at Second Reading and in Committee in the Moses Room.
I do not want to be disrespectful to the two Front Benches but, following the noble Lord who spoke just now, I have to say that I could argue that both Front Benches are like ostriches who have got their heads stuck in the sand. But I am getting a long frown from my Chief Whip and will not progress that argument further, but I ask all Members of the House to have a thought about that, because the consequences of this Bill are so adverse and destructive that I can only hope that the noble Lord on the Conservative Benches is right and this Bill will be lost.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I should declare my interest as president of Historic Buildings & Places. I congratulate the Government and all those who took part in the Bill. It was a learning process.
I have over the last 50 years earned my professional qualifications, worked as a professional and worked in other things, and the theme of my life has been land, land use, law and planning. I have to say to the House that, the more the Bill progressed, the more I became convinced that this proposal was overdevelopment and in the wrong place. I do not wish to say any more, other than, with sadness, that this Bill, the Holocaust Memorial Bill, will no doubt shortly be going on the statute. In my view. it is not properly named: it is the Victoria Tower Gardens Destruction Bill.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I am a simple sailor, but my thoughts are that, when they start work deep in the basement, would they please not use Navy or Army divers to do the work there but ensure that the money is paid by someone else?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to rise at Third Reading of this important Bill. I will not restate our position at length, but the Official Opposition support the Bill, which will take us another step closer to delivering on my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton’s historic commitment to build a lasting national memorial to the Holocaust.
We have made a solemn commitment never to forget the horrors of the Holocaust and to work to ensure that it will never happen again. Holocaust education is an essential part of our efforts to make good on those promises. It has been the policy of successive Conservative Governments that we need a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre. This has the support of the Holocaust education organisations, including the Holocaust Centre North, the National Holocaust Museum, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust.
We were very pleased that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, was successful on Report. We feel strongly that the noble Lord’s amendment not only improves the Bill but is actually helpful to the Government. It is designed to ensure that the intentions of successive Governments are honoured once the memorial and learning centre have been established. We hope the Minister will be able to reassure us today, although we have heard no reassurance, that the Government will carefully consider the amendment. Can the Minister perhaps go further and tell the House whether he will make the case to his colleagues in government that the amendment should be accepted?
Finally, I would like to thank the Minister for his continued engagement throughout the progress of the Bill. It is a controversial piece of legislation and I am grateful to him for his approach when working with the Official Opposition Front Bench. I would also like to thank his officials, the House authorities who have supported an extremely long Report stage and all noble Lords who have contributed to the scrutiny process of the legislation. On something very personal, I would like to thank Henry in the Opposition office, who has so ably supported me through the passage of the Bill.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to say that I am not going to respond to all the contributions from the noble Lords. I think there are still some outstanding concerns, but let me reassure noble Lords who have them that, subject to the passage of the Bill in the other House and on to the statute book, there will be a process for people to put their representations, views and ideas forward about prospective future planning. I look forward to meeting in particular with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, to look at the nature, technicality and wording of his amendment.
Finally, I will make one last point to my noble friend Lord Hacking. I thought I would take it as a compliment when he described me as an ostrich. The noble Lord may not know that it is the fastest bird on land, with speeds of up to 70 kph; I wish we had used that speed in the passage of the Bill.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellingham
“(2A) Regional co-operation arrangements must include the local integrated care board in their development, delivery and governance.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment aims to highlight the need to include health agencies in the regional cooperation arrangements.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I open this important group of amendments on regional care co-operatives with my Amendment 107D.
We will hear later about the stresses and pressures on local authorities in relation to the cost of children’s homes. The establishment of regional care co-operatives was a key recommendation of the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, carried out by the now honourable Member for Whitehaven and Workington, Josh MacAlister. I pay tribute to Mr MacAlister MP for his ground-breaking work on this review. He put a huge amount of effort into it and needs to be applauded for that.
I look forward to hearing about the amendments tabled by other noble Lords, who I am sure are keen to raise important issues relating to the RCCs. My amendment is very straightforward. It seeks to clarify the role of the independent care boards—ICBs—in the RCC arrangements. In my experience as an MP for a number of years, visiting many care homes and talking to many practitioners in this field, every child in residential care will almost certainly have significant mental health needs and, very often, physical health needs as well. The Minister will be aware of the serious concerns that have been expressed by a number of organisations that the reform of ICBs will lead to changes in the funding allocations for their safeguarding role. This could compromise and undermine their effectiveness. My amendment makes it crystal clear that ICBs must be included in the “development, delivery and governance” of the RCC arrangements.
The Minister, a very experienced former Cabinet Minister, will be aware of the concerns expressed by the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals—NNDHP—for children and NHS England regarding the health workforce’s ability to implement the relevant clauses in the Bill. In March, NHSE reported that
“all current caseload reviews suggest that child safeguarding expertise is already fully committed and at full capacity”.
I very much hope that the Minister will take that on board because these concerns have intensified following recent announcements. As well as the abolition of NHS England, ICBs will be required to reduce operating costs by 50%. Furthermore, all NHS providers are being asked to reduce corporate costs by the same percentage. I support that in principle, as I am sure everyone on these Benches does. We want to see an elimination of waste, more effective management, and efficiencies. I have a very simple question for the Minister. Surely safeguarding is a front-line service. It typically sits within the corporate services of most NHS provider trusts. Furthermore, the Minister will be aware that the model ICB blueprint asks ICBs to test and explore options to streamline and transfer some of their safeguarding activities away from the boards. So will these changes in accountability require secondary legislation in the future? Why, when this is such an important front-line service and competence, is it so often categorised as part of corporate services? It makes no sense to me.
I raise another point. We have been talking more about local authorities, particularly county councils and putting more responsibilities into their hands. Many of us find that to be a positive move. But there is a great deal of change going on in local government at the moment. The Minister will be aware, because I mentioned this the other day in a debate, that in Norfolk, for example, there is a debate going on about local government re-organisation. There is every possibility that we will go from the current county council and eight districts to one unitary, with Norfolk County Council carrying out all the competences across the districts, or maybe to two or three unitaries across Norfolk. That is the pattern in many other counties.
I suggest to the Minister that although reorganisation will make savings in the longer run and drive efficiencies and cost reductions, in the short term there will be a lot of disruption and dislocation, as well as redundancies of key staff. What measures will the Government take to make sure that these local authorities really can cope with the changes that are coming very quickly down the track, many of which are contained in the Bill? I put it to the Minister that because of these changes in the Bill, there may well be implications for staffing across the different safeguarding bodies.
I very much hope that the Minister will address these concerns and reassure the Committee and the NNDHP that there will be the capacity and funding for the ICBs to be full participants in the RCCs. I beg to move.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendments 108 to 116 focus on the distance from home of placements for children in care, and the impact of the move to regional care co-operatives. I welcome the move to regional care arrangements of this kind, as well as the significant increase in investment in children’s social care in last week’s spending review. Put together, they offer a real opportunity to power up on the delivery and implementation of the MacAlister recommendations for children’s social care, with real improvements to the experience of and outcomes for children in care.
The distance from home that some children in care have been placed in has, as many noble Lords will know, been an issue for some time. Local authorities across the country have faced increasing challenges in delivering sufficiency of places near to home in recent years, due to increasing demand, rising costs, cuts to early-intervention funding, and workforce challenges, leading to what can be seen only as a broken care market.
The national issue has had a significant impact on the experiences and outcomes of children in care, who too often are moved to homes that are unable to meet all their needs or moved far away from those who matter most to them, due to a shortage of appropriate options. Between 2013 and 2024, the number of children in care living more than 20 miles from home increased by 66%, compared with a 23% increase in the overall number of children in care during the same period. In 2024, more than a fifth of all children in care and almost half of those living in residential care were living more than 20 miles from home.
Research from the charity Become has highlighted that children living in private children’s homes were two and a half times more likely to be living such a distance from their community than children living in other residential care settings. We have talked before about the negative impact of being separated from communities, support networks, friends, families and schools, and what that can bring—exacerbating adversity in a whole range of different issues.
The move to regional care co-operatives is, as I said, welcome, and is an opportunity for better planning. But there is a risk that without effective mitigation, the proposal to regionalise the commissioning and delivery of homes for children in care could lead to more children being moved far from their support networks in communities but within the region. I know that that is not what anyone wants.
That is why I have tabled these amendments, which, taken together, would provide an important mitigation to stop children in care increasingly being moved far away from their support networks but still within the region. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister and her team would consider these changes to provide children in care the surety that they can stay close to those with whom they have relationships and to support networks when that it is in their best interests.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, following on from that, I too wish to support those amendments directed specifically at ensuring placement of children close to home, both in this group and the next. Quite simply, state intervention in the life of a family should, if possible, make things better, not worse. Recent figures from the Department for Education show that one in 10 looked-after children experience three or more placements in a year; this is described as “high placement instability”.
There is already in Section 22C of the Children Act an important requirement to accommodate children close to home. It is recognised that such proximity increases the prospects of a child being later returned home. When a child is accommodated away from home and from parents, and away from a familiar area, some parents become unable or unwilling to provide any further support and they disengage, or at least they give up on active engagement.
There will remain a need for interaction between the local authority and parents. Parents retain parental responsibility and, even if they do not do so, they should be encouraged to remain involved and see themselves as able to remain involved. That is likely to be reassuring for the child and meet that child’s continuing attachment needs. However, parents and wider family members cannot be expected to maintain involvement unless the placement of the child is reasonably accessible to them. Phone and digital contact are no real substitute.
I suspect the Minister might say that the obligation under Section 22C is already referred to in the Bill, but I would support the suggestion that it should be emphasised and reinforced by these amendments. I also support Amendment 117B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, which would ensure that the Bill does not detract from the duty in Section 22C(7) of the Children Act.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 116B, 117B, 117C and 117D in this group, which are tabled in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and to the noble Lords who have already spoken. I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said so far.
The intention behind these amendments is to address the issues of attachment, disruption and trauma, which can ensue from housing children too far from home—noble Lords who have already spoken have addressed this. We know that we can minimise the damage and effects of being housed too far away by proximity. I have therefore tabled amendments in a probing manner to invite the Minister to reflect on whether there is some way in which these concerns, as expressed in Committee today, could be accommodated in this legislation.
Amendment 116B essentially proposes a duty to collect sufficiency data. It would address the basic idea that you cannot plan what you do not measure. We know from the MacAlister review and from many other organisations which support RCCs—as, indeed I do—that there are concerns about current provision already, and that we need to make sure there is strategic visibility, so that RCCs working together know how many foster carers, residential beds and emergency places are truly needed and where investment is most urgent. In the independent review commissioned by the last Government, the now Labour MP Josh MacAlister was very clear that data should drive the planning. I urge the Government Benches to consider that viewpoint. This amendment would give legislative force to his recommendation. It would allow readily available data to be collected so that we could target spending wisely, empower the local leaders who are responsible for assigning the places and avoid waste.
Amendment 117C just builds on the previous proposal requiring the RCCs to publish an annual sufficiency report. It is a basic governance issue of transparency and accountability, which would allow the local authorities, providers, Parliament and, most importantly, children and their families, to know whether the system is, in fact, working. Placement decisions, as we know because there has been a lot of coverage of it, are currently shaped by what is available at the time. Many of us in this House have concerns about supply being driven by various commercial providers. The amendment would help to reverse some of that by making the data transparent at a ready time. It would also ensure that the RCCs are open and responsive to their stakeholders, the local authorities, and to Ofsted, ensuring that young people and foster carers were accommodated rather than the commercial providers. This public report would really just amount to good governance.
Amendment 117C involves the use of the sufficiency data to inform the commissioning and it follows on from the previous provisions. I have said already that I support the amendments proposed by fellow noble Lords, and these proposals invite the Government to consider in what way the best accommodation of this data collection takes place. This amendment would ensure that placement commissioning was rooted in real need, not market convenience. It would help RCCs to invest early in local provision and reduce the reliance—which worries all of us—on expensive private options, which have been driving children to be accommodated out of their local areas, with all the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has raised in relation to that. The amendment also aligns with the ambition of all parties in this House for relational and stable care for children, rather than a race to the bottom in pricing or availability.
Amendment 117D would put the focus on the outcomes for children. I emphasise this amendment because it ties in with the stated objectives of this Bill, whose title includes “Children’s Wellbeing”. It cannot be right that RCCs will be introduced without the requirement to collate data showing whether or not they are working for the very children that they are intended to provide for. It connects two critical questions: did we have enough places, and did we make a difference? As noble Lords know, the children’s care system is too often evaluated on the inputs—how many beds, how many carers—but what really matters, what is really going to make a difference, is whether those children are safe, settled and supported to thrive, hopefully in proximity to their own families or kinship that may be available to them. The amendment would allow the RCCs to link their planning with real-world results, helping the Government and local leaders to learn what works so that there can be continuous improvement.
I believe the amendments are proportionate and sensible measures that meet the stated purpose of the Bill, and I beg the Government’s support.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 117 in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for adding their names to it.
This is an important group. Many times in discussions on the Bill, and more generally, we have talked about the dangers of children being placed far away from home. That is why this is such a critical group. I strongly support everything that has been said so far and the amendments that have been tabled specifically with regard to trying to prevent children from being placed far from home when there are any other viable alternatives.
The intention of my amendment is quite simple: it is to ensure that those making decisions affecting children and young people seek and take into account their wishes and feelings. I shall say a couple of words of general context. I welcome the Government’s ambition to be a child-centred Government, and I support the important steps taken in the Bill to strengthen systems that intend to do that and to keep children safe, but there is more that the Bill could do to be truly child centred. At the moment, it needs to do more to embed real consideration of children’s wishes and feelings—hence my amendment, which was discussed on an earlier occasion, about children’s wishes and feelings being respected in relation to family group decision-making.
In 1991, the UK ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In so doing, we recognised that children have a distinct set of rights that uniquely value all that it means to be a child. In short, it recognises that children are expert in their own lives. As we know, in cases of abuse and neglect, giving children the opportunity to express their views is a critical factor and lever in building trust and keeping children safe.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, at Second Reading I said that, while I welcomed the Bill, it was a cause of great sadness that the late Baroness Massey of Darwen was not there to participate. It is a cause of sadness that, had she been here, she would have had her name on this amendment rather than me, with much more power and justification behind it. At the time of her untimely death, she was working with a group of us in this House to try to find ways of having the voices of children heard more regularly in the day-to-day work of this House, particularly in some of our committees. That is work that is yet to be completed, and we must carry it on.
The Josh MacAlister review showed us that, while we have a plethora of different organisations trying to look after the needs of the young people we are talking about in a variety of different ways, with an enormous amount of data about what they are and are not doing, the fact that we had to have a large-scale review to collate and understand this data—which required tremendous resources but which was carried out very effectively—and that we spent as much time understanding what it was not telling us as what it was telling us, is in itself telling.
I particularly support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. In trying to improve a situation that has developed over the last 20 or 30 years, and which at the moment is causing local government across this country huge difficulties because of the statutory duties that we have heaped upon it in legislation after legislation, with the best of intent, we have a system that is not working. We have an opportunity in the Bill to learn from the lessons of trying to do the right thing but clearly going about it in the wrong way, and to do it in a much better way.
I particularly took the points that, first, children should be listened to, and, secondly, that, in trying to provide the right services for these young people, we should be driven by the demands they require to make their lives better, rather than by the inadequacies of the current range of supply, which is hugely varied in both its coverage and the type of delivery, and the good or bad effect of that delivery.
For all those reasons, I support this group of amendments. I implore the Government, and all of us, to learn from the lessons of the past and try to do better in the future.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 117, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Tyler and others. The decision on where a child is cared for in the system is crucial to the child’s life, so we should listen to children with care experience. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, it may affect their ability to keep contact with wider family and friends, and other factors were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It will make a difference even to their ability to keep in contact with a teacher who they might trust—that can be quite important in children’s lives. It can otherwise be very disruptive to their education if they are put a long way from where they previously went to school. As we know, children with care experience usually have less of a chance to get good educational qualifications than other children, and that has an effect on their whole-life chances.
As my noble friend says, it cannot be left to the Secretary of State under the title of “such other persons”. The category of those most directly affected by these regulations must be named in the Bill, and it is vital that children have the confidence that they will be heard. The slogan, “Nothing about us without us”, is very apt in this context.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Since we are forming a set for Amendment 117, I will stand up now, having attached my name to it, and will focus chiefly on that amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has stolen my starting line with her final line: nothing about us without us. I first used that phrase in a debate on rather similar amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill. I think that your Lordships’ House and the country are increasingly coming to realise that we have to listen to children far more.
In this context, I will cite an interesting case from the past week, where a 14 year-old who had been tricked by his parents into going to Ghana took his parents to court. The Court of Appeal ruled that he should have the right to come back to Britain, as he wanted to do. That is an interesting court case that shows how, generally, our legal system is starting to listen more and more to children. It is important that our legislation does so and that that is in the Bill.
This raises issues that I will come back to on a later group, but the basic point about the regional care co-operatives is that they will take decision-making further away from local authorities. People have been studying this, and the care review evidence group, for example, said that
“care will need to be taken that these structural reforms do not dilute local accountability mechanisms”.
Making sure that children are actually heard in the making of regulations is in some way a counterbalance to the risk that quite a lot of experts have identified in taking this approach.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 116A, 117A and 119ZA in my name. As we have heard, the proposals to create regional care co-operatives came from the independent review into children’s social care. In principle, we support them. However, we are aware that a number of regions are already using informal co-operation agreements, so I question whether we need more legislation to make this happen. Maybe the Minister can comment on this when she sums up. The Secretary of State is taking the power to direct areas to create one of three models of co-operation, but it is important that we understand how this will work in practice, because, presumably, if areas are not adopting this approach voluntarily, there would be significant barriers and potentially good reasons for doing so. Can the Minister clarify those few points when she closes?
The Local Government Association has stated its support for the narrower requirements of a regional care co-operative, as being used by the pathfinder areas —namely, on
“strategic planning and placements for children with more complex needs”.
However, the Bill states in proposed new Section 22J(3)(c) that regional care co-operatives will be responsible for commissioning
“the provision of accommodation for children being looked after by the local authority”.
There is a real worry about mission creep and confusion over responsibilities, which I have tried to address through my Amendment 119ZA, as has my noble friend Lady Cash through her Amendment 117B.
Will the Minister comment on the concern expressed by organisations such as Barnardo’s that this model will squeeze out some of the smaller providers, increasing even further the dependence on independent providers in the private sector, many of whom, as we know, have a combination of very high profitability and high debts?
Can the Minister confirm the start date for the pathfinders, and when there will be publicly available evidence from them, either via the evaluation or from any other data? Does the department have an idea that it can publicly share of the likely size of each of the areas? The two pilot sites, Greater Manchester and the south-east, are both very large, with about 3 million people within them. Is that the size the Government expect to be typical?
Amendment 116A would remove a power equivalent to a Henry VIII power from the Bill. Clause 10(2) defines strategic accommodation functions as
“(a) assessing current and future requirements for the accommodation of children being looked after by the local authority,
(b) developing and publishing strategies for meeting those requirements,
(c) commissioning the provision of accommodation for children being looked after by the local authority,
(d) recruiting prospective local authority foster parents and supporting local authority foster parents,
(e) developing, or facilitating the development of, new provision for the accommodation of children being looked after by the local authority, and
(f) any other functions relating to a local authority’s duties under section 22A, 22C or 22G that are specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
New Section 22J(3)(f) gives the Secretary of State a power akin to a Henry VIII power to add to the above list of strategic accommodation functions by regulations. In justifying the power, the department goes on to say:
“The Department has sought to achieve the right balance between confining the scope of the delegated powers through primary provisions and leaving necessary matters of detail to regulations. This is the first time the Secretary of State has sought to bring local authorities together to collaborate in the delivery of their strategic accommodation functions. Regional co-operation arrangements (known as Regional Care Co-operatives) … are currently being tested via pathfinders … in two local authority regions. When the pathfinders are evaluated, the Secretary of State may need to prescribe additional functions. There may also be a need for additional functions to be specified in the future depending on the needs of a particular area and to keep pace with the changing children’s social care placements market. The power has been limited to one which enables additional functions to be added to the list in the future. It does not enable the Secretary of State to amend or remove any of the functions already listed in the clause and so it is not a Henry VIII power”.
My amendment is a probing amendment, as this feels like another example of the Government introducing legislation before they are quite ready. Why not wait until the pathfinders are evaluated to be clear what additional strategic functions might be needed? Maybe the Minister can inform the House if the department is aware of any gaps in the current strategic powers that have been identified in areas using this approach already. It would be good to understand whether the Government have in mind any particular powers that might be needed, or whether this is a belt and braces, “just in case” kind of power, without having anything particular in mind.
My Amendment 117A seeks to ensure that Ofsted inspects regional care co-operatives. It is obviously important that we have an independent assessment of their effectiveness and impact and whether they are achieving the Government’s goals—and, perhaps even more importantly, the needs of children. There may be other ways of achieving this and, if so, it would be helpful to understand what those are.
More specifically, my amendment aims to bring a spotlight on the use of unregistered provision. My understanding of the regional care co-operative approach is that it will anticipate and commission capacity in a more effective, and cost-effective, way. One outcome of this would be a drop in or complete removal of the use of unregistered provision, something I know local authorities are keen to see, as are noble many Lords across the House.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, before I turn to the amendments in the first group, I want to be clear, as many noble Lords have recognised, that the measures in Clause 10, together with those that we will come to later in Clauses 12 to 18, are part of an overarching, broad-ranging strategy to fix the market for placements for looked-after children.
The review conducted by my honourable friend Josh MacAlister, which several noble Lords have quite rightly referenced, and the report from the Competition and Markets Authority were explicit that the placement market is dysfunctional and that some private providers are making excessive profits from placements for our most vulnerable children. We are now taking concerted action to address this, including through measures in the Bill, but also through a wide range of non-legislative measures, to deliver a broader range of providers in the market so that local authorities have more options when finding the right place for children in their care. These must be the right homes in the right parts of the country, so that children do not have to move miles from their communities and support networks, as many noble Lords have referenced in this debate. These homes must be delivered at a sustainable cost to the taxpayer by providers no longer making excessive profits. A failure to address the dysfunction in the system has led to many of the issues that noble Lords are rightly identifying today, which they hope and expect us to respond to—not only, I suspect, in these clauses relating to regional care co-operatives but more broadly in the action that we are taking to fix that dysfunctional market.
Amendments 108 to 116 in the name of my noble friend Lady Longfield seek to amend the definition of local authorities’ strategic accommodation functions as defined by this clause to ensure that it meets the current and future needs of looked-after children. This and my noble friend’s contribution exactly get to the crux of the problems we are trying to solve here. She is correct, as I have already suggested, about the issues raised by the lack of sufficiency caused by the current placement market for children. Children being too far away from home; too big cost pressures; inappropriate placements: those are all things that this provision and the other elements of our strategy are aimed at addressing.
Amendment 119ZA from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, sets out the principles that local authorities that have formed a regional care co-operative, following a direction from the Secretary of State, would have to adhere to when commissioning accommodation for looked-after children. She is right that the provisions in this clause relate to the direction powers for the Secretary of State in circumstances either where local authorities have refused to take part in regional arrangements or perhaps where regional arrangements have been set up and local authorities might not have managed to be part of any of those arrangements. I certainly think it is already the case that authorities are trying to bring themselves together into regional arrangements, precisely to be able to solve some of the issues that we have outlined.
The Government completely agree that there must be sufficient accommodation for all children who are looked after by their local authority and that in future this accommodation must meet their needs and provide appropriate support. It should allow them to live as close to home as possible, where that is in their interests. That is precisely the reason for trying to ensure that the market operates more effectively.
But it is also the case that there are existing legal requirements on local authorities to the effect of some of the understandable calls that have been made in these amendments and by other noble Lords. Local authorities already have a general statutory duty under Section 22G of the Children Act 1989 to take such steps, as far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure that there is sufficient accommodation within their area to meet the needs of looked-after children. They are also under a duty, via Sections 22 and 22C of the same Act, to provide accommodation that meets the needs of looked-after children by ensuring it is consistent with the child’s welfare and has due consideration to the child’s age and understanding, as well as their wishes and feelings. Finally, they have a statutory duty under Section 22C(8)(a) and (9) of the 1989 Act to ensure they provide accommodation that allows children to live near their home, unless it is inconsistent with the child’s welfare or not reasonably practicable. Those duties will all remain.
The problem is not that there is no legal recognition of these issues and the need for them to be taken into consideration in providing sufficient accommodation and placements for children. It is that the market has prevented local authorities being able to fulfil their statutory requirements. That is why regional care co-operatives, which in the legislation are called “regional co-operation arrangements”, will assist local authorities in meeting these duties, including by analysing what accommodation is needed for children across the region, publishing sufficiency strategies, recruiting and supporting foster parents and commissioning care places, as recommended by both the review conducted by Josh MacAlister and the report from the Competition and Markets Authority. They will support local authorities to carry out their strategic accommodation functions but, as I have suggested, these functions are not new and are already in law, including the duty to take steps, as reasonably practicable, to ensure sufficient accommodation for looked-after children. Any decision-making responsibility for where individual children are placed, however, will continue to rest with local authorities.
Amendment 116A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would prevent the Secretary of State adding to a local authority’s strategic accommodation functions for regional care co-operatives. I would like to reassure the noble Baroness of the safeguards in place regarding the power to add to the list of strategic accommodation functions to be exercised through regional care co-operatives. I slightly lost track of whether she was accusing the Government of currently having a Henry VIII power within the legislation— I will go back and check.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I was aware that my remarks may not have been clear that, in the department’s own memorandum, it describes this power as being akin to a Henry VIII power.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will certainly take advice and look carefully at that, but I assure the Committee that the appropriate committee, the name of which escapes me, has of course looked in detail at the delegated provisions within the legislation and we will be responding to the committee and covering off any issues that might be of the sort of concern that the noble Baroness raises.
I hope to provide some further reassurance on that. First, the scope of regulations is limited to those local authority functions covered by specific sections of the Children Act 1989, namely Section 22A, the duty to accommodate looked-after children; Section 22C, how looked-after children should be accommodated by the local authority; and Section 22G, the duty to ensure sufficient accommodation for looked-after children.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I had actually looked at all the data currently collected, and I am grateful for the summary given to the Committee just now, but the amendments are directed at understanding where these children are going and how those specific placements work out, so that need can be assessed and planning for future need can be made. They are also directed specifically at the numbers of places and the children who go into those. I appreciate that burdening any party with more data collection is never attractive, but this is about children being taken from home and placed with strangers—which, even as an adult, does not bear thinking about—and waking in the morning and coming downstairs in a strange home.
I really implore the Government to give some consideration to the basic humanity of this. It has cross-party support in this House and has been supported by numerous charities and by the Labour MP Josh MacAlister’s independent review. There is a consensus. What I am not hearing—and perhaps I am missing it—is why we would not seek this data so that we can improve the outcomes for these children.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am always willing to allow noble Lords to intervene, but I was actually coming to another paragraph in my speaking note, which I hope addresses the point that the noble Baroness makes. The Government are not suggesting that the current analysis or collection of data is sufficient. That is why we intend to improve our data on placements, as we set out in Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive. This will give local authorities better information, as she suggests, to assess need and the longer-term demand for placements and to support the delivery of the functions that we are asking regional care co-operatives to carry out under Clause 10. It will also be published on GOV.UK.
I do not know whether that assures the noble Baroness that the Government do have some humanity but I take her point, and that is why I was coming to the reassurance—I hope—that the Government do want to ensure that we have better data, including being able to address the issues around outcomes that she identified. That is why we will also be bringing forward a national data programme that will address the gap in national and regional data, particularly around the underlying costs of children’s social care placements, but we will continue to think about how we can improve the data that is available to us.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the discussion of these amendments. One issue that I was worried about many years ago, and I would be surprised if it did not happen still, is the fact that once a child moves from its local authority area to a local authority somewhere else, the sending local authority completely loses contact with anything that happens to the child—even though, as I understand it, it retains a certain responsibility. I wonder whether anything can be done to make sure that each local authority—that which the child comes from and that which the child goes to—is actually in touch and discussing what happens.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As usual, my friend the noble and learned Baroness makes an important point about the application of the law in this particular case. I think, as she suggests, that legal accountability and responsibility remains with the authority placing the child, but that does not mean that, in practical terms, there should not be engagement, and I would have thought that that would have been good practice. I also think that it is important that there is clarity about where the responsibility stays. That goes for the care co-operatives as well.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the extremely comprehensive response that she has given the Committee; it lasted a while but she covered a lot of ground on a lot of amendments.
I certainly agree with what she had to say about the wider strategy of trying to fix the current placement market and, above all, making sure that the right home is in the right place for children around the country. She certainly gave me some comfort on the role of the RCCs and the way in which they are going to be able to help local authorities and work with them and take pressure off them. I am grateful that she mentioned that there is going to be work in progress to look at the consequences of the abolition of NHS England.
On the role of the ICBs, I should have been aware of Section 10 of the Children Act 2004, because I was on that Bill committee many years ago and I remember the clauses about multi-agency safeguarding and the other bodies that are involved in this process.
I am very grateful to the Minister. I am sure that colleagues here will look very carefully at what she said. If need be, I for one will want to discuss this further with her and will look carefully in more detail at her reply, and maybe come back to this on Report. In the meantime, I thank her and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lucas
“Accommodation of looked after children: restrictionsAfter section 22J of the Children Act 1989 (inserted by section 10), insert—“22K Accommodation of looked after children: restrictionsLooked after children may not be accommodated in adult homes or hostels.””
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, a substantial number of teenage looked-after children are accommodated in adult homes and hostels. They should not be. I beg to move.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
The noble Lord was too quick for all of us. I want to speak on the same subject as he did, that of unregistered accommodation— I have been caught unawares and have the wrong notes in front of me.
I felt it was appropriate to make this point in Amendment 144, in my name, because it really is nothing short of a scandal that some of the most vulnerable children are regularly placed in illegal, unregistered children’s homes. These settings have the least amount of scrutiny, and as a result, children are at increased risk of harm.
Children living in registered children’s homes benefit from the safeguards that regulation brings. Ofsted inspects registered homes at least once a year, and an independent person must visit these homes every month. They check the running of the home and assess whether children are being kept safe—as absolutely anybody would have a right to expect. But children living in unregistered children’s homes do not have these safety nets. There is also no process for assessing the quality of their care or the suitability of the adults providing that care. As my noble friend the Minister said in summing up on the last group of amendments, unregistered means no inspections. Surely this is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.
Children aged 16 to 17 in residential care are treated very differently from their slightly younger peers. In 2021, the previous Government introduced provisions through secondary legislation to prohibit unregulated accommodation for children in care aged 15 or under, but not for those aged 16 or 17. Two years later, the previous Government introduced what they deemed appropriate standards for supported accommodation for children in care and care leavers. These statutory instruments legitimised, and therefore to some extent encouraged, the increasingly shameful practice of placing children in unregulated, unsafe hostels, bed and breakfasts, shared homes, and even, in some cases, caravan parks. All those settings leave them without the support they need and leave them vulnerable to habitual criminals, drug gangs and sexual exploitation—an issue which we have heard all too much about in the last two days.
The changes that followed in 2023 to supported accommodation for 16 and 17 year-olds included no requirement to provide these children in care with any care at all. It is important to remember that, legally, they are still children, up to the age of 18. How many parents would be unconcerned at their own 16 or 17 year-olds leaving home, never mind moving to such totally unsuitable accommodation?
It is appropriate to ask why there should even exist such places as unregistered children’s homes. Unregistered means unregulated, and in such homes there is no requirement for qualified staff or managers to be trained, or even present in the accommodation, and, crucially, no requirement for independent monthly monitoring of the accommodation, as happens with registered homes.
The latest available statistics, from March 2024, show that up to 50% of 16 and 17 year-olds who are in care in England—upwards of 800,000—were living in what might we describe as “care-less”, often bleak accommodation. I was one of many noble Lords who argued against this lack of care for 16 and 17 year-olds when the changes that I referred to were introduced in 2021. Tellingly, one of the recommendations of the MacAlister report was bringing to an end the use of unregistered homes. It has not happened. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who was the Minister responsible at the time, can say why she regarded such accommodation for 16 and 17 year-olds as appropriate.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 119 would provide further opportunities for looked-after children, or those on the edge of care, to have access to boarding school places where appropriate. The principles of this amendment are the same as those of my Amendment 82, on children in or going into kinship care, except that the financial benefits may be stronger for non-kinship care. For example, kinship carers who care for children under special guardianship orders or child arrangement orders are not automatically entitled to the same financial support as foster carers. I do not want to repeat word for word everything I said on Amendment 82—both the Ministers present were in their places at the time—but I will give a brief summary.
Noble Lords participating in this Bill know the huge task that confronts carers when taking on children who are more often than not from broken homes and carrying the emotional scars of the unhappiness that has emanated from this breakdown. This is why I am keen to give so much more oxygen to the prospect of offering boarding school places to children in or on the edge of care. I gave the example of the report carried out by the Norfolk local authority in conjunction with the DfE when I was the Minister responsible for this area. I will not repeat everything that was said, but one of the most important pieces of data was that, of the 52 children who were tracked during the three or so years over which this study was carried out, 33 came off the at-risk register. That is the most tremendous result, and I suspect there are not many other examples of particular types of care delivering such a significant improvement in the welfare of those children.
There are two other advantages, one of which is financial. The costs are substantially lower than that of the foster care or care home route. Also, the educational outcomes in this study were better for the children than the national figures. This is one of those rare moments when a policy can deal with three problems at once and not cost any more money. Therefore, I am very hopeful that the Government will consider the amendment.
We heard on Amendment 82 the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in Liverpool. A tremendous amount of the noble Lord’s career has been spent in education. I am very keen to bring cross-party support to this, so I was very encouraged that he was supportive.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
Regarding cross-party support, I am willing to indicate support, but I want to clarify a point the noble Lord makes in his amendment about a boarding school place
“in a state secondary school in their local authority area”.
Can he tell us that such schools exist in every local authority area? If they do not, how would this be put into practice?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, there are around 35 state boarding schools in the country, but there are also a number of private boarding schools that are ready to provide support, which is why I mentioned the Royal SpringBoard scholarships and bursaries that are available. I completely accept the noble Lord’s point—that people need to be kept, wherever possible, near their homes—but we need flexibility. We must not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If there is a good boarding school place that is reasonably accessible to the child’s home, but more importantly to the foster carer or kinship carer, then that is what matters. But I take onboard what the noble Lord said.
In her summing-up of Amendment 82, the Minister spoke about stability of setting, and she was very right. The Norfolk study showed that there was a very strong correlation between improvements in those children’s well-being and the length of tenure. The study showed that three years of continuity made a tremendous difference. I hope the Minister will consider this amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, before speaking to my Amendment 129, to which the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Storey have added their names, I first add my very strong support for Amendment 144 by the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I am sorry that I did not manage to add my name to it; it deals with such an important issue.
I was shocked to read a report by the Children’s Commissioner, which said that last September, there were 775 children in unregistered homes, including children under the age of 10, children who had spent over two years in those homes and children in entirely inappropriate unregistered settings such as caravans. Staggeringly, the average cost was over £1,500 a day, with an estimated total annual cost to local authorities of over £400 million. As the Children’s Commissioner said, and I very much agree with her, the use of these homes is a national scandal. Vulnerable children are being failed. We would not allow it for our own children, and we simply should not allow it for those for whom the state is corporate parent. Therefore, I very strongly support phasing out unregistered accommodation.
My Amendment 129 is closely linked to the discussion we had on the first group about children being placed far from home. It would amend
“the sufficiency duty to prevent children being moved far away from home”
when that is not in their best interests. We heard a lot of the arguments in the previous group, and I will pull out a few specifics.
In recent years, there has been a marked and shocking rise in the number of children in care who are moved far away from their support networks and communities. Last year, more than a fifth of all children in care were living more than 20 miles away from home. That might not sound far but, frankly, that is a long way from family and local support networks. In addition, more than 3,000 children were living more than 100 miles from home—that is 4% of all children in care—and more than 800 children under the care of English local authorities were living in Scotland and Wales. Although I accept that there may be legitimate reasons why children in care are moved far from home—safeguarding, preventing them being exploited or harmed, or their being moved to wider family networks—far too often it is simply because of a lack of appropriate local options.
As highlighted by the charity Become in its Gone Too Far campaign, being moved far from their family, friends and schools can have a significant and long-term adverse impact on children’s relationships, mental health, well-being, sense of identity et cetera—the sort of things we discussed in our last session on relationships.
Clearly, local authorities across the country have faced a number of challenges recently—that is why we have just had the discussion about regional care co-operatives —particularly in ensuring that there are the right number and type of homes in their local area to meet the needs of children under their care. The current sufficiency duty is not fit for purpose, and there is a lack of accountability and oversight regarding the extent to which sufficiency is being fulfilled.
That is the reason for tabling this important amendment, which seeks to strengthen the sufficiency duty by requiring local authorities to plan, commission and deliver provision and to take “all reasonable steps” to ensure that children in care remain living within or near to the local authority. The amendment builds on recent reforms by the Welsh Government, and we would very much benefit from taking it forward.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 119 tabled by my noble friend Lord Agnew, to which I have added my name. He spoke very persuasively for it.
I did read the Minister’s response to the debate last Thursday on Amendment 82, which would similarly have made it compulsory for children in kinship care to be offered such a place. I agree with her answer in pretty much all respects. She recognised the positive impact that boarding schools can have, but they should not be the default for all children living in kinship care. She cited the importance of stability in education and friendships to well-being and educational outcomes. Moving schools would, of course, be potentially highly detrimental.
I ask the Minister: could she work with me and my noble friend Lord Agnew to word this legislation to remove any sense of default? My aim is simply to make this option available to all, as this is currently not the case. The arguments and evidence—for making the boarding school option available to both children in kinship care and children in local authority care—overlap significantly in these amendments. My noble friend Lady Berridge eloquently made the case for Amendment 82 when I was unable to be here, so I will not repeat it.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendment 134B in my name and to support a number of amendments in this group. I make it clear that this is a probing amendment. I appreciate that the Government have a wider agenda in relation to planning—so it may be that this Bill is not the right vehicle—but I did want to pick up on a proposal from the Government’s policy statement Green Paper, Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, which the Minister has already mentioned. It states that the Government will look at
“options to reform the planning process to enable providers to more easily set up homes where they are most needed”.
Specifically, it says that they will
“consider potential legislative options or further changes to support the delivery of small children’s homes”.
We know that we have seen a move away from the larger homes, with the most recent government statistics showing that homes registered within the previous year were for three places on average, and four places was the average for all active or suspended children’s homes as of March 2024. We also know—and it has been quite clearly demonstrated—that we need more capacity and that children are being placed in unsuitable accommodation.
On this point, I very much support my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 118, as well as Amendment 114, which attempts to deal with the problem of unregulated homes. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, have said, it is quite hard to believe that these homes exist, but exist they do. That is a capacity issue and something that, frankly, we are just going to have to do deal with. I appreciate that the Government announced investment into the children’s homes estate last week; that is, of course, welcome and a good thing. However, there are additional measures that could deal with capacity, and these relate to planning regulations.
The CMA’s 2022 study, which has already been mentioned, found that one of the main barriers to opening new homes is planning permission. The study’s authors heard repeated concerns about failed planning applications, often due to local opposition, which, in its words,
“appears to be based on outmoded or inaccurate assumptions about children’s homes and looked-after children”.
Given that we have now moved towards smaller children’s homes, the issue is further complicated by the fact that these are the exact same type of properties that families are searching for. As a result, when providers face delays due to the planning process, even if they have been successful in getting permission, very often they can lose the property to a rival bidder for whom planning is not a consideration.
Consequently, the CMA suggested that the Government should review the planning requirements and consider whether smaller children’s homes, which can accommodate fewer than a specified number of residents at any one time, should be required to go through the planning system. It believes that that could be a helpful corrective to the market by increasing the number of children’s homes being opened. My straightforward question to the Minister is: is that something the Government are still considering, as suggested by their policy statement of last year? If so, would it be possible to give any guidance as to which other legislation they think might be more suitable?
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I put my name to Amendment 129 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, which I am happy to do. She has made a strong case for amending the sufficiency duty or doing something similar to make it clear that moving children beyond a certain geographical distance from their normal base is deleterious to their well-being and health in every way possible.
I also put my name to Amendment 144 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. We have all heard what is going on and I think we all agree that it is unconscionable and appalling. The question, as was put very aptly by the noble Lord, is what action we are going to take to do something about it. The fact that it exists is bad enough, so we need to have a clear plan to do something about it.
I will focus my remarks primarily on Amendment 165 in my name. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for putting their names to it. It is to do with temporary accommodation and the effect that being moved into temporary accommodation has on young children. This is a topic that the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Households in Temporary Accommodation, which is headed by Dame Siobhain McDonagh, has long campaigned for. In fact, on 13 May Dame Siobhain met the Minister’s colleague Janet Daby, Minister at the Department for Education, and Rushanara Ali, Minister at the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government, specifically to explore what can be done about this issue.
The issue, as the amendment’s explanatory statement says clearly, is that the new clause would establish a notification system requiring local authorities to alert schools and GPs when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. To explain why that is important, this is a direct quote from a head teacher in Lewisham about this phenomenon:
“On the ground, the impact of TA on children is colossal. We only hear, by accident, only by us being nosey and being at the gate in the morning, or them being late, tired or hungry, is how we find out, then we do our best to support them”.
We have a situation at the moment where there is a lot of inconsistency in what is happening when a child is moved with their family into temporary accommodation, sometimes in a very different area from where they were before, which clearly is disruptive to both education and their health. I understand that the upshot of that meeting was positive. We still need to get colleagues in the Department of Health on side because there are some complications in there being several different elements to trying to get this to work.
There are three particular areas that need to be done better if this amendment is to be successful. The first is local authorities. There is a move within the LGA to acknowledge the need for councils to be compassionate councils. There is agreement that, in principle, local authorities should be doing this notification on behalf of the child, and that they should be sending the receiving authority a notification—a point that was raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on the last group. That often takes place but not always, when clearly it should. The LGA has very good and clear guidance on this. However, its guidance does not mention schools or general practices specifically. Perhaps this is an area that could be looked at.
The second is to do with technology. While government in all forms, including local government, can spend vast amounts of money on technology, it does not always do what you think it should be able to do. Many local authorities do not have the ability in their current systems to send notifications easily. Manchester, for example, which you would have thought of as one of the larger and more sophisticated metropolitan authorities, has to do this individually by email; there is no way of pushing a button and just getting it done.
Under the previous Government, the central government ensured that the providers of technology to local government were able to change their data systems so that they always included rough sleeper assessments. Where there is a will, there is a way; this can be done. We hope that His Majesty’s Government can do something to ensure that the housing system has a notification system embedded within it to make notification much more straightforward than it currently is.
The last point is to do with getting better guidance implemented. At the moment, training across schools and primary care provision is very varied, and I do not think there is necessarily an understanding, either by the schools from which the children are being moved or by the schools to which they are being moved, of the importance of having that dialogue, and the same is true of GP practices.
For all those reasons, I hope that the Minister will be able to give some indication as to whether the initial impression given at the meeting with the two Ministers in May—that the Government were receptive to this—is still the case. Perhaps the Minister can update us on any talks that have happened since then.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 118, 144 and 165 in particular. Dealing with perhaps the least important of the three: as a boarding school girl, I think that boarding school can often be a very sensible place to send children. I would not want to see it required for all children—that would be most unsuitable—but boarding school should be in the thoughts of those wondering where to put a child. It might be that it would be possible to keep the child with a particular member of the family if that family member did not have the child for 12 months of the year. Anyone who has been a mother or a father understands that situation.
On Amendments 144 and 165, I feel particularly strongly about unregulated accommodation. Under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, there is an obligation on the local authority to promote the welfare of the child. I cannot believe that local authorities that send children to unregulated places are complying appropriately with the law. I wonder whether any local authority has ever thought about it.
Unregulated accommodation—which has been set out so well already—is not, in fact, checked. If one thinks about it, the idea that 16 and 17 year-olds are not being checked as to how they are getting on—bearing in mind, as has been said, that they are still technically children and are at a very vulnerable age, particularly if they are in care—is extraordinary. The other point is that even adult accommodation seems very unsuitable. Who are they going to meet in adult accommodation? Although it may be checked, one wonders how much checking there is. I hope the Minister will listen to these particular matters very strongly.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 170 and lend my support to the other eminently sensible amendments in this group. They all, individually, beg the question: why would we not? I implore the Government to consider these gaps, which have been so carefully thought through and proposed before the Committee today. If Committee serves any purpose, it must be to collaborate and work for the benefit of the children we are talking about.
I will not rehearse the points I made on the first group today. The data point, under Amendment 170, drives at the same point. I ask the Minister to think carefully, because I had almost anticipated that her previous answer would address the data required already under the Children Act. So I carefully focused this amendment on the gaps where the data is not already required—that is to address sufficiency in care homes overall.
A body of science around attachment and trauma now emphatically supports the case for providing secure and stable environments for young people—including young adults, because the brain is not fully developed until well into the 20s. This debate is very timely, in the wake of the grooming gangs story and the Casey report, which has just been published. When children have not been securely attached and have been moved into and out of care, they are at their most vulnerable. They are the most susceptible to risk, the most vulnerable to being preyed on and the most easily seduced by any kindness whatever, so the wolf in sheep’s clothing is a particularly dangerous scenario. It is time that we dispense with unregulated accommodation, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for her comments and her extensive experience of that.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 165. In the spirit of brevity pioneered by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I also support Amendment 118 in his name and Amendment 144 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Russell of Liverpool. As a teacher, I can only quote the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton: they are so sensible that you are surprised they are not law already.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I added my name to those of the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Hampton, on Amendment 165. It replicates an amendment tabled in the other place that got strong support. The background is that, sadly, more and more homeless people are being accepted under the homelessness legislation and placed in temporary accommodation. By the nature of that legislation, most of those people are families and they will have children. A child in temporary accommodation is obviously in a less advantageous position than a child coming from a stable background. So we need to do all we can to make sure that child gets access to the services that he or she is entitled to before—hopefully, not after too long—they are placed in suitable long-term accommodation.
The amendment simply requires the local authority to notify the GP and the school of the child’s circumstances. As my noble friend Lady Sanderson said, this should be good practice and Manchester does it. If I were the head of a primary school, I would want to know which of my pupils were in temporary accommodation. If I were a GP, I would also want to know which of my child patients were in temporary accommodation. A GP is meant to treat the patient as well as the illness. There are real risks of a child being off-rolled by a school because the head simply did not know that they were in temporary accommodation, they had decided to stay at the same school from which they were moved and the bus just takes longer to get there. Likewise, if they are not registered with a GP, they may miss out on prescriptions and all the other universal services that they are entitled to. So this simply seeks the establishment, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, of a formal notification protocol.
After the debate—again, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to this—there was a meeting with the Ministers concerned. Looking at the record of that meeting, it does not seem to me that there were any game-changers that meant that this could not happen. Yes, there are some technical issues that need addressing—perhaps some change to the technology used by local authorities so that these things are done automatically rather than manually, as is the case at the moment—but given that the title of the Bill includes the words “Children’s Wellbeing”, it seems to me that this is something the Minister could smile on and perhaps agree to, with, if necessary, changes on Report.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 165, but as three noble Lords have already spoken to it, I will be brief. I declare my involvement with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Households in Temporary Accommodation.
Here is one stat to feed into our debate. In the year to September 2024, 80 children who were in temporary accommodation died, and the figures from the National Child Mortality Database from 2019 to 2024 show that, for children who died, temporary accommodation was listed as a causal factor in their death in 74 cases. That obviously speaks to the GP issue.
Many noble Lords—I can see quite a few in this Chamber—take part in Learn with the Lords, the House of Lords education programme. We have many new Members of the House, so I want to take this chance to commend to all the newer Members who may not know about it what a great programme it is. One of the things we are doing is taking news about the House of Lords out around the country into schools, but it is also a chance to encounter and speak to teachers and head teachers, and share with them what we are doing here in your Lordships’ House and get their reaction.
I have not got permission, so I will not identify the person too clearly, but in the Midlands I was speaking to a head teacher at a school serving a very deprived area and I told her about this amendment, and she just went, “Yes!” Many people might think that surely the school will already know, but children and parents may feel that this is a cause of shame. There is no reason why they should, but none the less, the reality is that they may well feel it is a cause of shame, and go to great lengths to try to hide the fact. So it is important that the school, as well as the GP, be notified.
As we have had a huge outbreak of agreement, I shall briefly express my reservations about Amendment 119, about boarding school places. Joy Schaverien, the therapist, wrote a book, whose subtitle is The Psychological Trauma of the “Privileged” Child, reflecting on the impact of boarding schools on British society. Indeed, we might all reflect on their impact on our politics, but that is a subject for another day. She identified issues of abandonment, bereavement, captivity and disassociation associated with boarding schools.
I am sure that boarding schools today would say that things are different now from what it was like in the old days, but we are still talking about an institutional environment. That, by definition, is what a boarding school is. It is not a home environment. I would not say that there would never be a case where a boarding school might be an appropriate place for a child; there may be cases in which that is the best option available, given the overall circumstances. But I have trouble with the idea of offering it to all looked-after children at secondary age. I do not think that is the appropriate approach.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 134B, in the name of my noble friend Lady Sanderson. As she said, it seeks to build on the Government’s commitment in Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive to look at options to reform the planning process to enable providers to more easily set up homes where they are most needed and to support the delivery of small children’s homes.
To pick up another issue that noble Lords across the Committee have raised on this group of amendments, I should add that that paper also noted that the lack of appropriate and affordable homes in the right places for children means that we are seeing a worrying trend in the rise of the use of unregistered provision.
The CMA’s 2022 report on the children’s home market outlined a number of issues with the current planning system and specifically recommended that the Government do what my noble friend suggests in her amendment, and consider
“whether the distinction, for the purposes of the planning regime, between small children’s homes and domestic dwelling houses should be removed”.
The CMA concluded that the easing of planning restrictions would lead to both an increase in number and a better geographical spread of children’s homes.
On the basis that the Government have accepted this recommendation and say that they are considering options, I look forward to hearing from the Minister how government thinking has developed, particularly in relation to further planning reforms in this area. Can she outline where, if not in this Bill, they may be intending to take their action?
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Having been sent to a boarding school for some years from the age of 10, it seems to me that the last place that somebody should go if they are a looked-after child, and therefore already displaced, is a boarding school. They would be shunted to one place and rejected again and shunted to another. I would be very strongly concerned that looked-after children should not be sent to a boarding school.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
I shall speak to several amendments—to Amendment 170, on a capacity plan, and to Amendment 134B, on planning. I declare my interest as a former Ofsted chief inspector, where I spoke repeatedly over seven years about the issues with sufficiency in many parts of the country, and the urgency of taking action to enable homes to open in the places where they were needed.
I support what my noble friend Lady Evans just said, and I will not cover the same points about planning. I will say that the most acute need is partly in the most expensive areas, for obvious reasons, and partly for the children with the highest needs, for whom it is most difficult to configure, recruit, train and get a home open where we need it, when the children are there. We need planning for high needs. I stress that capacity planning should pay particular attention to the very high-needs children, whose care accounts for a startlingly large proportion of the total spend on care, and whose needs, in the main, are predictable, if not from birth then from very early in life. There is a high level of certainty of that being needed all the way through their childhood, and many of them will, sadly, also be in care homes in their adult lives. We need that focus and urgency to do everything that can be done, and to think intelligently, sufficiently far in advance, to enable homes to open so that, at the point and age at which children need them, they can move to somewhere within a reasonable distance of home.
I reassure the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler- Sloss, that the existence of children in unregistered accommodation is a serious concern to Ofsted. We spent a significant amount of our resources on putting pressure on those accepting placements of children to register as children’s homes, as they should.
I will speak briefly on a couple of other points. I support the boarding proposal for those for whom such schools are genuinely the right place; it is a way to create stability and a strong partnership with foster parents to make something more stable and enduring—in certain cases. The principle that it should at least be considered is important. I also support Amendment 165. As others, including my noble friend Lady Sanderson have said, that seems so obvious that one cannot imagine that it is not happening everywhere already.
Lord Nash (Con)
I support Amendment 119, in the name of my noble friend Lord Agnew, about the availability of boarding places. I do so as a former south London boy who was, rather unexpectedly, because of family circumstances, sent away to a boarding school—with, I believe, considerable financial help. Pretty much every child in care I have ever spoken to, when I have asked them, as I tend to do when I meet them, what the biggest issue facing them is, replies that it is the lack of a constant adult in their lives—the revolving door of people responsible for them. This leaves issues of lack of trust, which can stay with such children all their lives.
In a boarding school, a child has a constant adult—often a housemaster or mistress. I accept that it might not be appropriate for all children, but I agree that children should be offered it. It can be a very inexpensive way in which to look after these children, although obviously that is only a secondary consideration. I have seen the benefit of this in many cases of young people who have experienced boarding, thanks to the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation.
I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and others about unregistered settings and about children being sent away many miles from their home.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, that all these amendments would enhance the life chances and life opportunities of looked-after children, and they should be seriously considered.
In the 21st century, the words “unregistered” or “unregulated” should never enter into our dialogue or vocabulary. It is not acceptable for our schools or our children; whether it is an unregulated school or an unregulated home, it should not exist. I wish that I had signed the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and I apologise for not doing so. The noble Lord is absolutely right to call it scandalous. Noble Lords should have a look at the BBC “Panorama” programme from two or three years ago that looked at looked-after children in unregulated schools. Never mind caravans—some of them were being housed in barges. Imagine that in the winter. Unregulated provision is never inspected, and anything can go on in them. The children are not safe—we should not allow it to happen. Of course, Ofsted does not inspect them either. We owe it to our children to give them something better than that. I agree with my noble friend Lady Tyler that we cannot do that overnight, but we can make a stand and say that we are not going to have children in unregistered provision and we will phase it out. That would be a testimony to the current Government.
On Amendment 129 from my noble friend Lady Tyler, to which I added my name, everything that she says almost ties in with that of the noble Lord, Lord Watson; they are very similar on what they say.
I turn to Amendment 119 from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. I think that the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Bennett, are looking at a stereotypical view of boarding schools. I would like to take them both to Liverpool College, which was an independent school and is now an academy, and where the local authority buys in places for looked-after children. The children get accommodation of high quality, but they also get adults who properly look after them, and they get sport and they get clubs and activities as well as outdoor pursuits. What is more, they go to the school and get fantastic results. I agree that not every boarding school would be suitable, but if it is a choice between being on a barge or in a caravan or some other dump, as some of the unregistered schools are, a boarding school would be a better prospect.
I had not thought about the link between schools, GPs and looked-after children moving into a particular area. Presumably, in a digital age, when we are about to move to a new registration system, probably linked to NHS numbers, there is a real opportunity for us to be very joined up. When children move into those areas, the doctor and the school will be notified, and it can only benefit the child as well.
I like the idea from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, of a national plan to ensure that there are sufficient places for children and we are not in the same position that we are in currently. We cannot wave a magic wand and expect this to happen overnight, but all of us in this Chamber want the same thing—we want the best possible opportunities for children, including registered schools and proper provision properly inspected. As we have said time and again, we also want the children to be as close to their locality and their family and friends as possible.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate on a range of specific amendments, all of which either seek to improve the residential care provision for children and young people or, in the case of Amendment 165, require notification if a child is placed in temporary accommodation. This group has been named the “Why wouldn’t we?” group.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this second group comprise new clauses on accommodation and capacity in children’s residential care, and seek to improve the capacity and, of course, most importantly, the quality of provision for children and young people. I really welcome this rich debate. Time constraints will be upon me, but a lot of excellent points have been made and I will try to pick out the main ones that hold the whole group together.
Amendment 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would prevent local authorities accommodating looked-after children in homes or hostels where young people over the age of 18 also live. The placement of children under 16 in settings other than children’s homes and foster care, or other limited, regulated settings, has, as we have heard, been banned since September 2021. In April 2023, regulations were introduced for supported accommodation for 16 and 17 year-olds, setting national standards and registration requirements for providers. These regulations have been put in place to ensure that 16 and 17 year-olds can be placed in Ofsted-regulated, good-quality accommodation. If a provider is registered, local authorities can accommodate these older children in that accommodation, which may also be used for over-18s. The local authority will consider this when deciding on the suitability of the accommodation for the child. Looked-after 16 to 17 year-olds will continue to reside in foster placements or children’s homes if this best meets their needs. I will come back to that point on further amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for tabling Amendment 119 on boarding school places. I recognise that he is determined to put more oxygen into this space—this is the second time in just a few days that we have discussed this. Of course the Government want to ensure that all children are given the best possible opportunities to succeed, and we recognise how transformational boarding schools have been for some young people and can be in the future, but we do not believe, as I laid out before, that they should be the default for all looked-after children. I stress again that stable educational placements are crucial to ensuring consistency, well-being and educational outcomes in children’s lives. It is critical that we treat children individually and listen to their views on what they would like to happen. We must minimise disruption. Having said that, where a boarding school placement is in the best interests of that child, we want to ensure that we have that opportunity.
I repeat that this is why the Government continue to support the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation’s broadening educational pathways programme, which provides placement matching and brokerage services to children in need and looked-after children in state boarding and independent schools. It is a discussion that I know we will continue to have, but I acknowledge the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Meacher, in particular, that for some young people this will not be appropriate. We have to make sure that we are honest in that assessment when we look at the best provision. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, did an honourable job in his absence on our last day in Committee.
Amendment 129, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to widen local authorities’ sufficiency duty to include consideration of placements that are near to, as well as within, their area. This was spoken to by the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Russell. This theme runs throughout the amendments in this group. The amendment’s implicit support of the Government’s focus on placement sufficiency, including regional collaboration, is welcome. However, the existing duties on local authorities when providing accommodation for looked-after children already include consideration of proximity to the child’s home, so an amendment for this purpose is not deemed to be necessary.
Additionally, ironically, the amendment could lead to increased use of out-of-area placements, because the duty to ensure sufficiency of placements is no longer focused on local authorities’ own areas. Of course, this would not align with local authorities’ duty to provide accommodation within their areas where this is consistent with the child’s welfare. Finally, as we heard in the previous group, the amendment is not necessary to facilitate greater collaborative partnership working or to improve local sufficiency and the Government’s reforms of regional care co-operatives. Establishing effective regional partnerships is going to be important, and of course, the aim is always to assist local authorities with their work in this area and to ensure that they keep working with individual children, reflecting their needs.
I turn to Amendment 144, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson. I have huge respect for his comments and for all the other contributions to the discussions this afternoon. We acknowledge that there are still inappropriate, unregulated placements out there and they are still being used. This is why the Government are so focused on investing in this area, and we have to make sure that we end these practices, which lead to so many unfavourable outcomes for young people. By way of trying to reassure, although we know that practice is not necessarily keeping up, placement of under-16s in formally unregulated accommodation was banned in September 2021. In 2023, regulations were introduced, as I have set out, setting national standards and registration requirements for supported accommodation, which is an option for 16 to 17 year- olds. All looked-after children under the age of 18 are now required to be in Ofsted-regulated or otherwise regulated accommodation. The majority of looked-after children continue to reside in foster placements, or children’s homes where this is the best option to meet their needs.
The amendment would actually remove the opportunity for 16 to 17 year-olds to develop their independence in a safe, supportive environment, and we do not believe that that is appropriate. I base those comments on talking to young people in my local authority area who came into the care system very late in their childhood. They believe that, where the accommodation is appropriate and regulated, this is the appropriate place for them to be. We need to respect that voice coming from young people themselves.
I stress that this is the basis of Clause 13: the belief that Ofsted needs additional enforcement powers and measures to help it bring this into being. Giving Ofsted the power to impose monetary penalties for breaches of the Care Standards Act, including for persons not registering their children’s social care establishment, is paramount. Registration is vital and ensures that children are safe, staff are checked and there is the right level of oversight through regular inspections. There are far too many vulnerable children living in settings where there is no oversight. Between April 2023 and March 2024, Ofsted investigated 1,000 unregistered settings, which tells us the scale of what we have to deal with. Ofsted can already prosecute people who run unregistered children’s services. However, this is a resource-intensive process and can take a very long time.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I hope I can take it as good news that they are meeting next week with Minister Georgia Gould, so hopefully the purse strings will be loosened.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord may say that.
In my personal experience, there is no reason why local areas cannot put these arrangements in place. There have been circumstances with agencies in the past—I am sure this does not happen now—where police have gone into a situation of domestic violence, for example, and not even known that there were children hiding under the beds upstairs. That is the shocking result of a lack of joining up—of agencies not speaking to each other. Provisions in the Bill will go a long way to making sure that this becomes normal—a culture shift. It is normal to tell a school if one of its young people has a change of circumstances that could affect them in many different ways. I am delighted that Government Ministers are coming together, and we will await the outcome with interest.
Amendment 170 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, concerns the publication of a national capacity plan for children’s homes intended to highlight the issue of distance placements. I highlight the Government’s commitment to supporting local authorities to meet their sufficiency duty through a range of reforms that will boost system capacity and better meet the needs of children in their areas. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, and others added to the discussions on this amendment. While the amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual national capacity plan, it would also take significant local authority resource to collect, collate and submit additional information on an annual basis to inform the plan, all at a time when their resources for children’s services are rightly focused on implementing reforms to actively improve services. A range of complex contributing factors across the children’s social care system can lead to the use of distance placements, which the Government are addressing through reforms in the Bill and investment in fostering kinship care and local authority children’s homes. Paramount in these decisions is the issue of risk to the safety of the young person. Sadly, in some cases, distance is a necessary factor when considering placements.
Finally, Amendment 134B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, seeks to introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to carry out a review on the distinction in the planning regime between children’s homes and domestic dwelling-houses, and to consider whether it should be removed. I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government continue to work together in this important area. In the last two years it has been clarified via a joint Written Ministerial Statement that planning should not restrict the timely delivery of children’s homes, and we have changed the National Planning Policy Framework to make it explicit that planning authorities must plan to meet the needs of looked-after children.
As we said in Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, we will continue to make progress on further changes that support the delivery of children’s homes where they are needed. This includes data collection and an analysis to translate the data and work out how it needs to be used, which is often overlooked, I am sad to say. In my experience of dealing with an application for a small home in the ward I used to represent, we went out for intensive consultation with the residents living around the home. I am very pleased to say that, in the end, after some scepticism and reservation, when we went through it carefully and they met the people running the home and understood how many children would be there, it went through and was an enormous success. They came and asked how they could help to support the children in the home through their local connections. So there are reasons to be optimistic, but there is a great deal to do, which is why, as I have said before, we have this Bill before us. I thank everyone for their comments but, for the reasons I have outlined in these remarks, I hope the noble Lords will not press the amendments in their names.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, for that comprehensive reply. I think the most important amendment in this group was Amendment 144. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, we should not be looking at placing children in unregulated accommodation. We are taking powers in this Bill to deal with unregulated schools—quite rightly, and I hope a great deal better than we have in the past.
The idea that we are putting children into unregulated homes, or, as one of my amendments will address later, unregulated alternative provision, is really not acceptable. In Clause 30, we are giving power to the same local authorities that are making these placements to override parental judgment as to the best interests of their child. We really need to get our thinking straight in this area. Unregulated accommodation is not acceptable, particularly when we are talking about people charging at the level they are. We ought to be doing something clear about that in the Bill. I am glad that the Government say that they aim to end this practice, and that it should be done away with, but we need a stronger commitment than that.
I was glad to hear the support for boarding schools. I had a miserable time at my boarding school. I would rather have been on the barge of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, frankly, such was the quality of accommodation. But I have seen the hugely transformational effect it can have when it works well, so it is very much a matter of choosing the right child for the right school.
I hope my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton will pursue her campaign when it comes to the Planning Bill, because we need to be sharper than we are. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Russell, will pursue Amendment 165, which is so clearly achievable. If we are moving towards a consistent identifier for children, this is just the sort of thing that ought to be being done.
My noble friend Lady Cash was told that it would be a burden on local authorities to collect the data. I hope that the Department for Education will wander down the road to their friends at the science department and look at what they are doing with AI, because that sort of function of data collection is so much quicker, cheaper and easier if you design the right systems. It ought not to be a matter of cost; it ought to be a matter of course.
Lastly, I felt that that was a rather disappointing response to my amendment. I cannot see that it is ever going to be right to place a 17 year-old in an adult hostel. Children take a long time to grow up. A 17 year-old is not in a position to be with troubled 25 year-olds as their principal companions. I will look again at the Minister’s reply, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to include children with EHCPs in residential care and allow residential schools to use deprivation of liberty in specific settings for specific children rather than moving them to a residential home.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, Clause 11 epitomises both the responsibility and the privilege that we all share as lawmakers in ensuring that the law works as well as possible for children who are extraordinarily vulnerable through no fault of their own. I put on record my gratitude to the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory and the Nuffield Foundation for their expertise and meticulous work in this area, and to Homes2Inspire, the Shaw Trust and Somerset County Council for allowing me to visit a home where up to two children deprived of their liberty can live, so that I could understand these issues better.
Children deprived of their liberty face severe and immediate risks from their own actions or the actions of others. They typically face six different types of restrictions and are under constant supervision, and two thirds experience restraint. The majority live on their own. Currently, under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989, children in care can be placed in registered secure accommodation. When this is not possible, local authorities can apply to the High Court for a deprivation of liberty order through their inherent jurisdiction. This often leads to crisis-driven placements in unsuitable settings, does not address the harmful effects of restraint and isolation and is clearly intended as a measure of last resort.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Amendment 131, in my name, appears in this group. I will not quite say that it is a pleasure to follow the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, but it was a terribly important contribution, and I can only very much agree with what she said. The issues that she has outlined—about children as young as seven, with two-thirds continuing still at six months—are hugely disturbing.
My amendment seeks to address a particular issue concerning children subject to deprivation of liberty orders and children in care in general. As I said to the Ministers when they very kindly had a briefing on the Bill, this arises from a campaign that I encountered in 2023, called Hope Instead of Handcuffs. This campaign came from a small group of people—a single operator of the provision of secure transport for children—who were calling for a ban on the automatic use of handcuffs. Yes, I did say the automatic use of handcuffs, which some privatised providers of secure transport were using on children who were subject to deprivation of liberty orders—or who, as it was described, were on the edges of care. They were being put in handcuffs to be transported. These are not children who have been accused of any crime; these are simply children—very vulnerable children, obviously—who have been subjected to something that I think any of us would find traumatic and disturbing.
This reflects testimony that was given in 2021 to the inquiry of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on protecting rights in care settings. Serenity Welfare testified that, as I have just said, many providers of secure transportation services for children who were on the edge of care were using handcuffs as standard. I quote from its testimony:
“The practice is unregulated and unmonitored, as there is no obligation on these providers to report any instances of handcuffing to the appropriate authority”.
As a result of that campaign in 2023, I and a number of other Members of both Houses wrote to the Government inquiring what was happening. The response we got was, “We will look into it”. To the best of my knowledge, none of this has progressed since then, so I particularly wanted to put down this probing amendment to draw attention to the issue.
I have not addressed just transport, because I want to know what is happening in other settings for these children as well, which is why I have included them in the amendment. This is perhaps a much more limited issue than the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was outlining, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government are planning to do something about it if, as I have no reason to doubt, it is still continuing, and to stop it.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 126, in my name, is in this group. This amendment relates to a discreet issue for children who are under a High Court deprivation of liberty order but who are not also looked-after children under the Children Act. Approximately 96% of those children under a High Court deprivation of liberty order are also looked-after children under the Children Act, but then they end up at the High Court, as there is a shortage of Section 25 secure accommodation. Only in Section 25 accommodation under the Children Act can a looked-after child be restricted of their liberty—that currently means a secure children’s home—so they are also put under a High Court DoL so that the local authority can deprive them of their liberty in non-Section-25-type accommodation. It seems that by the move to the phrasing “relevant accommodation” the Bill will regularise in law their situation, which is that 96% of these young people are currently under that inherent jurisdiction deprivation of liberty order. However, there are currently 4% of children under a High Court deprivation of liberty order who are not also looked-after children under the Children Act.
I want to thank the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane. I believe that it was his work that brought in the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, when High Court DoLS—as we would call them—began to be used as a jurisdiction. It is due only to that work that we know that, within that group, we have this little group—the 4%—who are not also looked-after children. Even an amended Section 25 of the Children Act refers only to looked-after children having their liberty being restricted in what would now be known as “relevant accommodation”. They would still be left under the High Court jurisdiction, with fewer safeguards. The whole purpose of Clause 11 is to bring from the inherent jurisdiction these children under a statutory system of protection, safeguards and reviews.
This 4% of around 1,280 children last year are often children coming out of the mental health estate. They have been taken into hospital for their own protection and for treatment; then they are discharged but, for health reasons, their home is no longer suitable. In my view, they are not going to pass the threshold test under the Children Act 1989 to be a looked-after child, because the threshold test—philosophically and in practice—is about harm by the care or neglect of the adult who should be caring for them or the fact of their being out of control. Neither of those circumstances seem in most cases to apply to a young person who has gone into the mental health estate and then been discharged.
While I recognise the imperfections of the current drafting of Amendment 126—for instance, it might trigger other provisions of the Children Act if we deem these children to be looked after-children—I chose that mechanism to try to bring them under the safeguards that we will have for children under Section 25 who are looked-after children, and not leave them still to be under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. I hope that that serves to be a mechanism for the Minister to explain what the situation is for that small group of children.
I imagine it was envisaged by Sir Andrew McFarlane that he would get the data through the Nuffield work, so that we would come to Parliament, legislate and take this into statute law, out of the inherent jurisdiction. It seems to me, from Amendment 126, that unless we do something for this small group of children, he is going to have to continue needing Nuffield, because there will be a need for this type of deprivation of liberty order under the inherent jurisdiction for the group of children I have just outlined.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, what the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has just said is entirely sensible, and, if I may, I add my voice to it.
I did not know about this group of children. It seems wrong in principle that they should not be treated in exactly the same way as all other children in this particularly vulnerable group. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, pointed out, they are quite obviously the most vulnerable of all the children. I declare my interest as patron of the Atkinson unit in Exeter, which is secure accommodation.
What I am really standing up for on this is not only to understand and support in principle what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is saying but to express some concerns. I will just take, as an example, Amendment 120. If this child under the age of 13—and that is a very sad circumstance to have a child under 13—is under an order of the court, the Secretary of State would not be able to deal with it further than suggesting that the court order should be reversed. It is important that, when looking at these amendments, one has to bear in mind that it appears that deprivation of liberty may be able to be made without the introduction of the court. In so far as the court is concerned, I remind the Committee, as a former lawyer and judge, that neither the Home Office, the Department for Education nor any other government department can actually change the law of England other than through the parliamentary process. I have no doubt at all that the Minister knows that perfectly well, but it seems to me we have to be a little careful about the extent of the suggested use of these amendments.
I entirely understand what is intended, and it is entirely laudable, but we just need to be very careful as regards in what circumstances and whether there will be a court order. My recollection is that, in the past, Section 25 orders were also made in the family proceedings court. Not a word has been said about that now, and it may be that that does not happen any longer, but certainly there continue to be orders under the inherent jurisdiction, so I just make that warning to your Lordships.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords often say in this Chamber that it is a pleasure to follow whichever noble Lord or noble Baroness. I cannot say it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, because, given the depth and detail of what she says and the experience she brings as a former judge—and she always speaks without a note—it is not a pleasure but humbling to be given the role of speaking in her wake, as it were. She is, as ever, extremely impressive and adds so much to our debates.
I want to speak to Amendment 506B in my name, on the use of accommodation for deprivation of liberty. When a child is in a secure setting, there is a robust framework for reviewing the suitability of arrangements for deprivation of liberty, including through the appointment of independent persons. Where deprivation of liberty orders are used in other accommodation arrangements, the same safeguards may simply not be there. So there need to be additional safeguards, including, as recommended by the Children’s Commissioner, a record in the looked-after child census, including the type of setting and the length of and reasons for restrictions placed. Also, wherever possible, independent advocacy should be provided for all children where a deprivation of liberty order is being considered or is in place.
Clause 11 provides a statutory framework for children to be deprived of their liberty in accommodation other than a secure children’s home through amending Section 25 of the Children Act 1989. The intention is for there to be parity with secure children’s homes in terms of access to legal aid. But the current position for parents and anyone with parental responsibility in these cases is that they are entitled only to means-tested legal aid. Such means tests are very restrictive; research by the Law Society has demonstrated that even those living in poverty can fail the financial eligibility test for legal aid.
Many parents are therefore left to navigate these complex legal proceedings on their own. The result of these court hearings is significant for children because it could lead to a child being put into a placement that is many miles away from their home environment and their local network of support—mirroring the arguments that we heard in the last group of amendments. Additionally, deprivation of liberty orders are increasingly being used to place children in unregistered accommodation —I will not go there again—due to the lack of secure children’s home places.
According to figures published by the Family Court Statistics Quarterly, there were 1,280 applications to the High Court for deprivation of liberty orders for children in 2024, of which 132 were for children 12 years of age and under. That total figure represents a 120% increase since 2020-21 figures, which themselves reflected a fourfold increase since 2017-18—again, according to the Law Society. By way of comparison, there were 261 applications for secure accommodation for children in 2024.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, mentioned the Nuffield Foundation; the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory found that almost 90% of parents and carers were not legally represented at any hearings in applications made under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction for deprivation of liberty orders. For an event of such importance to those families involved, that is surely a worryingly high figure and is just unacceptable.
It is surely a basic human right for no child to be deprived of their liberty, particularly into an unregistered placement, without their parents having access to legal advice and representation. There should always be access to non-means tested legal aid for parents and carers in these cases, and Amendment 506B would provide for that.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I speak as someone who has had to make these orders, and in doing so I recognise that these amendments are of great importance, shining light on the deprivation of liberty jurisdiction which has persisted in England and Wales for perhaps too long. In an article in the Observer just a year ago, there was trenchant criticism from the former President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby. He wrote:
“When a system is routinely locking up vulnerable children in highly inappropriate settings because they are too difficult to look after, something is clearly going very, very wrong”.
He described this as a
“moral failure – by the state and by society”.
As has been explained, the existing statutory provision for secure accommodation orders made under Section 25 of the Children Act now covers only a few of those with complex needs and those requiring accommodation because they have to be protected from exploitation or present a risk to others. That is because “secure accommodation” is a term which describes only registered children’s homes specifically approved by the Secretary of State, of which, as we have heard, there are only a limited and increasingly insufficient number available.
With the severe shortage of places and the rising need for accommodation for those whose welfare requires some restriction of liberty, that need has had to be met by applications to the High Court for authorisation under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. As places cannot be found in suitable registered homes which are Section 25 compliant, the High Court then has to consider whether an unregistered placement is in the child’s best interests. All too often, the local authority, the child’s guardian in the proceedings and the court have to struggle when considering what is available. The court is faced usually with a short-term crisis, planned for in the short term, and limited services available, and is battling to keep the child safe. In doing so, one is usually presented with only one unsatisfactory option. As the MacAlister report put it,
“Courts do not take such decisions lightly. Deprivation of liberty orders are often made following a nationwide search for homes, and often after the child has experienced multiple home breakdowns … the harrowing circumstances set out in these High Court judgements are a window into the dysfunction of the care system”.
In practice, if a DoLS is justified, the court has to look at the distance from home, the adequacy of education provision, if any, the adequacy of staffing and the nature and level of any workable restrictions required.
I take one slight issue with something the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said. In my experience, children do participate, at least in some hearings. They sometimes attend in person, but, as we all know, they are often placed far too far away—certainly from the court dealing with it—and sometimes they attend remotely. In my experience, one hears children who are depressed, agitated, traumatised and often very worried. In those circumstances, the court is looking not for what is best but for what is available and what is least worst, trying to keep that child safe.
The shortage of provision and the resultant use of deprivation of liberty authorisations have been known about for a long time and have been the subject of strong criticism from the higher judiciary, which has seen what was meant to be only a last resort become the norm, described by the Supreme Court as an “imperfect stopgap”. The judiciary has felt dismayed that its concerns appeared to be unheeded by Governments and Parliament. It has also been concerned that the courts were having to do what the state really should have been doing without recourse to the court in most cases.
The scale of the problem has been repeatedly highlighted by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, whose excellent work has been referred to during this debate, but also by others, including the BBC and responsible journalists elsewhere. I recognise that Clause 11 creates a new statutory regime and the concept of relevant accommodation, extending the places in which children can be confined. Much of what I have heard from Ministers on the Government Front Bench today has been very reassuring, and a recognition that the Government are getting to grips. Of course, it remains to be seen whether what can be achieved will be a sufficient response to the difficulties created by these orders, and to the independent review’s call for more flexible and innovative types of provision of care for children.
I support the amendments to improve what the Bill intends to achieve, in particular Amendment 124, which would require it to be stated that a deprivation of liberty has to be a last resort. Amendments 120A and 127 expressly provide for education and for therapy. Amendment 123 provides for regular reviews—not by the court, which is what happens at the moment, but by the authorities responsible for that deprivation of liberty. There is much to be said also for Amendment 132 on the involvement of the independent reviewing officer. I will also support Amendment 506B, providing for the availability of legal aid.
I questioned what in reality Amendment 122 would achieve, simply because we are where we are because of the severe shortage of registered children’s homes, of which there were 29 in 2002 and there are now only 13, which has, of course, forced reliance on unregistered placements that are often expensive. I think the answer to my question is that the expectation is that there will be improved registration of homes and an extension of the availability of homes to address what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, called the underlying need to increase capacity.
Finally, in respect of government Amendment 128, I ask what this will all mean for cross-border placements. There are awful stories of children from Devon and Cornwall having to be placed in Scotland.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Meston, whose wisdom and experience of the court processes in this area are, I am sure, very valuable to the Committee.
I will speak to Amendment 133 in my name. I have also added my name to that of my noble friend Lady Barran on Amendment 120. Amendment 133 states:
“Information required to be published by a local authority includes information about the authority’s arrangements for enabling children subject to deprivation of liberty orders to maintain, strengthen and build family and social relationships”.
This Bill picks up much of the intent of Josh MacAlister’s Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, but one of its key emphases, the importance of relationships, could feature more prominently throughout. Josh’s review drew on an experts by experience board informing his recommendations: young people and adults who had been through the care system. They said in the foreword that this review was their chance
“to reshape the system by placing relationships front and centre”.
I was on the design group on that review, and this emphasis came through again and again in evidence—hence the first paragraph of the report, which states:
“What we need is a system that … puts lifelong loving relationships at the heart of the care system”.
It calls for a reset that
“starts with recognising that it is loving relationships that hold the solutions for children and families overcoming adversity”.
On an earlier group of amendments focusing on care leavers, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott said we need to make sure that the loving, committed relationships that come to the fore in the family group decision-making process do not fall through the cracks in a child’s care pathway as they walk along it. If the local authority intentionally helps a child or young person to maintain them from day one, these relationships will not only be there when the child leaves but have the potential to transform the whole experience of being in care.
My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott talks very effectively about the lifelong links model imported from California and thoroughly adapted and tested by the Department for Education for British children, families and friends. Lifelong links ensures that children have a lasting support network of relatives and others who care about them throughout their time in the care system. In my work with the Ministry of Justice, I have recommended it for children in the youth custody and wider youth justice system, with whom children deprived of their liberty are an overlapping cohort.
We can underestimate the strength of the pull towards blood connections. Without the corporate parent’s gentle hand on the tiller in this area, many young people in or leaving care go looking on the internet and social media for family members, and not all of them will be beneficial relationships. While I would like lifelong links to be included in regulations and guidance as an offer to all children in care, care leavers and those deprived of their liberty, as the Minister said, this programme is being evaluated. Whatever its future, local authorities should be required to be intentional and systematic about relationships. Children in care, especially when they are in trouble in care, desperately need to feel that they belong somewhere.
Mark Riddell MBE, the Government’s national adviser for care leavers—at least, I think he still is; he certainly has been for some time—tells how his turnaround moment came when he was about 14 years old in the Scottish care system and had just trashed the children’s home where he lived after several failed placements. He had been called to the manager’s office, so he packed his black bag, expecting to be moved on again. The first thing the manager said to him was, “What’s that bag for?”. Mark said, “It’s all my stuff; you’re going to kick me out”. The manager told him, “We can sort out the damage, but you’re not leaving: this is your home”. Knowing that he belonged somewhere and that people were committed to him, regardless of his behaviour, finally settled him down, and he is now a voice for government.
Young people deprived of their liberty need a profound sense of belonging. Relationships with dedicated and compassionate staff are essential, but they also need to know that they have not been abandoned by their families, friends and other trusted adults. They belong in a relational web. We must not let this be torn apart by the already very traumatic experience of being deprived of their liberty.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will make a couple of points and ask a question. Like others, I have found this both a very humbling and a very disturbing group, which, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has shone a light on a little-understood area and highlighted some disturbing details. It is an area that I now realise I knew far too little about and that has not received anything like the transparency that it should.
The two points I want to make are on Amendment 127 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about placing a duty on local authorities to provide therapeutic treatment for children who are subject to a deprivation of liberty order. It reminds me of all the detailed scrutiny that I and other noble Lords gave to the Mental Health Bill during its passage in the first few months of the year.
One of the things that was particularly in my mind was that that Bill included four core principles for making decisions about detaining people under the Mental Health Act, and one of those was that it would be of “therapeutic benefit”. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who told us that for quite a few of the children who would be subject to these deprivation of liberty orders, it would be because of their severe mental health problems. It struck me that there are parallels between the two Bills; and in the same way that we have said in the Mental Health Bill that detention must be of therapeutic benefit, Amendment 127, which is about providing therapeutic treatment for children subject to a deprivation of liberty order, is particularly important.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I have added my name to a number of the amendments in this group; I could probably have added it to all of them. Like other noble Lords, I am very grateful for the work of the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, which has been quoted several times. I am ignoring all the careful facts and figures I had prepared for this evening, because most of them have already been given by other noble Lords, and it is a principle here that we do not repeat what has already been said. Rather, I would like to speak to the broad principles and the moral case, and to be brief.
I have been struck by the number of parallels with another situation of last resort that I have worked with for many decades now, and that is families who are made homeless. Homelessness should be rare, short and unrepeated and so should a deprivation order for a child. It should not be something that happens very often; it should only ever happen the once; and it should be for the shortest possible time. A number of the amendments in this group, particularly those I have signed up to, would help to ensure that that is the case.
When I have been dealing with services for those who have been made homeless, what matters is the quality of service that is provided. I have tabled some amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill that are around that. Some of these amendments in this group would ensure that children who are deprived of their liberty have a good solid provision of services for them.
Finally, when I have been dealing with homelessness, I have heard too many stories where families are trekking across multiple local authority boundaries to get to a school. It is important, as some amendments in this group would tease out, that if we must deprive a child of their liberty, we should do it as close to where they live as possible and as close to where they belong.
I will echo the words of one other noble Lord to finish with. I was really struck and impressed by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, reminding us about love, relationships and belonging. It is these big-picture issues that matter. They must be the foundation stones on which we build services for some of our most deprived and vulnerable children in our society.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I realise that, quite often, we are very privileged in this House that, when there is a Bill, we get showered with briefings from all sorts of organisations. Of course, we read them, and then we say, “Oh my goodness, I did not understand this. I did not know about that”. Then, when we come to debate in the Chamber, we get real expertise, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who bring that added understanding and information. In fact, I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who mentioned Learn with the Lords, and when I do a Learn with the Lords session, and they ask, “Why are you in the Lords?”, I say it is because we have got real people who are experts in the field, and when you listen to them, you say, “Wow”. That is not just in this debate.
When I looked at the briefing from the Nuffield Foundation, I was just absolutely shocked. It was not something in my understanding or that I particularly knew about. I do not want to repeat the figures—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said we should not repeat things—but when you read the briefing, perhaps they do need to be repeated because they are quite shocking. The number of children being deprived of their liberty through the High Court is rising and rising—102 in 2017, and in 2024 it had gone up by 1,100%. These were meant to be last-resort measures, but there were 10 times as many applications to deprive children of their liberty to the High Court as there were applications for secure accommodation orders between July 2022 and March 2023. We have talked a lot about the voice of the child. It has sort of been a mantra of this part of the Bill, and yet only 10% of children were present at hearings considering their case. So where was the voice of the child? The other figure which quite alarmed me was that 89% of parents or carers were not represented at hearings.
Of course, these children are not only the most vulnerable children but also, in most cases, very difficult children to manage and to support. You need highly trained and professional people to be able to do that. Sadly, those numbers of people are not always available. The final part of this briefing, I noticed, said that costs are escalating—not that costs are everything—but outcomes are not improving. You would think if costs were going up, the outcomes would be improving.
Finally, I want to deal with one point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because it quite surprised me. She talked about children in handcuffs. The reason I was surprised about that was that I remember that, during the coalition period, one of our MPs sent a letter around saying, “If we have achieved anything, it is to stop the use of handcuffs on children”. I was quite shocked to hear that, and I went to ask my noble friend Lady Tyler if I had got this wrong and she said she thought I was right. I do not know where this is happening, and we need to find out. I really look forward to the Minister’s response on this.
I added my name to Amendment 132, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, on expanding the legal duties of the independent review officer.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 119 to 124 very briefly. We have touched on some very important points, and there is something that still needs to be crystallised. As others have said, these are some of the most troubled children in the system. They are also the ones whose care is probably the most expensive of all. Such specialised arrangements have to be made. We have touched on the tensions here between local authorities, the health service and the justice system. One of the reasons for the increase in the number of orders is the reduction in the number of justice secure beds and also tier 4 mental health beds. We have this terrible lacuna around children whom the health system deems to have, for example, untreatable personality disorders but who very clearly need to be looked after somewhere where both they and others can be kept safe and to have everything that we can do to improve their lives and to help make life work for them on a permanent basis in a healthy, humane way. This is an enormous challenge. I would very much like to hear the Minister explain how the health functions of government are also going to be tied into making the deprivation of liberty scheme work.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as others have said during the course of this important debate, Clause 11 is about provision for some of the most vulnerable children in the country and the importance of ensuring that adequate support and necessary safeguards are available to them. The measures in Clause 11 brought forward by the Government seek to bring more children, who would otherwise be deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, into a statutory scheme where they will benefit from enhanced safeguards and protections. I will say more in response to specific amendments about those enhanced safeguards and protections.
The clause provides a statutory framework to authorise the deprivation of liberty of looked-after children in provision other than a secure children’s home where there are not enough places, and which cannot meet the needs of all this cohort. Noble Lords will be aware of the pressing need to ensure that these children are provided with sufficient suitable placements to meet their various needs, including in Scotland.
This brings me to government Amendments 125 and 128, which will allow local authorities and others in Scotland to seek authorisation in Scottish courts to deprive children of their liberty in relevant accommodation in England. As noble Lords will be aware, relevant accommodation will have the primary purpose of care and treatment and will also be capable of being used to deprive a child of his or her liberty if required in connection with the provision of care and treatment. We are also making a consequential change to amend the language from “restrict” to “deprive”, to ensure consistency with existing amendments to Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 provided by Clause 11. These amendments will ensure that Scottish local authorities can access all forms of accommodation to enable a child to be deprived of their liberty in a placement that best meets their needs.
Amendment 119A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, addresses important issues around how best to support and protect another vulnerable group of children by seeking to allow children who have an education, health and care plan and who are in residential schools to be deprived of liberty in those settings under this legislation. The primary purpose of a residential school is to educate the children living there. Each child’s EHCP will have specified requirements to meet the child’s educational needs. In contrast, Section 25 is a specific legal route for placing looked-after children in specific accommodation where there is a need to avoid absconding or injury to the child or another person, often due to complex trauma. Clause 11 will not require any child to move from a residential school that is meeting the child’s needs. Where deprivation of liberty is required for a child living in a residential school, mechanisms other than Section 25 can be considered. For older children, that might include an application to the Court of Protection.
Amendment 119B seeks to remove “injure” from the clause but, as the noble Baroness spells out, is probing what is meant by the terms within the criteria under Section 25 of the Children Act. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that “injure” in this context has a wide meaning, including physical, mental or emotional injury. The criterion for an order under Section 25 is long-standing and has been well tested by the courts. I confirm for the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that Section 25 orders are issued by the family courts. I am confident, given the long-standing and well-tested procedures for Section 25, that it will continue to ensure that children can be deprived of their liberty to keep them safe where appropriate and necessary.
Amendment 120A seeks to ensure access to education for children in the new relevant accommodation outlined in Clause 11. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that access to education for our most vulnerable children is of the utmost importance to ensure that they can thrive and get on well in life. That is why there is substantial existing legislation in this regard, setting out the legal duties on local authorities to promote children’s educational attainment and include educational needs within care plans, as well as regulatory requirements for children’s homes to meet children’s educational needs. The intention behind “relevant accommodation”, which will be registered children’s homes, is to focus on ensuring that the child obtains the relevant treatment, which may involve depriving them of their liberty, but where they may also be able to have, for example, continued access to the community, including for education. It is also more likely to provide the closeness to the community and to their homes which several noble Lords have rightly said is an important right and need of children that must be continued.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I thank the Minister. Can she simply confirm in the letter that the position may be that we are left with a residual group of children who will still need the inherent jurisdiction? It might be that the legislation just does not reach quite far enough at the moment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will clarify that in the letter.
On Amendment 131 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the important matter of the use of restraint on children in care and subject to deprivation of liberty orders, it is vital that children are safe and that restraint is used only where appropriate, including when they are moving between settings and services. We take these concerns very seriously. We will consider guidance on restraint in due course.
However, the question about children being handcuffed remains, and I will endeavour to get more detail about that and to come back to the noble Baroness. Providers, in conjunction with placing authorities, are under an obligation to use the minimum appropriate restriction to keep a child safe.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I may be a little too soon, but I wonder whether the Government are minded to ensure that there is, as my amendment would provide, some kind of reporting mechanism to keep track of things. There may be cases where that is necessary. Surely this is something there should be an annual report on so that we can see the direction of travel and whether there is a problem that needs to be tackled.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Noble Lords are very premature today. I was coming not quite to that but to something that I hope will be satisfactory in relation to that reporting mechanism.
Ofsted, as the independent regulator of children’s homes, manages incidents of restraint on a case-by-case basis under its inspection framework. The children’s homes regulations place a requirement on homes to record any incidents of restraint and on the registered person to inform Ofsted of any incident in relation to a child that they consider to be serious. We think that Ofsted inspectors are best placed to scrutinise individual incidents of restraint and the circumstances around them and to ensure that care providers are minimising its use. We are not clear that a yearly report to Parliament aggregating that data would add anything in this case, although it would create an additional burden and risk distraction from this important work. It would, in fact, probably be significantly less effective in safeguarding children and recording the incidents than the Ofsted approach currently being used.
Amendment 133 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, seeks to promote family and other social relationships for children subject to deprivation of liberty orders by publishing local authority plans to support children in that regard. As mentioned in respect of earlier amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I reiterate the Government’s agreement that, wherever possible, it is vital for a child’s welfare to have positive family and social relationships. Given that the Children Act 1989 and the supporting guidance already seek to ensure that family and other relationships for looked-after children are promoted while keeping children safe, and that this forms part of Ofsted’s inspections of local authorities, I am not sure it is appropriate or necessary to increase the burden on local authorities by mandating them to publish that information. I recognise the points made by the noble Lord, or it may have been somebody else speaking on his behalf, about the effectiveness of the lifelong links programme. I think we referenced that previously, and I can see the enormous benefit that can come from it.
Amendment 134C tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure the affirmative procedure for regulations made under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important to ensure that regulations on this matter are subject to the correct scrutiny. She referred to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report in which this was raised. We are grateful to the committee for its scrutiny. We are carefully considering its recommendations and will respond in due course.
Amendment 506B in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson seeks to delay commencement of Clause 11 until regulations are made to ensure that non-means-tested legal aid is available in relation to applications to deprive a child of their liberty under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989. I assure my noble friend that where an application is made to deprive a child of their liberty as a result of any measure the Bill brings forward, those children will be eligible for state-funded legal aid representation using the same criteria that currently apply to all children subject to orders under Section 25. This means that children will be able to access legal aid without needing to satisfy means testing.
I hope that noble Lords think I have provided nearly all the detail requested in these amendments. On that basis, I commend the government amendments to the Committee and hope that noble Lords feel able not to press theirs.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
This may be a rather silly question, but in my experience of the Atkinson secure accommodation unit, every child needs at least two carers. There are even children who need three. I wonder how a children’s residential care home will manage a child deprived of liberty. It will be an extreme case and the child will be unbelievably difficult to look after.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Nevertheless, we believe that it is possible. On the definition of relevant accommodation, we believe that it is possible to find those sorts of homes—sometimes supported by the use of technology to help maintain security for children, and certainly needing a certain level of staffing, as the noble and learned Baroness said—and that, for many children, it is preferable to live in that type of accommodation as opposed to the alternative, which has been to be deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the courts. Actually, some of that type of accommodation may well be more suitable for things such as maintaining contact, having education and being closer to the community.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Storey: the House of Lords was at its best with the expertise that was shared generously by your Lordships. I also thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. I believe she addressed —or is going to come back on—the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, regarding the use of handcuffs, as well as the specific gaps in relation to children who are not looked after, which was raised by my noble friend Lady Berridge. I think she also gave a very positive response to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in relation to his amendments. So it is so far, so good.
In relation to my amendments, there were some genuinely positive and helpful responses. In relation to Amendments 119A and 119B, there was a category of response. I understand—the Minister is obviously telling the truth—that these duties already exist, whether it be in relation to children receiving education or therapeutic support, or, indeed, that they are in registered accommodation; but the Minister knows as well as I do that that is not working in real life.
It may be that the problem is a difficult one to solve, but it still needs to be solved. These children are not typically getting an education; although I would agree with her that, if they are nearer their community, they have a better chance of doing so. We know that these children have frequently been in unregistered accommodation and that, as I said in my remarks, they often do not meet the criteria for CAMHS to provide therapeutic support.
I also felt something distinctly promising about her tone in relation to my Amendment 134C, so I live in hope.
There are two amendments that I want to touch on briefly. In the case of Amendment 124, I believe the Minister said that she agreed on the need for clear safeguards, and that the same powers would be available to the Secretary of State as exist today for children in secure accommodation, but those powers will be set out in regulations. That was the bit where, if I have understood correctly, I stopped feeling comfortable because, obviously, regulations can be reversed, and I cannot see why you would not want the same safeguards for these children on the face of legislation as for those in secure accommodation. But I will read what she said and, if I have misunderstood, she is welcome to intervene on me.
Similarly, in relation to my Amendment 132 regarding the independent reviewing officer, the Minister said that those powers already exist, but my amendment would explicitly extend and strengthen those powers. I would be grateful if she could perhaps reflect on that in her comments in relation to Amendment 132. We need proper scrutiny and oversight, we need proper therapy and care for these children, and they need to be in the right accommodation. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(6A) In subsection (5A), for “restrict the child’s” substitute “deprive the child of their”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures consistency with the terminology in section 25 of the Children Act 1989 as amended by clause 11.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(9) In section 93 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (interpretation)—(a) in the definition of “secure accommodation”, omit paragraph (b);(b) after that definition insert—““secure accommodation” , in relation to England, means secure accommodation within the meaning of section 25 of the Children Act 1989 or relevant accommodation within the meaning of that section;”.(10) In section 202(1) of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 1) (interpretation)—(a) in the definition of “secure accommodation”, omit paragraph (b);(b) after that definition insert—““secure accommodation” , in relation to England, means secure accommodation within the meaning of section 25 of the Children Act 1989 or relevant accommodation within the meaning of that section,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the clause 11 amendments to section 25 of the Children Act 1989, to allow local authorities in England and Wales to seek authorisation for the deprivation of liberty of children in accommodation provided for care and treatment in England, extend to local authorities in Scotland.
Gibraltar
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Rock of Gibraltar has now been British for over 300 years. In 2002, 99% of Gibraltarians rejected the notion of shared sovereignty with Spain and reaffirmed their allegiance, in no uncertain terms, to Britain.
It is against this background that we must consider the Government’s agreement on Gibraltar, to test whether it puts the interests of the Gibraltarians and, of course, our own national interests, first. We are clear that nothing agreed can compromise or infringe the sovereignty and constitutional arrangements of Gibraltar, which should remain British.
The deal must ensure that we are able to operate our military base on the Rock, as we have done until now, to safeguard our defensive capabilities. We are also clear that the deal must be backed by the Government of Gibraltar and, crucially, Gibraltar’s people, to support their interests. It must also address the concerns about the actions of Spain to frustrate and prevent the free flow of goods across the border.
It is vital that these Houses have time to carefully and properly scrutinise the deal that the Government have reached over Gibraltar. I hope that the Minister will join me in recognising the importance of proper oversight and scrutiny if this is to be regarded as a legitimate and proper arrangement. Can the Minister therefore confirm when the House will get to see the full details of the deal and the treaty? Given the importance of the issue, will the Minister commit to making time available for a full discussion of this matter?
One of the reasons that I feel it is so vital that we in these Houses are able to properly scrutinise the treaty is that I seriously question the Government’s ability to negotiate a good deal on behalf of the UK. I need only mention—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, will twist her face at this stage—the Government’s deal on Chagos as an example of poor negotiation.
While this agreement may not be as egregious as Chagos, it is none the less, in my view, flawed. We have seen numerous concessions made to Madrid, which potentially threaten core principles that should underpin any agreement. One of the most significant is the end of Gibraltar’s long-standing VAT-free regime—a central and persistent demand from Spain.
Despite clear and repeated objections from both the UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar, the agreement will also permit Spanish police officers to operate at Gibraltar’s airport. Furthermore, passengers arriving from the UK will now be subject to dual checks, first by Gibraltarian authorities and then by Spanish officials acting on behalf of the EU.
The Foreign Secretary in the other place was at pains to point out that this is not Gibraltar joining Schengen, yet apparently Spanish border officials will be able to stop any British citizen entering Gibraltar if their previous stays have exceeded the 90-day Schengen limit, even if they have no intention of travelling into Spain. Is this in fact true? In what other circumstances will Spanish officials be able to deny the entry of British citizens into Gibraltar? To take another example, the passport requirements for entering Gibraltar are different from those required to enter the EU. To enter Gibraltar, a British citizen needs only a passport valid for the length of their stay in Gibraltar. To enter the EU, you need one valid for three months. So will a British subject with a passport valid for, say, two months be admitted by Gibraltarian officials but then refused entry by Spanish officials?
The Foreign Secretary in the other place stated that our vital military base would be unaffected by this agreement, but what about service personnel arriving at the airport? Will they need to be checked and approved by the Spanish? That might sound a little far-fetched, but there was a fascinating report in the Telegraph only this morning about a military exercise involving British paratroopers parachuting on to the Swedish island of Gotland to reinforce our Swedish NATO partners. All well and good, you might think, but what was the first thing those troops had to do on landing? They had to report to a mobile border control van to clear immigration control. Luckily, this was only an exercise, as I am not entirely convinced that a hostile Russian invasion force would happily wait around for bureaucratic formalities to be concluded before opening fire.
These are concessions that risk diminishing Gibraltar’s status as a distinct jurisdiction. So I ask the Minister: does she accept that a good negotiation involves standing firm on one’s principles, not merely acquiescing to the demands of the other side? From where we stand, it appears that a great many of our priorities have been sidelined and far too many of our red lines quietly erased by this Government. Could the Minister confirm whether the red lines that the last Government set out with the Government of Gibraltar have been met, or whether, during the negotiations and since Labour took office last year, there has been any divergence from them?
The Foreign Secretary in the other place made great play of the insertion of a clause “explicitly protecting our sovereignty”. Great, we think—yet the Spanish Prime Minister, in his tweet welcoming this agreement, concluded by saying, “All this without renouncing Spanish claims to the isthmus and the return of Gibraltar”. Could the Minister tell us who is right, the Foreign Secretary or the Spanish Prime Minister?
These Houses have a responsibility to scrutinise the agreement, not only in the interests of constitutional principle but out of respect for the people of Gibraltar, who have consistently and overwhelmingly affirmed their wish to remain British. The arrangements set out by the Government raise some serious questions and deserve to be answered and discussed in a proper debate. The people of Gibraltar deserve our full support, transparency, proper scrutiny and a deal that reflects their rights, their status and their British identity. Any agreement that we reach over Gibraltar must respect those rights, and I hope the Minister is able to answer these questions fully in her response.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I should declare that I have visited Gibraltar previously, both before and immediately after the Brexit referendum. I am conscious that there has been a regrettable legacy of Brexit—which I note, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, did not, the people of Gibraltar rejected in almost equal numbers—for those who determined their own sovereignty. Indeed, the areas of difficulty and complexity that the people of Gibraltar had predicted as a result of leaving the EU came to pass.
The immediate response of one of the previous Government’s significant figures on the Conservative Benches in 2017 was from the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who said that we should send in the fleet but did not send in diplomatic forces to ensure that we would have an agreement for the benefit of the sovereignty, economy and people of Gibraltar. However, it is diplomatic measures rather than bravado that we hope have now ensured that there is a resolution to those difficult and complex issues.
I note that the Chief Minister’s letter to us all says that the agreement puts into place the 2020 border checks agreed by the previous Administration. Presumably, that was not the time when the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was Brexit Minister, but I suspect that the agreements under the previous Administration are the ones that the noble Lord is asking the Minister about now. I look forward to her response regarding those issues that are being disowned by the Conservative Party.
These Benches will look closely at the details and, if there are legislative measures required to operationalise the agreement, we will give them proper scrutiny. We hope that Parliament will have a considerable say in these issues.
It is worth rehearsing the principles. We on these Benches have an unshakable and irreducible support for the sovereignty of Gibraltar. The self-determination of the people of Gibraltar is irreducible, and any decisions made about Gibraltar need to be made with the participation of the people of Gibraltar. These are significant principles that I hope the Minister will agree with. As a result, our founding belief is that the tests for the agreement will have to meet those. But there are additional tests: do they protect the people of Gibraltar’s security interests, support its economy and contribute to the sensible economic relationship with Andalusia?
I have seen for myself the mutually beneficial relationship between Andalusia and Gibraltar. The UK/Gibraltar relationship and the residents of Gibraltar add considerably to the Spanish economy and to the Andalusian economy in particular, while Spanish workers, especially in health and social care, add considerably to support the services within Gibraltar. The human level of the relationship—the workers, the daily crossings —is therefore of considerable importance, so a workable and sensible arrangement is in their mutual interest and I hope we find that the Government have achieved that when we see all of the details. It was up to this Government to ensure that there was agreement after the almost eight years of inactivity from the previous Administration.
I will close by asking some specific questions of the Minister that the Foreign Secretary did not respond to with clarity in the House of Commons. Regrettably, we have known that, even though acting against their own interests, the Spanish Government have been willing to act unilaterally over Gibraltar, to the detriment not only of Gibraltarians but of their own residents. We therefore cannot predict what future Governments of Spain will be or the positions that they will take, so will the Minister outline what mechanisms exist in the deal to ensure compliance with those areas of agreement? Who will police it, what are the mechanisms of mediation and potential adjudication, and are effective dispute resolution mechanisms in place in the event of future possible unilateral actions? We hope that will not be necessary, but we have to plan for the contingency that it might. Given the experience of the past, giving Gibraltarians confidence that the deal will be enforceable is very important.
Finally, will the Minister confirm what the lifespan of the agreement will be? Will it include any mechanisms so that, if there are circumstances—again, we hope there will not be—where the people of Gibraltar believe that a different agreement and a new deal will be required, there is an opt-out mechanism? Ultimately, we believe in ensuring the ultimate guarantee of Gibraltar’s sovereignty. That should be at the heart of this agreement.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their comments and questions. I have to say that the noble Lord opposite is slightly spikier in his approach to this than his friend in the other place, the shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel, who gave it a rather warmer tone of welcome than he did—but he is here to speak for the Opposition on those Benches.
I thank the noble Lord for reminding us of the importance of the sovereignty of Gibraltar, our long history and military ties to it and our base there. This deal achieves something that matters hugely to the Government and people of Gibraltar: the open border. There are 15,000 people crossing the border each day to go to work and to go about their lives. The delays and the problems that can occur, particularly as the EU looks towards implementing its entry and exit processes in a matter of months, make life very difficult for Gibraltarians, so it was important that we were able to reach a pragmatic agreement with the EU to enable daily life to continue.
As both noble Lords said, there needs to be proper oversight and scrutiny. There will be an opportunity for that to happen in both Houses under the CRaG process, which we are all now familiar with. We are aware of the debates around the strengths and flaws of this process, but we are legally obliged to follow it. Unless and until that changes, that is the process we will use.
The Chief Minister of Gibraltar has been incredibly forthcoming with his views on this and is happy with the outcome of the negotiations. There have been 19 rounds of negotiations to achieve this agreement. I think they started when Dominic Raab was Foreign Secretary and continued under James Cleverly and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. They have now concluded. The Foreign Secretary has been very clear in paying tribute to the work of his predecessors in leading these negotiations. Given how complex this is, it has been a relatively smooth process. I also pay tribute to my friend Stephen Doughty, the Minister for Europe, for the role he has played in bringing this about.
On the role of the Spanish police, they will be doing Schengen checks. If noble Lords have been through St Pancras, they will have seen the double-layered checks. Those are to make sure that there is a check before someone enters the Schengen area. If an alert is triggered by that Schengen check, you will not be instantly lifted by Spanish police and taken to Malaga for interrogation; you will maintain your rights and have access to legal advice, as well as the option of returning to your departure airport if that is what you want to do.
I thank the noble Lord for raising the question on service personnel. I am happy to make clear that service personnel at the base are not going to need Schengen checks. This is about pragmatism; there is always a balance to be struck and trade-offs to be made in these circumstances, but the Chief Minister and the Government of Gibraltar, who will also have their own parliamentary process to look at this, are content that this is the right way to proceed. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is also meeting with members of the Gibraltarian opposition, to make sure that everybody is comfortable and that we can proceed.
The noble Lord asked how long this arrangement is intended to last. This does not have an end date. We want this to be the new normal, and for there to be certainty and clarity for the people of Gibraltar. Having an end date would not be conducive to that.
The contents of this agreement do not impact the sovereignty of Gibraltar in any way, and there is a clause that says that this agreement does not affect its sovereignty at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, pointed out, Spain has its view, but we are clear that Gibraltar is British. There is nothing in this agreement that affects the current status of Gibraltar, and Spain has agreed to that.
We have had no talks without the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, and I do not think the previous Government did either. It is clearly not tenable to have arrived at a position where we have an agreement between the UK and the EU that did not satisfy the leadership and people of Gibraltar, so we have made sure that that has been at the forefront of our work at all times.
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on sovereignty, self-determination and our unshakable commitment to the people of Gibraltar. He asked about dispute mechanisms and exit clauses. Yes, they will be included, and, as you would expect, the full text will be available. Should things deteriorate or something happen that we do not foresee—although I emphasise that we do not foresee this happening, because it is in the interests of all four parties of this agreement for this to work—there are clauses that make it possible for us to walk away unilaterally if the view is that that is in the best interests of the people of Gibraltar. But, as I say, we do not anticipate that being the case.
This is a good outcome for the people of Gibraltar, and they are pleased with it. We now have our process to go through; the Gibraltar Government have their process to go through too, and the full text will be made available. Generally, this has been a reasonably well-received outcome—including by the Opposition Benches in the other place—to a long and protracted set of negotiations that were in many ways inevitable following the vote to leave the European Union. For the sake of the people of Gibraltar, I am glad that we have almost resolved this.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I declare my interest, as listed in the register. I have been privileged to visit Gibraltar on many occasions as a member of the all-party group. I pay tribute to Chief Minister Fabian Picardo and his colleagues in His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar for their hard work over many years in reaching this agreement, which has the support of all four parties involved in the negotiations.
Can the Minister confirm that Gibraltar will retain full control over its own border checks, and that the agreement will not place any additional barriers in the way of UK passport holders wishing to visit our deeply cherished friends on the Rock?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I will start by echoing the noble Lord’s comments about Fabian Picardo. He has worked tirelessly on this and is satisfied with the outcome we have reached.
Gibraltar will have its own checks that it will undertake. There will also be Schengen checks that, as I say, are similar to those at St Pancras, but, unless an alert is triggered on the Schengen Information System, there should be no issues. If an alert is triggered, a person would have the opportunity to take legal advice and make a decision about their onward travel. That is an agreement that Gibraltar is happy with; it is a good compromise and something that will serve the people of Gibraltar well.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I very much support what the noble Lord has just said. I am also a member of the Anglo-Gibraltar group, and I go very regularly to Gibraltar. I have visited Gibraltar ever since I was 18, so I know it extremely well. I also happen to know—as we do as Members—the Chief Minister very well. I am absolutely delighted that he is pleased with it. I share what the Minister and the noble Lord have said about the huge amount of work that he and other Ministers do. Quite simply, I congratulate the two Governments, Conservative and Labour, on the hard work they have put in and the successful result.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have visited Gibraltar as well, and I echo everything the noble and learned Baroness had to say. This has been the work of many years and many Foreign Secretaries. It proves that sometimes, when we knuckle down and focus on the outcome that must be achieved for the people of Gibraltar, we can get there with relatively little fuss and drama.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this Statement and support very much my noble friend Lord Callanan’s comments and questions for clarification. I too have been visiting Gibraltar for many decades, in my initial job and when I was a Member of the European Parliament, so I am aware that, certainly post-Brexit, there have been some issues and some need for clarification in certain areas. I met regularly with Gibraltarian officials and Ministers regarding airspace use and other issues of that nature. Nevertheless, we need to remember that Spain continues to assert its claim over Gibraltar, and it has never ever backed off from that.
On the comparison to how we get to the continent, to France or Belgium, using the Eurostar system—namely, with a French immigration officer—it is not the same at all, because you go through that control and then into an EU country. My concern, which we need clarification on, is that I read that a Spanish immigration officer or police officer—whatever you want to call them—will check the British passports of British passport holders and can refuse entry to that British citizen going into a British sovereign territory. That is the difference: we have a Spanish officer refusing a British citizen going into a British Overseas Territory. I would really like some clarification on that.
I would obviously welcome seeing the detail that my noble friend asked for on a number of these issues —the devil is always in the detail. Of course, what is important is that the Gibraltarian Government and the citizens of Gibraltar continue to realise that we, as the United Kingdom, will certainly always watch their backs. Should anything arise that is a bit untoward through these negotiations, we need to make sure that we are diligent in the oversight that takes place.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We simply differ in our view with regard to sovereignty with our friends and allies in Spain. Nothing in this agreement changes the status of the sovereignty of Gibraltar—we are very clear about that. Spain understands that, and that is reflected in the treaty. It was really important that we made sure that that was the case, because we do not want any questions about Gibraltarian sovereignty to arise out of this.
Of course this is different: when you get on the Eurostar, you go into Kent and then into France, but there are similar checks. The point is that it is not a full immigration process. This is about a Schengen check, so it is an alert about whether an outstanding warrant or criminality issue would be triggered. You would not immediately lose all your rights, be arrested or anything like that. You would have the option of going and answering the questions that may arise as a result of that trigger, or of taking legal advice and/or returning to your country of departure. This is a compromise; I accept that. It is very unusual, but this is an unusual circumstance. This is necessary to make sure that border stays open. That was the whole point of what we were trying to negotiate and what we have been trying to achieve. That is what has been achieved.
If the people of Gibraltar are front and centre of all this, as everybody has said, we need to listen to what they and their representatives are saying about this agreement. They are very warmly in support of it. I will listen to them, and if it gets to the point where they are no longer of that view then, clearly, we would have to think again. They have been involved every step of the way. We have done nothing about them without them—we would not do that—and they are pleased with this agreement. It will make such a difference to their daily lives, their prosperity and the way they are able to live and to travel backwards and forwards. The 15,000 people crossing that border every day can do so freely, without any concerns about the border being closed or any of that. This is a big win for the Gibraltarians, and I welcome it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement very warmly, and I declare an interest: I was involved, as a senior official in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in getting the Franco-imposed controls on the borders, which did such damage to Gibraltar, lifted well before Spain joined the European Union. I was rather surprised, as was the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, mentioned one vote—it is quite correct to do so—which was the vote of the Gibraltarians to remain part of Britain, but he did not mention the other vote: the huge 90% vote by which they voted to stay in the European Union. That, of course, was quite correctly overridden by the wider vote in this country, but it cast Gibraltar into nine years of uncertainty, anxiety and worry that things would not work out. An apology is due there from all those who were responsible for that action.
I will ask two questions. First, is it the case that, with luck and a bit of hope, this agreement will also facilitate the Government’s process of resetting the agreements we have with the European Union, in particular the one dealing with the security compact, which we hope will now go ahead at full speed? Secondly, will the noble Baroness perhaps convey to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar the very warm words from these Benches and others in this House about the remarkable patience and perseverance with which he pursued what is, in my view, an extremely valuable agreement for the Gibraltarians themselves? It would be right that he should hear words of praise from those of us who have contributed less than he has to this process.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his work in the past regarding Gibraltar, which I did not know about. We will absolutely make sure that Fabian is made aware of the warmest of words that have been said in this Chamber and the other place about the tireless work that he has undertaken on behalf of the people of Gibraltar, over very many years, to make sure that their interests are reflected in the agreement that we have now made.
I will not get into the whole relitigating of Brexit; I think we are all a bit exhausted with all that. As the noble Lord says, there is now a reset of the EU relationship, which shows what can be achieved with patience and pragmatism and when there is a focus on the people rather than, perhaps, some of our ideological hobby-horses. That is the approach that this Government have taken to this issue and will take to all issues regarding our relationship with the EU. It is important that we restore our relationships, that we co-operate on things such as security, that we get our SPS agreement sorted out and that we can work together on the challenges we face, such as illegal migration, climate change and the challenges to our economies. These are all things that we need to address together in that spirit of openness and pragmatism. That is far more profitable for the people of this country as well.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I agree with the noble Baroness. In fact, I agree with everything she has said, with one exception: she implied that negotiations started under Dominic Raab as Foreign Secretary. I took part in three negotiations over Gibraltar Airport, the first of which was for Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe, so the stone in the shoe has been there for a very long time. I think it has been rather elegantly removed. The solution looks to be a very good one.
I know that the duty of an Opposition is to oppose—or so it is said—but I thought the Opposition Front Bench spoke slightly ungraciously about the deal. The officials who worked very hard for them on the early stages of this negotiation, particularly Vijay Rangarajan, have not been thanked in the same way that the Foreign Secretary—in my view quite correctly—thanked the officials who had completed the task that Vijay and his colleagues were doing when the Opposition Front Bench spokesman here tonight was their boss.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I bow to the noble Lord’s experience and knowledge. Clearly, this has been going on for very many years; he is right to remind us of that. He is also right to say that there are teams of officials who work on this and other similar matters with expertise and diligence. I have seen officials coming back from one round of talks on something and then having to go out again the following week, spending time away from their families. It is their job; they are paid to do it, and they do not complain. But it is right to underscore our appreciation when things like this are achieved.
Lord Empey (UUP)
The Minister said that this agreement would be subject to approval. We have not seen the detail, but I want to know what would happen if there were a different Government—for instance in Spain—who might take a different attitude. Is there something there to protect the situation? Is there some arbitration? Once people get their foot in the door the bureaucracy can be more difficult: they can refuse this, that and the other, and quite a bit of nastiness could develop at the point of entry. I am sure that has been taken into account, and I hope that when the minutiae are available, we will be able to confirm that. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that.
The other thing I want to do is to gently remind the Minister that she has said twice now that negotiations had been taking place and that the people of Gibraltar, through their First Minister, were represented at each stage—quite properly. I just gently remind her that when the Governments were negotiating the Windsor Framework and related matters, our representatives were not present.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
If the noble Lord thinks I am getting back into the Windsor Framework and all that—I am sorry, but not tonight. He is right to say that there is the possibility, with a change of Government here or in Spain, or even in Gibraltar, that different approaches may be favoured in the future. As we would always expect in this type of deal, there will be some dispute mechanisms. Ultimately, although I genuinely do not expect this to happen, and I hope for the sake of the people of Gibraltar that this never happens, there is the possibility for either party unilaterally to end the agreement. However, we do not anticipate that happening. This is a good outcome for the people of Gibraltar.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, as we still have some time, perhaps I could ask for some further clarification from the Minister. First, she said on a couple of occasions that the checks the Spanish officials will do at the border will be Schengen checks. Is she therefore saying that Gibraltar will be joining Schengen, that it will be part of Schengen? I believe that in the other place the Foreign Secretary said that it will not. The second question flows from that. Under the current Schengen arrangements, a British citizen and passport holder is allowed to spend only 90 out of 180 days in the Schengen area. Is the Minister therefore saying that a British passport holder who may own property in Gibraltar—many do—will be able to spend only 90 days out of 180 in Gibraltar, even if they never set foot in Spain? These are important points. The detail matters with these things, and of course, we have not seen the agreement yet. The other question is one that she did not answer in her initial contribution. Can she tell us when we will actually see the agreement?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will see the agreement as soon as it is ready. Gibraltar is not joining Schengen. Gibraltar residents will not be subject to this. As for the 90 days, the noble Lord is right that that is part of this agreement.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Children’s homes: transparency of costAll local authorities must annually publish the prices they pay for private placements in children’s homes.”Member's explanatory statement
This intends to enhance transparency and enable local authorities to negotiate effectively with providers to secure the best placement for children at the lowest possible cost. It implements a commitment in the Government’s Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive policy paper.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 134A, in my name, which is in one sense a fairly limited amendment compared to some of the other proposals in this group. I understand all that, because what we are trying to deal with in this group is one of the most controversial realities in children’s social care—the reliance on private provision, and in particular the role of private equity firms.
More than 80% of children’s homes are run by for-profit companies—a rise of more than 20% since 2010. A large proportion are owned by private equity groups carrying large debts and creating instability in a sector meant to protect the most vulnerable. It was the concerns about the market that the Minister has mentioned that led to the CMA launching its market study, completed in 2022. It identified a shortage of suitable children’s homes in the right places, as well as high costs. It says that, with local authorities paying excessive fees to private providers,
“the largest private providers of placements are making materially higher profits, and charging materially higher prices, than we would expect if this market were functioning effectively”.
As we have discussed in the previous group, we have seen a rise in the number of children placed in unregulated homes as the pressure to find placements has intensified.
As noble Lords might expect, in the Explanatory Notes for this Bill, and as the Minister has stated, one of the aims is to improve local authorities’ ability to shape the children’s social care placement market and to tackle profiteering. There are a number of measures to address this in the Bill: there are new powers for Ofsted to find unregulated homes across multiple settings in the parent undertaking—although, as we have heard, this may not go far enough; and the Secretary of State will have the power to cap the profit that providers can make. However, as is made clear in the Explanatory Notes, this is a power that would be used only if the other market interventions outlined in Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive do not sufficiently improve the functioning of the market. Yet, as with the previous amendment that I mentioned, some of the measures mentioned in this Green Paper have not been brought forward in this Bill.
One notable exception is the proposal to improve the data that individual local authorities hold on the prices paid for private placements, and to improve the sharing of that data—hence this amendment, which would require local authorities to publish annually the prices that they pay for private placements in children’s homes. This would
“ensure that local authorities are supported to better understand, shape and commission placements that suit the needs of children in their area and bring transparency to the cost of placements”.
That last bit is a direct quote from the Government’s own policy statement, so I am rather hoping that the Minister might agree with me.
If I may, I would like to give an example of why this data is important and how the current system works in the interests of the larger providers while threatening the viability of the smaller operations. I have a friend who runs a children’s home. He has one property; he runs it well and, as a result, has children who often stay with him for a number of years. Every year, he has to fill out a spreadsheet to justify any price uplift to the local authority for existing placements. He is told that this information is supposed to ensure that uplifts are transparent and fair across the board—but it is not transparent, as it is not shared with him, nor is it fair. Typically, his uplifts have run at about 2%, although one year it was only 0.2% However, if you are in a home with regularly changing children, it is possible to set the price for placements each time. As a result, and only through a chance conversation, he discovered that he was being paid £1,500 per week less than one of the large private providers in his area offering the same one-to-one support for a child with very similar needs.
The net result of all of this is that my friend continually struggles to keep his head above water, despite being a responsible provider running the type of home which we are all agreed we need more of. If he was able to see the data on payments made to other providers in the area, it would help him negotiate more equitably with the local authority, which in turn would shore up his perennially fragile position. There are benefits on the other side, too, for the local authority. As in the words of one practitioner, “If we were all more transparent then there would be less chance that private providers can pick us off one by one, re prices”.
The Government have said that they will engage with the sector to bring about greater cost and price transparency, but, as we know, local authorities are not great at sharing data. Would the Minister consider mandating the publishing of this data as part of this Bill? I understand—it has been mentioned previously—that Governments are rightly cautious about the number of requirements that they place on local authorities, but given the level of distortion in the market and the urgent need for more suitable homes, there is a solid case to be made in this instance.
I suspect that in her response the Minister will point me to the regional care co-operatives, which will of course lead to greater data transparency. However, what it does not do is to solve the problem for the smaller providers. As with other measures in this Bill, it is another late-stage intervention, so it is a step to be taken, such as imposing fines, when things have already gone wrong. What seems to have got lost along the way are some of those positive preventive measures that originated from the Government’s own policy paper; they have just fallen by the wayside. To be honest, I am slightly puzzled as to why that is the case, but perhaps the Minister can shed some light on the matter, or perhaps, dare I suggest, she might consider reinstating them into this Bill.
I turn to some of the other amendments in this group. My amendment does not go as far as Amendment 174, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which seeks to remove private companies from the market as has happened in Wales. I think that our mutual agreement thing may have fallen down now, because I do not think that it is feasible or desirable to ban private provision; that would only increase the capacity shortfall, and we need responsible private investment. I do not think that we should disincentivise private providers from investing in new capacity or do anything to further destabilise the market. That is why I understand the concerns of my noble friend Lady Barran about the proposed profit cap, which the CMA thinks would be unworkable. It is also why I support her Amendment 142A, which would exclude individuals from financial penalties.
While I have purposely limited my amendment to children’s homes, the same principle of data sharing to create a fairer market certainly applies to fostering agencies, where there is a similar problem. While private investors operate less in the space of supported accommodation, it is not unheard of, so I understand the reasoning behind Amendments 140 and 142, which would include supported accommodation a little more in the Bill.
Finally, on Amendment 141, from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I am afraid that this is not my area of expertise, but I look forward to hearing his reasoning behind it. I beg to move.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 140, in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lord Storey for adding his. It would extend the scope of Clause 14 to cover independent providers of supported accommodation. This is a really important group of amendments: the whole area of financial oversight and profit caps is incredibly important, and I suspect we are not all going to have exactly the same views on it.
To put things into context, I welcome the raft of measures in the Bill to strengthen regulation and oversight of the care system, particularly the new provider oversight measures, Ofsted’s new power to fine providers of unregistered children’s homes, the financial oversight mechanism, and the profit cap. I firmly believe that these measures are welcome steps in the right direction in addressing some of the structural problems facing the care system and the sort of issues we have talked about so often in this Chamber: excessively high profit levels and rising care costs, at a time when local authorities are under huge financial pressure; the power imbalance between local authority commissioners and the largest private providers; the risk of sudden market exits due to high debt burdens from private equity-backed providers; and the growth in unregistered children’s homes, which we have already rightly focused on. That is a pretty toxic mix, and we really have to take the opportunity the Bill provides to do something about it.
That is the big picture, but turning briefly to my amendment, as we have already heard, in the last six years there has been a very significant rise in the number of children in care aged 16 and 17 who are living in supported accommodation. It is important to be clear what we mean by supported accommodation. It is for young people, 16 and 17 year-olds, who may have already started to make some sort of transition to more independent living but who still require a fair degree of support. Many supported accommodation settings, such as children’s homes and foster homes, are run by private companies, many of which are very large. Local authorities currently have no way of knowing the debt level being carried by these large private companies and whether there is any risk of the company or provider failing financially—which, of course, could have drastic implications for the children living in these settings. So, given the significant and growing number of children living in supported accommodation, it is important that the new financial oversight measures in Clause 14 are extended to independent providers of supported accommodation as well as providers of children’s homes and fostering agencies. My amendment would achieve this, and in so doing would provide a consistent approach across the different care settings and a safeguard for local authorities, so they can identify and mitigate the risk of providers suddenly closing multiple supported accommodation settings.
Finally, nine times out of 10, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I agree on pretty much everything. We often support each other’s amendments and speak in the same debates, but I do not quite share her position on removing the profit motive altogether from children’s social care. Far more needs to be done to regulate it, but there is a place for the private sector in the children’s social care market; it just has to be properly regulated.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler—whether I agree with her or not. I note the phrase that she used, “toxic mix”.
I think there has been broad agreement around the Chamber, including on the Government Benches, that we have a huge problem. The Minister said on one of the earlier groups that the market has prevent local authorities meeting their duties. Here, I would stress the phrase “the market”. What I am postulating is that “the market” is not the appropriate way to ensure that we have the right care in the right places with the right services—and that is a statement of a Green Party philosophical position. We do not believe that profit should be made from any form of care.
In this case, that is also very clear from what people have been saying. The Minister also said on one of the earlier groups that the current market has driven us to this, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said that the market is clearly not working. So, yes, it is my ideological position, but I have an overwhelming argument here for saying that the market is just the wrong model for providing this sort of care for vulnerable young people and children.
My Amendment 174 proposes a new clause that would prohibit the delivery of children’s social care services by for-profit companies. It has two very simple provisions, the first being that any new institutions created under the Bill should be not for profit. It says that within five years of the Bill being passed, what is now for profit would be converted. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, rightly said, this follows the model of what has already happened in Wales. I acknowledge that Wales is smaller than England, but none the less Wales has shown the way. It is worth looking at why Wales went that way.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, in many ways the test of the Government’s success in reforming public services will be whether we can crack the tough nut of children’s social care. It has been quite clear from the debates on the last three groups that this is a major challenge. I declare my interests as the founding chair of Social Enterprise UK, and I am on the social economy APPG. I am an associate of Social Business International and, for the past 10 years or so, I have been working with leaders of social enterprises that provide public services.
I might have preferred to have made this speech in the earlier debate, at the beginning of the afternoon, but I am afraid I could not make it here in time for its opening. However, this is an appropriate group because we are talking essentially about procurement and finance.
As the noble Lord said earlier, I think it was in the previous debate, the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, led by Josh MacAlister, described how the current system leads to unacceptable, poor outcomes for children and rising costs—private equity was referred to by the noble Baroness. It found that care packages are dictated by the market, not by children’s needs. Excessive profiteering has minimised resources and created public disgust. His central recommendation was for government to launch a reform programme, a radical reset to fix the broken care market, which has failed our most vulnerable children.
While I absolutely welcome the Government’s spending review commitments to fund family help, capital for residential care and fostering and other reforms linked to the MacAlister review, I feel that you cannot throw money at children’s social care and expect things to get better unless we actually also change. I want to see commissioners lever the well-evidenced voluntary sector, social enterprise and other forms of care to have a diverse marketplace in children’s social care.
At Second Reading I mentioned the wonderful Juno community interest company in Liverpool, Social AdVentures in Manchester and the Lighthouse Pedagogy Trust in London. All are boosting the life chances of our most vulnerable young people, and all exist for public service and benefit. They are efficient, entrepreneurial, transparent and accountable. They are sustainable and plough their profits into their social mission, often providing preventive and complementary services.
These organisations win tenders in open procurement processes yet are exceptions in a system that incentivises what you might call “social washing”—let me explain. Commissioners plan and design services to meet local needs and must consider social value when choosing providers, a concept brought into law by the social value Act, which I was very pleased indeed to help get on to the statute book, along with other noble Lords.
Scoring bids for social value means that public bodies consider and try to measure public and community benefits alongside value for money when they procure services we depend on, but in practice the system can be gamed or the process inadvertently rigged. Bidders promise outputs that they will never attain and do not achieve, and are barely held accountable.
Many commissioners know that social enterprises, co-operatives, mutuals, leisure trusts, employee-owned businesses, charities and trading charities deliver high-quality public services that meet community needs, and many have long wanted them to take a bigger role in public services. This chimes with the public’s view too.
The recent Procurement Act gave commissioners new tools and flexibilities and came into force in February this year after Cabinet Office Minister Georgia Gould introduced the national procurement policy and the social value procurement notice, which referenced the role of these kinds of organisations and the idea of codesigning with communities. There is no point in having the best regulation—which I am very proud of—if we do not use it and the opportunities it gives us. Commissioners can collaborate with social enterprise providers, charities and other businesses. Procurement regulations should be an enabler, not a barrier.
What in the Bill will allow this real change to take place? Do we need to strengthen the Bill in some ways to allow these redesigns to happen? In the earlier debate, I was very struck by the question of planning and so on—because of course it is the whole system that needs to be thought of. Might my noble friend the Minister organise a round table where we could address the new role of procurement to bring about the change we need in this particular marketplace before we reach Report?
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton on Amendment 134A. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know I shall be championing local authorities around the cost of children’s homes.
I want to give noble Lords a bit of a reality check, and to do so I am going to reference two examples. The first is about supported living for care leavers aged 21 to 25. They are nearly adults, need very little support and are very nearly independent. A semi-detached house is created that can take up to five young people with very little supervision. The cost for one young person in that provision is actually £500 per week. That is nearly as much as any landlord would get to rent out that property for a month: £2,000 a month. If you have got five young people in there, that is one hell of a profit margin. You can see why people go down that route and why we are having to grapple with the costs.
The second case is about a property that had been sought and used as secure accommodation with 24/7 support. It was another council that placed it in our borough. It was worth it getting the property and having 24/7 support for secure accommodation. Obviously, it had made the decision that either it could not afford to get that accommodation through normal routes or that this was good value. We first knew about it when we read police reports saying this young person, who is in 24/7 secure accommodation with two people, had gone missing. I was jumping up and down saying, “We’ve got a young child gone missing”. But it was not our child—we did not even know this young person was in our borough. That is expensive accommodation.
Earlier on, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that you would know if people were placed in your borough—but you do not. I am sure the Minister will have something to say about that. In addition to the knowledge that this young person is placed in your borough, the cost of 24/7 care and accommodation for one person in your borough is phenomenal. Local authorities are not perfect, but we are grappling with some of these things on a daily basis, which push the costs up, and some of this transparency might deal with it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, for missing her first few seconds. When someone said, “I want a quick word with you”, I should have jumped around them as opposed to trying to politely brush them off.
All these amendments are looking at financial control. It is probably overdue, but it is extremely difficult. It is a case of transparency. We need something in here, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has just pointed out, the Government are actually dealing with it on a last-minute, we-must-do-something basis. Having some control over that is an extremely sensible idea, but they will not get rid of the fact that it will have to be done through emergency contingencies or whatever. It is still going to happen that way. We are trying to extract from the Government the limitations of what they are proposing and to get it more on the record.
On my own amendment—I probably should have slightly reworded it—of all the things accused of costing too much, special educational needs spending is probably right up there, and often it is the private sector. It depends on what you are dealing with, because there is not a right sum of money for that.
I am on a committee looking at the Autism Act at the moment. I just went to see a school that had one full-time member of staff for every two pupils and TAs on top of that, because it is needed. Usually, the private support comes in to support somebody who has struggled in the education system—it may not be autism and it may not be that severe, but they are usually playing catch up and repair, to put it bluntly. So, they are going to have high staffing needs and it is going to vary from person to person. I would hope that this transparency may be a defensive thing from people who are providing a service that is needed.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 134A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson. I also believe that the transparency of prices should extend to the SEND sector. I agree we need responsible, not highly leveraged, private investment. I understand why the Government are bringing forward these provisions of a profits cap and monetary penalties, because, of course, none of us wants cowboys looking after our children. What worries me, however, is that these kinds of assets are already very out of favour in the private equity sector, which is struggling to sell the assets it has. The provision of the profit cap and monetary penalties or fines is just going to drive capacity out of the sector, and I really am worried about this. Who is going to replace the inevitable lack of capacity that I am sure will result as a consequence of these provisions?
In an ideal world, of course, many of us would like all provision for these kinds of children to be run by charities or the public sector, although some public sector operators have had their own problems. We do not, however, live in an ideal world; the public sector has no money, and charities are struggling to raise money. Most of the private equity operators are highly professional operators, very concerned about their reputation and safety and the quality of their provision, and we need to encourage them. Otherwise, we will have—and I predict this will lead to—a massive shortage of capacity as a result of fines and caps. I am, however, all for full transparency.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
How does the noble Lord feel that we need to make the transition to the kind of system that we want, if he is so worried about the reduction in capacity? How do you deal with the profit gouging that has gone on? If you sort of say you do not have profit gouging, what happens when the suppliers walk away?
Lord Nash (Con)
Transparency is a good start. I think it is the case, and I know there are vastly different prices charged around the country, perhaps for different reasons, property prices or whatever; but I think transparency is key. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington: I think that trying to interfere in markets is generally dangerous and you generally have unintended consequences. Everybody knows that I am a career venture-capital private-equity guy, but I do know that these assets are completely out of favour.
There are a number of groups that have these assets and cannot sell them, and we are just going to run out of money, so I think the Government need to be very careful. I say that as somebody who is very concerned about this sector, and that is why I am here. I do not have any magic solutions, but I think that, if people are threatened with fines, who is going to want to run these homes? Individuals. It is something that needs to be thought about very carefully.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Lord has just essentially agreed with what I said, that some of these entities are financially unstable and uncertain. Would the noble Lord understand, at least, the argument that it is better to bring these back? These facilities are going to have to stay open: we need them. It is better to bring them back into non-profit hands in an orderly manner rather than, if one of these private equity companies goes down, having an immediate crisis. What do the Government do then?
Lord Nash (Con)
The care sector is slightly different, for the reasons people have mentioned. But what are we going to do—nationalise it for nothing? Are we going to become a communist country? Are we going to pay for it, and if so, where will that money come from? Anyway, even if you deal with the ownership issue—obviously, I do not agree with the idea of nationalisation—threatening people who operate them with fines just does not seem reasonable. That is why I support the amendments on limiting fines and not applying them to natural persons, as opposed to corporations.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 140A, in my name, and propose that Clause 14 do not stand part of the Bill.
Before I turn to my own amendments, I add my support to my noble friend Lady Sanderson’s Amendment 134A. As we have heard, it would bring much needed transparency to the children’s homes market and help to level the playing field for smaller and larger providers. Of course, this transparency would help the negotiating position of local authorities and regional care co-operatives in future. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley for making it real and giving us very practical examples.
Equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, made important points about the level of profit in the area of supported accommodation. As I understand it from the CMA report, it has some of the highest margins in the sector and today provides about two-thirds or three-quarters as many places as children’s homes do, at just over 6,000, or 7% of the market for looked-after children.
Amendment 141, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seeks, as we heard, to extend the profit cap to independent special schools. As the noble Lord understands extremely well, this is a very complex area, and one has to be careful, given the range of provision. Some of these homes offer short-term respite to foster carers, for example, so any changes would need to be thought through carefully to avoid unintended consequences.
Along with others, and not just on my Benches, including the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I cannot support Amendment 174, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Our starting point is that there needs to be greater capacity to limit price increases and ensure a choice of suitable care. We were very clear when we were in government that we do not condone profiteering in this market, but we have concerns about how the transition in Wales will work to a market where there are no for-profit providers. Obviously, the problem of very high pricing will only be exacerbated, as my noble friend Lord Nash just explained, if sufficient new capacity is not created quickly or even if capacity is withdrawn. Such an approach cannot be considered in England until the Government have invested in new, not-for-profit or social enterprise capacity, whether that be in the local authority or in the voluntary sector, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, very ably outlined.
I confess that it is slightly curious to be in a position of challenging the Government’s attempts to regulate and limit the profits of some actors in this industry, which have rightly drawn criticism from the CMA, local authority leaders and indeed many in your Lordships’ House. My amendments to this clause and the others in this area are definitely not about defending a group of companies that can well defend themselves; I am simply trying to test the viability and impact of the Government’s proposals. It is important, because there is such a level of frustration with the behaviour of some of the actors in this sector that we risk having a confirmation bias that anything we change it to will be better. We need to test these proposals and be confident that the solution the Government propose will work.
As we have discussed at numerous points in Committee, there is a fundamental problem with the lack of residential care capacity, whether that be in relation to fostering, children’s homes or supported accommodation. The Competition and Markets Authority described the current shortfall as a “fundamental failure” in market functioning, imposing, in its words,
“severe limitations on the ability of the 206 local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales, who purchase placements, to engage effectively with the market”.
We need a clear plan to address this shortage. My fundamental concern is that the measures in Clauses 12 to 18 will not have the desired impact that the Government seek—and that, across your Lordships’ House, we all seek. Amendment 140A is simply an example of why I do not think the plan for a financial oversight regime as presented in the Bill has been properly road-tested and that we can have confidence in its impact.
New Section 30ZI, to be inserted by the Bill, gives the Secretary of State the power to arrange for an independent business review by an external qualified person. You would assume that, in such cases, almost the first thing that they would look at, if it existed, would be the recovery and resolution plan set out at new Section 30ZG, but it is not even mentioned. There is a list of things that they should look at, but the recovery and resolution plan is not mentioned. It would be fundamental for them to look at that plan, given that it covers, according to the Government, the
“nature and extent of any risk to the financial sustainability of the person … the action the person proposes to take”
to address this, as well as
“impacts on local authorities, and children”.
That makes me lose confidence that this has been properly thought through. I hope that the Minister can either add it to the list of things that independent business reviewers will look at, or, more importantly, reassure me and the Committee that this area has been properly considered.
My opposition to Clause 14 standing part of the Bill is probing. The proposed financial oversight scheme for children’s social care represents part of the regulatory response to the market failures identified by the CMA. As with many parts of the Bill, much of this scheme will be set out in regulation. The scheme requires information from parent undertakings, but, as the Minister knows, private equity structures are notoriously complex and opaque. I wonder whether she is concerned whether providers might restructure to minimise oversight burden—how will the Government mitigate this? I am not clear how the scheme will address jurisdictional limitations on enforcement for offshore-based organisations. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that, or write to me if the answer is particularly technical or it is not at her fingertips. It is reasonable to question whether the DfE has or will acquire the specialised financial and private equity expertise needed to analyse complex corporate structures and financing arrangements effectively—I think this fly in the Chamber has been sent in by a private equity firm.
Similarly, is the Minister confident that local authorities have the capability to respond to advance warning notices? Is she concerned that the act of alerting local authorities about the financial fragility of a provider could lead to them withdrawing placements, leading to the financial collapse that the scheme seeks to avoid? I would be grateful if she could set out how the Government think that the contingency planning will work. I wonder whether the Government have had conversations with providers about how they expect to create realistic plans, given the prevailing market conditions. Surely existing supply shortages will make rapid replacement extremely difficult, and emergency placement costs are already unsustainable.
There are a lot of questions about the impact that this will have on the shape of the market. Will it actually result in more concentration in the market, because the 40 largest providers will have gained the confidence of local authorities? Could it result in financial pressures on smaller providers where there is less transparency?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to amendments in group 4. As other noble Lords have identified, we have a market that is dysfunctional and not working appropriately. That results in the types of pressures and complexities for local authorities that we have heard about and has been described by several reports.
In 2022, the Competition and Markets Authority found that the children’s social care placement market was dysfunctional. It found that the largest private providers were making profit margins significantly above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. The LGA also found, in 2023, that the 20 largest independent providers made profits exceeding £300 million in a year. There is a considerable discrepancy between the levels of profits made in this market and those made, on average, across non-financial businesses in the rest of the economy. I do not believe that there should not be a market in this particular area, but it is completely clear that the excess profits being made are not the sign of a properly functioning market. They are the sign of a market that is distorted, dysfunctional and failing to serve children and young people and the local authorities which are paying the costs of funding the profits, as opposed to investing in their children.
We clearly need to make reforms, and that is what the Bill is partly about. I will come to some of the other reforms not included in the Bill that are also part of the overall programme. Additionally, local authorities currently have no way of knowing if a provider, or members of its wider corporate group, is at risk of failing financially. That is why amendments in this group cover Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill and related issues.
I will start by addressing the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about Clause 14 standing part of the Bill. Clause 14 introduces a new financial oversight scheme for children’s social care, a key part of our wider reforms of the market. We are aware that a provider of children’s social care places suddenly closing its provision as a result of financial failure could have a significantly detrimental impact on the care and stability of where children and young people live. Currently, as I have said, local authorities have no way of knowing whether a private provider or its corporate owners are at risk of failing financially. If a large provider were to fail and suddenly exit the market without warning, it could be difficult for local authorities to find alternative placements for those children or places that appropriately met their needs. That is why we are developing this new financial oversight scheme in children’s social care. This will, for the first time, increase financial and corporate transparency of difficult-to-replace children’s social care providers, allow for an accurate, real-time assessment of financial risk and strengthen forward planning.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, rightly asked some detailed questions about how the system will work. We are not developing this completely from first principles. We have worked closely with the Care Quality Commission to learn from its existing market oversight scheme, which operates for a similar purpose in adult social care. That was set up in the wake of the collapse of Southern Cross in 2011. We are confident that we can operationalise this and make it effective.
The way in which the scheme is being designed means that those on the scheme will also be required to submit a recovery and resolution plan containing information on risks to a provider’s financial stability and plans to reduce those risks. The Secretary of State may also require providers or a corporate group member on the scheme of heightened financial risk to undergo an independent business review. The noble Baroness asked whether the independent business review would use the recovery and resolution plan. For reasons that I will explain, those are two important but slightly separate elements of the scheme.
Amendment 134A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, seeks to require all local authorities to publish the prices that they pay for private placements of children’s homes on an annual basis. Before I get into the detail of the amendment, the noble Baroness suggested that other parts of the overarching strategy that we must put right in this failing market were potentially not being taken forward. That is not right. The fact that something is not in this legislation does not mean that it is not part of the Government’s overall approach to improving the sufficiency of placements. Alongside the legislative provisions in this Bill, we are also developing a national data programme to address that gap in national and regional data around the underlying costs of children’s social care placements. We are also extending our national support programme to provide additional support to local authorities in forecasting, commissioning and market shaping. We are investing considerably in local authority capacity. There will be £560 million in capital investment between now and 2029-30 to refurbish and expand children’s homes and foster-care placements, alongside additional investment in foster-care sufficiency.
On the point about market diversification, raised by my noble friend Lady Thornton, we are exploring options to encourage new providers such as charities and ethical investors to enter the market. I will certainly talk to my honourable friend Minister Daby about how we can bring people to a round table to think about that market diversification.
We are improving both the workforce and the registration of new children’s homes and supported accommodation to support the reforms we are making to the market. This is a wide-ranging, strategic and important programme of work, and in the Bill we are looking at the legislative elements of that.
I agree with those noble Lords who talked about the importance of data transparency. That will be part of our wider package of measures and will cover not only placements in children’s homes but fostering and supported accommodation placements. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, is supportive of the need for that change. I assure her of our ongoing commitment to it. We want to ensure that local authorities have the necessary information, capability and tools to shape the market, negotiate more effectively, secure better-suited placements and achieve greater value for money. It is, of course, also a function of an appropriately working market that there is better and clearer information than has been the case up until now.
On the point about whether and how we do that with local authorities, we are clear that these changes should be supportive in nature rather than seeking to add additional burdens to local authorities. For that reason, we are considering the best way to help local authorities to make informed decisions when commissioning placements—utilising the data we expect them to collect on costs—and how they can provide better data and cost transparency. We will outline more plans on that in due course. I agree with the principle about the need for much better information.
Amendment 140 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to apply the financial oversight scheme to providers of supported accommodation. I assure noble Lords that supported accommodation providers will be in scope for the financial oversight scheme. They are not in the Bill, which reflects how this type of provision is dealt with in the Care Standards Act. That Act was extended to cover supported accommodation by regulations. To ensure consistency, we will similarly apply financial oversight to supported accommodation through regulations, and that will occur once the financial oversight scheme comes into force. As I have said, the scheme will increase financial and corporate transparency of the most difficult to replace providers of supported accommodation, alongside the other forms of provision that have already been identified.
Amendment 140A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is where we get into some of the detail about the independent business review and the recovery and resolution plan. I want to reassure the noble Baroness that the independent qualified person undertaking the IBR will of course be able to request the provider’s recovery and resolution plan if that is necessary to inform their assessment. The RRP is a proactive contingency plan that requires providers to mitigate risks and prepare for the worst-case scenario of financial failure in a way that minimises negative impacts on children. On submission, a provider’s RRP will be reviewed by experts in my department. I can assure the noble Baroness that we will of course ensure we have the appropriate expertise to be able to do that. As we are basing this on a similar model for adult social care, there is good learning and understanding about what will be required.
Separately, if we judge that there is a significant risk to a provider’s financial sustainability, the department may instruct a qualified person to conduct an independent review of its business. The IBR will examine the nature and extent of risks to a provider’s financial sustainability and provide additional assurances to the department in its assessment of financial risk. As I have said, that may well include a consideration of the RRP and, of course, the independent review of the business will be carried out by people with specific expertise in this area. We may well need to look for particular expertise for that.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, and I thank all noble Lords for a really interesting debate. We said it would be controversial, and so it proved. I will not speak for long as we are getting late again, as usual, but I say very quickly to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that I genuinely have real sympathy for the children she mentioned and how it makes them feel. I am a big believer in the voice of the child; it would be hypocritical to say otherwise.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that in some senses this is a reactive Bill, while we are dealing with problems that we have here and now. As my noble friends Lord Nash and Lady Barran said, a root cause of a lot of the problems that we have spoken about on all these days in Committee is capacity. We have to address the fact of capacity and its geographical spread.
I particularly thank my noble friend Lady O’Neill because she brings her experience and is able to tell us what it is really like and what actually happens. I was really pleased that she said she thought this could be helpful in grappling with some of the problems that local authorities face, because if my noble friend says it could be helpful then it probably will be helpful. I was very encouraged by that, and it might be helpful in other areas.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I think I was slightly ill advised on the extent of the supported accommodation market and the levels there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made some really interesting points. I was going to suggest that the Government take her up on the offer of the round table because I was very interested in social value procurement, but they are doing that already.
I kind of knew, having sat through last Thursday’s debate, that I was going to end up in the Minister’s “not everything’s for legislation” box, and so it proved. I take the point. Of course there is a wider body of work; on the last amendment that I spoke to, I mentioned the money that the Government had put in and the wider body of work, and I am very happy to acknowledge that. I just think the difference here—everyone says this—is that while it is great to have better data and to have that improvement with local authorities, I am not clear how it will help the smaller private providers and therefore the problems of capacity that we have mentioned. Unless we mandate that publishing, I do not think it will happen—and that feels a little one-sided, so I am afraid this is back out of the “not everything’s for legislation” box. On that note, and with that in mind for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 135 to 138C in my name. Clause 12 introduces the provider oversight scheme, which, according to the department’s policy summary, creates the ability for Ofsted to act at scale and pace when there is poor quality in multiple settings and agencies owned by a single provider group. It will require providers of two or more homes or agencies to implement an improvement plan where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the registration of two or more of their establishments or agencies should be cancelled.
We support in principle the approach of giving Ofsted the power to intervene at a group rather than an individual home level. However, I have three main concerns about the clause. My overarching concern is that this approach may not be effective in getting providers to meet the required standards. Rather, I fear that it risks turning into a letter-writing competition between Ofsted and the providers. I am thinking of a similar approach to independent schools that do not meet the independent school standards, frequently in relation to the teaching of RSHE. These schools face sanctions, and they are required to improve and present a plan for meeting the standards. But during my time in the department, despite the best efforts of officials, the names on the fairly long list barely changed. I appreciate that the context and the reasons for non-compliance are different, but I hope the Minister can convince me that this regime will be more effective.
Secondly, the policy note talks about required standards not being met. Surely there is a spectrum of standards breaches: some that will require the cancellation of the registration, as the Bill is drafted, and some that will require an improvement plan. While I understand that Clause 12 is intended to sit alongside the existing regulatory regime for individual homes, it is unclear how they will mesh together. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that.
My Amendments 135 and 136 would require an immediate inspection where the breaches of standards indicate concerns about the safety of children. My Amendment 137 would encourage Regulation 44 visitors to make an unannounced visit to establish whether there are lower-level breaches. If these are established, the visitor could make a recommendation to Ofsted about what they have seen—which, of course, it is not obliged to accept. The idea I am trying to get across is that having immediate eyes and boots on the ground, so to speak, is essential where there are serious safeguarding concerns.
I remember a case from when I was in the department where two homes of a particular children’s home group were judged to be inadequate. I requested that all the other homes in the group should be immediately inspected, and that happened. The Minister may say that these amendments are not needed, but it would help to have on record the Government’s explanation of how they expect this to work in practice.
Thirdly, my Amendments 138A to 138C would require the department to communicate with local authorities that might be commissioning a provider, where there are concerns, to make sure that these are shared. I appreciate that this might be difficult in reality. But as we just discussed, there is a similar provision in the financial oversight regime, so I assume this is something the department has considered.
Finally, I have a number of specific questions that sit behind my Amendment 138, which might form the basis of some tidying-up government amendments on Report. I do not expect the Minister to have the answer to every one of these; if she would like to write to me, that is absolutely fine.
On page 18, line 8, how is “reasonably suspects” defined? Is that from a recent inspection—and if so, how recent—or is it from wider intelligence? Secondly, how is an individual with
“a significant role in the management of the parent undertaking”
defined? Is that a director? Do they have to be registered at Companies House? What happens if it is an offshore holding company?
In new Section 23A(7) on page 19, line 3, can the Minister confirm that the Bill is correct where it says:
“The period mentioned in subsection (4)(d) must not be less than … 28 days”?
Should it not say that it must not be more than 28 days? I read this about eight times and am still not clear on what it means. The point is: do we not want to receive improvement plans as promptly as possible?
Should new subsection (8) not clarify that the CIECSS—or Ofsted to its friends—can withdraw an improvement notice only if it has strong evidence that it is no longer needed? What evidence does the Minister expect Ofsted to require before it withdraws an improvement notice? In new Section 23B(2), on line 22, should it not be clear that Ofsted must inform the parent undertaking and any subsidiaries within 28 days, and should this not be mirrored for all the stages of the process?
Can the Minister confirm whether the timeline for the communications listed in Clause 12 will be set out in regulations? At the moment, it is not clear what the maximum time periods are for each stage of the improvement notice process, including for Ofsted to inform and respond to the provider. It would be useful for this to be as clear as possible.
In new Section 23B(5), I wondered whether a step is missing from the processes set out in the Bill. Surely the parent undertaking needs to inform the chief inspector when the plan has been fully implemented within an agreed timescale, which is currently not stated, and then the chief inspector should arrange for an inspection or take whatever appropriate action to confirm that that is the case. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, listening to the noble Baroness introduce these amendments, I am remembering how many times, as a Minister, she batted me back with a question. As I interpret these amendments—if I have got it wrong, I am sure I will be told—they basically ask how this will work. Where are the levels of intervention when something does not work? How do we get through? It was a long and complicated series of questions, but that is what Committee is for. If we could get an idea of the answers, if the Minister has them or can tell us where we can find them, I think we would all feel a little more comfortable before the next stage.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are all in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Just taking the amendments as they are, the majority of residential settings are owned by provider groups—organisations that own the providers that run settings. The legislation refers to provider groups as “parent undertakings”. Provider groups have influence over how a setting is run, yet they are not accountable in legislation for the quality of the settings they own.
Clause 12 is intended to complement Ofsted’s existing powers. It will allow Ofsted to take action at scale and pace to improve the quality of care when it reasonably suspects that two or more of the provider group settings are not meeting regulatory requirements. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, together with Clause 13, which provides additional enforcement powers for Ofsted, it is part of this Government’s strategy to ensure the safety and well-being of vulnerable children in care.
Amendments 135 and 136 seek to give Ofsted the power to inspect provider groups. Inspection is not necessary at provider group level. Given the existing robust regime for the inspection of settings, the inspection of provider groups would not give Ofsted any additional information that it does not already have to ensure quality of care and the safeguarding of children’s settings, which is obviously the purpose of what we intend to do here.
The inspection of provider groups would add substantial burden to the public purse and would not result in improvements to the quality of care for children, as inspections would focus on provider group policies rather than on the lived experience of children. Additionally, they would not be effective in holding provider groups to account without establishing a burdensome inspection system. Given that there are over 400 provider groups, I think we understand the scale of the additional work that we are talking about.
The clause gives Ofsted the power to serve an improvement plan notice on a provider group to improve quality in two or more of its settings. This is vital, as it will ensure the quickest and most effective action to secure change at scale. Clause 13, which we will come to shortly, gives Ofsted powers to take action against the provider groups when they do not improve the quality of their settings. This amendment would not impose any requirements on the provider groups that Ofsted could enforce against.
Amendment 137 seeks to empower Ofsted to use the services of an independent person, as provided for by Regulation 44 of the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations, to carry out an unannounced visit to a children’s home for administrative breaches or minor concerns about the quality of care being provided. The amendment proposes that, after an independent person has inspected the children’s homes or home, the local authority may issue an improvement plan notice based on the findings.
Under current regulations, the registered person of a children’s home must ensure that an independent person visits the home at least once each month, and this visit may be unannounced. The independent person should have the skills and understanding necessary to form an impartial judgment about the quality of the home’s care. They must produce a report about their visit which sets out their opinion on whether children are effectively safeguarded and whether the home effectively promotes children’s well-being.
Ofsted, the placing authorities and the registered provider, registered manager and responsible individual must be given a copy of the report. The local authority where the home is located must also be given the report if it requests it. Ofsted uses these reports to inform whether further activity or inspection is necessary. They may be used to inform Ofsted decision-making around improvement plan notices to ensure its effective role as the regulator. Ofsted must be the only body responsible for issuing improvement plan notices. Giving local authorities the power to issue an improvement plan notice would mean duplication and would offer no protection additional to what is already in place.
Amendment 138 seeks to probe how an improvement plan might work in practice. Provider oversight has been designed to enable Ofsted to address poor-quality care at scale and at pace. For example, where Ofsted inspects two children’s homes and believes quality is being impacted by the provider group’s policies or management, it could reasonably suspect that those issues were in all homes owned by the provider group. It would be able to use the new powers to ensure that the provider group drove up standards in all its homes.
The provider group would be required to develop and implement an improvement plan to address the issues identified by Ofsted as being of concern. This plan will be approved by Ofsted, if it is satisfied that it will be effective in addressing the concerns. Ofsted can fine the provider group if it fails to submit or implement the improvement plan. When Ofsted is satisfied that improvements have been made, it will consider the plan completed. This will result in improvement in multiple settings simultaneously, which could not be achieved through inspection of provider groups, as would happen if Amendments 135 and 136 were adopted.
Finally, Amendments 138A, 138B and 138C seek to require Ofsted to notify the relevant local authority when an improvement plan notice has been served, cancelled or appealed. Ofsted is currently required to notify all local authorities where certain enforcement actions such as suspension or cancellation of registration are taken. Clause 13 amends these requirements to include a requirement for Ofsted to notify all local authorities where a provider group is issued with a monetary penalty for failing to prepare or implement an improvement plan. This is a more proportionate balance for ensuring local authorities are aware of problems arising and ensuring that children’s accommodation is not unnecessarily disrupted. Not only would additional notifications, as required by these amendments, require significant extra resources both from Ofsted and from local authorities, but the notifications would prove unnecessary where issues were resolved or successfully challenged.
It is important to stress that provider oversight will not be the only tool in Ofsted’s toolbox to tackle poor-quality care where it finds it; it will continue to have its existing powers to work with individual homes, including suspending or cancelling their registration, if it has serious concerns.
I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has asked some detailed questions, as it is her right to do. I am sure that she will understand that I do not have all the answers at my fingertips and that she will give me the space to look specifically at the issues that she has raised. I shall write to her and make sure the responses are shared with Members in the usual way.
Lord Addington (LD)
Could we make sure that we are all copied in?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
As always. That was the point that I was making. For all the reasons given, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her very detailed reply and for her commitment to write; that is much appreciated.
To respond to the Minister’s remarks, the reason for tabling Amendments 135, 136 and 137 is that the improvement plan is for the parent company or parent undertaking, but it is for when there are concerns about two or more of their establishments or agencies, in the language of the Bill. I understood that to mean, given the severity—that Ofsted suspects that there are grounds for cancelling the undertakings registration—there could within that be concerns about the safety of children in those homes. So the spirit of Amendments 135, 136 and 137 was that we should have really experienced people, either inspectors or Regulation 44 visitors, going in, not to inspect the parent—I am sorry if my amendments were unclear in that regard—but to inspect the subsidiary undertakings. Maybe when the Minister comes to write, she could just reflect on that point.
In the reference to Regulation 44, the amendment should have stated that
“Ofsted may issue an improvement plan notice”,
not
“the local authority may issue an improvement plan notice”.
Of course, the Minister is absolutely right—the local authority cannot issue an improvement plan notice. But again, it was just trying to get at the idea that, if there was a variation in the levels of concern and the level of breach, for a lower-level breach, a Regulation 44 visitor could advise Ofsted. There is an urgency, if it is thought that an undertakings registration should be cancelled, which will not be met by the improvement plan approach on its own.
In relation to the Minister’s remarks about Amendments 138A, 138B and 138C, I think the answer is that, if the process works reasonably quickly, the proportionality that she set out is completely reasonable. If it gets bogged down, and it comes down to, “We sent you a plan, Ofsted doesn’t think the plan is fit for purpose”, and it goes back and forth and back and forth, we would not get the speed that might be needed to prevent other local authorities commissioning a provider when there are grave concerns, as set out in the Bill. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to limit the financial penalties that can be imposed upon the operators of children’s homes to exclude natural persons.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, Clause 13, as we have heard, introduces monetary penalties for non-compliance with an improvement plan or for running an unregistered children’s home or fostering agency. My Amendments 138D, 138E and 139A seek to exclude natural persons from the power to impose financial penalties on individuals involved in the management of these organisations. As my noble friend Lord Nash said earlier, there is a reasonable concern that this will result in a dearth of people who are prepared to take such a risk, particularly as the financial penalty regime is being set out in regulations and could therefore be altered at any point. Having said that, given that the fines, as I understand it, are currently unlimited, perhaps that is not the greatest worry, but obviously if that concern were to materialise, it would have an impact on provision.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
There is a deafening silence. I turn to group six and the amendments, all in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which concern Clause 13: Amendments 138D, 138E and 139A. They seek to exclude natural persons from the provisions relating to the issue of monetary penalties. Clause 13, as drafted, gives Ofsted an additional power to issue monetary penalties to providers that have breached requirements set out in, or under, the Care Standards Act, including operating a children’s home without registering with Ofsted, which they could also prosecute as a criminal offence.
Ofsted will also be able to issue a monetary penalty to provider groups for failure to comply with new requirements set out in Clause 12 of the Bill. This measure will ensure Ofsted has a full range of enforcement powers so that it can act proportionately and at pace, which will act as a deterrent. This includes individuals who operate children’s homes, other establishments or agencies. It is difficult to see why a natural person running a children’s home, other establishment or agency should not be subject to the same enforcement powers as a partnership or organisation when they have breached the law, and where Ofsted could prosecute that natural person for the relevant breach.
Furthermore, based on data from Companies House, these amendments would result in Ofsted being unable to fine 10 individuals who currently operate children’s homes if they breached the law, compared with the 2,738 companies that operate children’s homes. Ofsted have told me directly that it strongly opposes any amendment that would exclude natural persons and limit who financial penalties can be imposed on for illegally operating children’s homes without being registered. Individuals will—and do—gain financially from illegally operating children’s homes without being registered, and should not be excluded from the potential consequences of doing so. All the discussions in Committee have been about protecting children and making sure that they are safe. We have to make sure that, in this area, in spite of the comments made by the noble Baroness, children and their safety are at the forefront of our minds. It is also worth noting that it is common in legislation for natural persons to be subject to financial penalties in the same way as operations and companies.
For example, the Tenant Fees Act 2019 enables fines to be imposed on landlords, who may be natural persons, for breaching the ban on letting fees being charged, and the Data Protection Act 2018 enables the Information Commissioner to impose fines on persons, including natural persons, who have failed to comply with various notices issued by the ICO.
I have already stated the reasons for the need and intent of these additional powers. However, I add that the clause ensures that Ofsted has an alternative to prosecution where that is currently the only enforcement action. Ofsted will not be able to impose a monetary penalty on a person for the same conduct where criminal proceedings have been brought against them in relation to that same conduct. Further, and importantly, to act as a deterrent and to ensure transparency for the public, the clause gives the Secretary of State the power by regulations to require Ofsted to publish details about the monetary penalties it has issued. Ofsted must also notify local authorities when a monetary penalty has been issued, as it is currently required to do in relation to other enforcement action it takes. A monetary penalty may be used by Ofsted as grounds for cancellation of registration.
I assume it will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness that I will have to write to her on the financial assessment and the other questions she raised on the specific requirements in place. I am more than happy to do that, and to share it with any interested parties. Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments and that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister, and I will keep my remarks brief. It was very helpful of her to set out the examples of where natural persons are fined, as in data protection and with landlord and tenant. I did not quite follow, but I think she said there were 10 people who might escape this, which seemed like a small number in the totality. I suppose I would still argue that criminal proceedings could be brought, even if they could not be fined, but it was helpful to get those examples and I look forward to her letter. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.