Royal Assent
Thursday 19th June 2025
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 99-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (2 Jun 2025)
Rivers and Estuaries: Derelict Boats
Lord Teverson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the environmental and navigational risks posed by derelict boats abandoned on rivers and estuaries, and what steps they are taking to ensure their removal.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, no assessment has been made by the Government, as responsibility for operational matters on inland waterways rests with the relevant navigation authority. This includes dealing with derelict or sunken boats and their removal, and any risk to the environment or to navigation. Navigation authorities have statutory powers to remove such boats when they deem it necessary and appropriate, but have statutory duties to do so only in certain circumstances.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the abandonment of vessels is a growing problem on our estuaries and rivers; it is effectively a form of marine fly-tipping. Can the Minister note that there is no real way of tracing the owners of most recreational vessels? This means that the cost of removal often ends up as a cost for landowners, local authorities and harbourmasters. Should there not be at least some form of registration system for all recreational vessels so that the owners are rightly held liable for getting rid of this environmental problem on our rivers and in navigation?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, the Canal & River Trust and the Environment Agency, the two principal navigation authorities, publish guidance on licensing and registration, and ownership is traced via these licensing and registration systems. Navigation authorities work hard to ensure that licence evasion rates are as low as possible and, although the Government do not get involved in operational matters, we encourage navigation authorities to work together to resolve these issues, including in conversations with Defra where relevant.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, are the Government aware of the recent operation by Bath & North East Somerset Council to remove five sunken boats from the River Avon, after unsuccessful efforts to get any owners to do so? There may be many good or bad reasons for the abandonment of boats, but does the Minister endorse that council’s advice for boat owners to use recognised sites, monitor their moorings regularly, and ensure boats are fit for the water and properly insured, inclusive of salvage?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an interesting case of some very positive enforcement action that was taken by the local authority that he named. We very encourage all navigation authorities to work with local stakeholders, communities and local authorities to do as much as they can to remove that blight. For noble Lords’ information, in 2024-25, the Canal & River Trust removed 12 abandoned derelict and sunken boats from its rivers, and 96 such boats from its canals. The average cost of removal was £7,000.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain the best and most environmentally friendly way to dispose of boats, most of which are made from glass fibre these days? I suspect that many people, in extremis, set fire to them, which is not a good idea. Do the Government give any advice to help this process along?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, we leave such matters to the experts. My noble friend raises an interesting point, which I am sure navigation authorities consider. This is why it is important that the Government, while they are in close consultation with navigation authorities, do not step in on operational matters but ensure that navigation authorities are working with communities, stakeholders and—equally importantly—the owners to ensure safe disposal.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, the Broads Authority has had to spend £70,000 this year to raise two sunken boats in the Norfolk Broads. Will the Minister progress the recommendation in Defra’s Landscapes Review to remove the unnecessary complexities placed on the Broads Authority to account separately for income and expenditure from national park grant and from navigation, which would certainly enable the Broads Authority to undertake such work in a less complex way?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises an important point. All the navigation authorities have different set-ups, corporate structures and funding patterns. He raises the framework agreement; I will certainly take that issue back to colleagues in Defra to better understand the progress of that agreement.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, this is a very serious matter. I think of the history of the River Hull, for instance, where the dredging authorities, in order to keep the flows going and avoid flooding in irrigation, had great problems in being able to move sunken or half-sunken boats. Surely something more can be done to alleviate that problem, and in particular to put some speed into its alleviation?
Lord Katz (Lab)
At the risk of repetition, it has long been the convention to leave this to navigation authorities to manage best. They understand best their own waterways, rivers and canals, both urban and rural. I can tell the noble Lord that we have agreed a new 10-year grant of £400 million for the Canal & River Trust to extend the end of the current grant regime, which ends in 2027. This new settlement will go to 2037. We are ensuring stable funding for that body so that it can carry out all its functions and activities, including clearing up abandoned boats.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
When Maidenhead had to deal with the problem of abandoned and sunken boats on the Thames, the local authority and the Environment Agency pleaded poverty, conflicting powers and confusion over responsibility. It took a local landowner to do the job of clearing the boats at his expense—so, free of charge. There is a lacuna in the law that needs sorting out. Will the Minister and his officials look at this whole issue of responsibility and perhaps come back to the House with, to be blunt, a better answer?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will try my best again for my noble friend. He raises a specific case in Maidenhead; I will be honest with the House, I do not have the details of that case. He is absolutely right that we rely on our navigation authorities, local authorities, local landowners and the community to work together. It should not be up to just one landowner to do the right thing; we need everyone to work together. I will certainly undertake to examine the lacuna in law that he has identified; perhaps I can write to him with some more detail.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, abandoned and derelict vessels—that well-known acronym ADV, which I learned about yesterday—not only are unsightly and a blot on a landscape but cause terrible pollution from engine oils, diesel fuel leaking out, battery acid, and corroded metals and plastics. Ideally, the owners should be made to pay for their removal, but they are usually impossible to find, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, pointed out. I did not know about the Avon. Natural Resources Wales is paying for the removal of some boats in the River Dee, but I do not think we can ask the taxpayer to foot the bill in England.
Therefore, I think for the first time in 40 years, I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I suggest that Defra should convene a conference of local authorities, river estuary owners, the Canal & River Trust and any other relevant authorities and marine experts to see whether a way can be found to deal with this problem, making the owners pay and not the taxpayer. If there is a lacuna in the law, let us deal with it.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I too have learnt some new acronyms this week and ADV is one of them, so I join the noble Lord in gaining that knowledge, and in understanding the importance of the fact that, as I continue to repeat to this House, navigational authorities are independent of government but are also responsible for enforcement action. The funding agreement that I mentioned with the Canal & Rivers Trust will have particular KPIs attached, such as enforcement and ensuring good, timely and responsible stewardship of the land in its control, whether in terms of clearing litter off the towpath or dealing with abandoned boats. Both are absolutely part of that.
We believe in devolution and in making sure that bodies such as navigation authorities, which understand their patches best, can have control of them. We cannot have our cake and eat it and say there should be some national enforcement when we must support those navigation authorities on the ground to do the job right.
Social Housing
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of new social homes built, and the number of new homes for social rent which have received planning permission, in the past six months.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I was delighted that in the spending review last week the Government were able to provide the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation. We have confirmed £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme over 10 years.
On the planning application statistics that my noble friend has requested, although the publication includes the number of homes granted planning permission, it does not yet include separate figures for new social homes built or the number of homes for social rent. The next quarterly publication is due on 19 June. However, there is an annual release published by the Government that includes affordable and social homes. The data for the last six months, up to March 2025, is not yet released but it will be available later this month.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that very positive reply. The entrenched and acute housing crisis inherited by the Government is in no small part due to the long-term failure to build anywhere near enough homes for social rent. My noble friend has made it clear that we are finally on the path to turn this around.
The National Housing Federation and other sector bodies described last week’s announcement as
“transformational … and will deliver the right conditions for a decade of renewal and growth … It is the most ambitious Affordable Homes Programme we’ve seen in decades”
and, most importantly,
“offers real hope to thousands of people who need safe, secure and affordable homes”.
Can my noble friend the Minister provide an update on the design and delivery of the new 10-year affordable homes programme, including what emphasis it will place on social rented homes, alongside other affordable tenures such as shared ownership?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her warm reception for the announcement made at the spending review, and to the many social housing bodies that have echoed her words. We will work with the sector at pace to design the programme. We have provided certainty that it will be for a full 10 years; our providers wanted that certainty, and we were pleased to give it. We have combined that with a 10-year rent settlement that will give social housing providers the support and certainty they need to build the social and affordable homes that are so desperately needed. It is important to note the decline in social home building: in the 1950s, when my town was built, we were building around 200,000 social homes a year, but in recent years, we have built fewer than 10,000. We have a lot of work to do, and we will get on with the job.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, where are the plumbers, electricians and builders going to come from to build these houses? Do the Government have plans to increase the number of people in apprenticeships who are being trained for that purpose?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that we have a £600 million package for construction skills. We set up the Construction Skills Mission Board under the very able chairmanship of Mark Reynolds from Mace; I worked with Mark and Mace on the regeneration of Stevenage, so I am sure that he will do a fantastic job on that. That will create an extra 60,000 construction worker posts by 2029. There will be 10 new technical excellence colleges. Skills bootcamps have been extended with £100 million of funding, including short-term training for new entrants and upskilling for returners. The Construction Industry Training Board has really stepped up here with funding from industry to fund over 40,000 industry placements and to double the size of the new entrant support scheme to support SMEs to recruit, engage and retain apprentices.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, homelessness and housing costs are driving factors in both child poverty and ever-escalating costs of homelessness. My council alone is spending £60 million a year—a figure that is rising—to tackle homelessness. Newham and other councils have done their absolute best to provide affordable homes and thereby cut costs to themselves and their residents, but they need government help. Can my noble friend say what assessment she has made of the role of local government in the delivery of affordable and social homes?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. Of course I would say this, but local government is absolutely critical to delivering the new, generational change in the number of social homes being delivered. Our changes to reverse the set of supply-negative changes made by the previous Government introduce a wider set of growth-focused interventions that will help with this. The Secretary of State and I want this to be a plan-led system. When the new National Planning Policy Framework was published in December last year, I was delighted to see that we have, for the first time, encouraged local authorities to assess their social housing need separately from affordable housing, which I am sure will help. Later this year, we will introduce reforms to accelerate local plan preparation. As my noble friend said, this is not just a great cost to the people who are homeless and in temporary emergency accommodation but an enormous cost to the public purse and for our councils, so we need to solve the problem quickly.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I hugely welcome the £39 billion announced in the spending review for affordable housing; it is really good news. Will the Minister comment on a new blockage to getting those homes built: the long delays with the building safety regulator? Are these the major reason why in London the number of new-build starts is way down this year compared with last year? Can we do anything about the delays in approvals by the building safety regulator?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Lord asked me that question, because regulators fall into my part of the departmental responsibilities. I am very aware of the concerns about the impact of gateway delays on investment decisions in high-rise and other projects. We are taking significant measures to address the challenges currently faced by the building safety regulator. We are exploring all options with the regulator to ensure that it is equipped for the high demand of applications. We have already provided additional funding to improve capacity at the BSR for building control caseworkers and in-house technical specialists, and we are working with it on a daily basis to make the system a bit slicker than it is now.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
In light of the findings of the report on transforming lives and balancing budgets, can the Minister say what urgent steps the Government are taking to address the chronic shortage of appropriate community housing for adults, particularly those with autism and learning disabilities? Will the department explore partnerships with private capital providers to scale up specialist supported housing without relying on new public capital?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is an important question, and we will see answers on the various specialist housing provisions in the housing strategy, which will be published later this year. The noble Baroness is right to point to the particular need for supported housing, which will be included in the strategy. We made some announcements this week on the national housing bank, which includes a partnership with the private sector to deliver housing; I refer noble Lords to the Written Ministerial Statement on that subject rather than going into the detail now. The noble Baroness is right that we will work with both public and private sector funding to deliver as much of the housing as we can, and the details of specialist housing will be included in the housing strategy.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, it would be churlish not to recognise the amount of money being put into social housing, but the Opposition will always say it is never enough so: it is never enough. The Minister will be aware that the barriers to building and delivering social housing are neither just financial nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, just around building safety; both the Section 106 route and the affordable homes programme have their problems for developers and providers. Can the Minister say what steps are being taken to overcome these barriers? In particular, are the Government considering reforming Section 106? Can she tell us when we will know what percentage of the affordable homes programme will be used for social housing, rather than so-called affordable housing, which is very unaffordable for many?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
On the second part of the noble Baroness’s question, we are working on how we will deliver the split between affordable and social housing. Of course, both are important to the sector, and we will come forward with further information on that. On the Section 106 issues and the other barriers in the housing system, I was very pleased that the changes to the NPPF were made this year, because they will help. We have a new homes accelerator in the department, where developers or local authorities can come forward to help remove the barriers that are getting in the way. I will come back to the noble Baroness on her question about Section 106.
English Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling and Dredging
Baroness Sugg
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to prohibit bottom trawling and dredging in all English marine protected areas.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, 60% of English marine protected areas are protected by by-laws that limit the use of damaging fishing gear. On Monday 9 June, the Secretary of State announced that the Marine Management Organisation was starting a consultation on proposed by-laws to protect a further 42 MPAs. This substantial package would ban bottom trawling and shellfish dredging over 30,000 square kilometres—that is 13% of English waters. It is a significant step in preserving marine ecosystems through targeted action.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I very much welcome last week’s announcement that progress will be made in marine protected areas, as currently 90% of the UK’s MPAs remain open to bottom trawling. Does the Minister agree that, given the state of fish stocks, this is an important move to ensure that fishing has a sustainable future? Following the consultation, I hope to see a swift implementation; can he give more detail on the timeframe for that?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s welcome of the announcement; it is an important step forward in a long-term plan properly to protect our marine ecosystems and environment while enabling fishing. We have had to very carefully considered the next steps to manage bottom trawling in MPAs, along with other fishing methods, in the context of our domestic and international nature conservation obligations. It is important that we get this right and the proposed by-laws are very substantial: they will close 13% of English waters to bottom trawling, which will be critical to protect our MPAs. We want to move at pace, but I will not set out a precise timeline because it is important that we see the consultation through first.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister could help me clarify something. I have a cutting from Fishing News, “the voice of the fishing industry”. When Minister Zeichner addressed the Shellfish Association last week, he said that this news about the ending of bottom trawling will be “very, very grim” for the industry. He knows how frustrating it is, he said, and:
“This is about ending trawling in areas where damage is done – why make changes in areas of MPAs that aren’t at risk?”—
which would apply to the 42 new ones that have not yet been bottom trawled. It seems to me very concerning, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could lay out the Government’s precise position on this.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, the Government support the fishing industry and recognise its key role in food supply, which is why we are also launching the fishing and coastal growth fund, which is investing £360 million over the next 12 years to support the next generation of fishermen and breathe new life into our coastal communities. This investment will make the fishing industry fit for the 21st century, but we make no apology for taking the steps—which, indeed, were initiated by the previous Government—to protect our natural marine environment over the long term. It is worth pointing out that the majority of fishing fleets that will be impacted by this ban on bottom trawling and shellfish dredging are not UK fleets but fleets from other nations, principally France, Ireland and Denmark.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister could clarify something. I know I am a bit dense, but the headline seemed to be that the Government are banning bottom trawling in MPAs. Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who mentioned the remarks made by the Minister’s honourable friend in the other place, is it a fact that the Government are banning bottom trawling in some MPAs but not all?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, we want to stop fishing only where it is damaging protected species and habitats in MPAs. For example, some MPAs are designated to protect sea-birds or harbour porpoises; bottom-trawling restrictions will not help these species. Our regulators undertake detailed assessments to make sure we protect our MPAs, while allowing fishing and other activities to continue where they are not damaging to them. I ask noble Lords to forgive the mammalian comparison, but it is horses for courses.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, while extending the ban on destructive bottom trawling is very welcome indeed, can I ask whether the Government considered a full ban, given the urgency expressed in the Labour Party manifesto on this issue? While the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has asked for a timetable—I think it is reasonable to get some sense of a timetable—can I ask how a timetable will take place for comprehensive protection? Can the Minister outline to us how enforcement will prevent exemptions or delays and ensure that our MPAs are genuinely safeguarded as marine biodiversity?
Lord Katz (Lab)
At the risk of repeating myself, we are not undertaking a blanket ban, because it is important that we can support fishing and other marine activity where it is not damaging marine ecosystems. One of the reasons that we are having the consultation is to understand the detail of it, but there are some MPAs that are not about fishing activity but other protection. We are looking in a proactive way to understand how best to protect water column activity, for instance, as well as to ensure that our seabeds are protected. I will not be drawn any further on the timetable, but we are clear about the importance of proceeding at pace while taking the fishing industry, marine conservation organisations and the wider community along with us. The Wildlife Trusts called the Secretary of State’s announcement the other day a “great step forward”. Oceana UK said it was a
“golden opportunity to safeguard these vital marine sanctuaries”,
and, frankly, I agree with them.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think there has been a Labour questioner so far on this. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his responses on this, but can I ask—I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission—to what extent the security position is also being factored into these discussions? Quite clearly, damage to undersea cables and pipelines is a serious problem and bottom trawling will not help.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and this is why we are serious about taking action in this area. When it comes to national security or promoting biodiversity and protecting our marine environment, we want to work with all stakeholders to get this right. I would be very interested to hear the views of the National Preparedness Commission and other such authorities in understanding the impact of bottom trawling on this important kind of national infrastructure.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, bottom trawling is an appalling way to fish but a superb way to destroy everything on the seabed. Last year, according to statistics from Oceana UK, just 10 fishing vessels of at least 20 metres in length were responsible for 27% of the suspected bottom trawling in our marine protected areas, wrecking fragile seabed ecosystems, releasing carbon and dumping tens of thousands of tonnes of discarded fish of the wrong sort. I say to the Minister that that applies to every single MPA, not just those with special species that he wants to protect. None of these 10 vessels was from the UK, and just 6% of the total 33,000 hours of suspected bottom trawling in MPAs was carried out by UK vessels. While we welcome the consultation, would the Government partly redeem themselves from selling out our fishermen to the EU by banning those 10 big foreign boats, which would lead to a 20% saving overnight, and then phase out the rest of bottom trawling over the next couple of years?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I think the noble Lord would agree that it is important that we have a comprehensive, fair and equitable approach to the way that we protect our marine environment. The noble Lord mentioned discard rates; at present, it is the case that the Cefas observer programme wants to provide estimates of the discard rates for a variety of quota species, including using methodologies aligned with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea standards. Looking ahead, we want to implement a remote electronic monitoring programme, which involves installing cameras on vessels, which is expected to enhance our understanding and really understand the landscape of good behaviour and bad behaviour. In the meantime, I say to the noble Lord that we believe that the approach that we are taking is ground-breaking, but it is in line with what has happened before under the previous Administration. We are taking a whole-piece approach to this important issue.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister knows that the UK has 377 marine protected areas, of which only 38 are fully protected. Can I just clarify that the 42 that the Government are consulting on are different from the 38? Surely the Minister can tell us when the consultation will end?
Lord Katz (Lab)
As the noble Baroness sets out, the consultation has 42 MPAs, and 41 of those have bottom-towed gear restrictions proposed. As I understand it—I will write if this is not the case—those are separate from those previous 38. The consultation will close later in the year, I understand, sometime in the autumn, but I will write with further details if that is not the case.
Self-driving Vehicles: Disabled Passengers
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brinton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what provision there will be for disabled passengers in the pilots for self-driving vehicles announced on 10 June.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Secretary of State must, by law, consider whether and to what extent granting a permit for an automated passenger service is likely to help improve understanding of how these services should best be designed for and provided to disabled and older passengers. Accessibility considerations will be set out in non-statutory guidance, and related permit conditions can be enforced through the permitting process. It would be counterproductive to specify detailed requirements in regulation for innovative new services.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but the key problem with the Government’s announcement is that the consultation is happening at exactly the same time as the specification and the manufacture of the driverless vehicles that are due to be launched early next year. This is literally a once-in-an-era moment: new driverless vehicles hitting our roads. The Government need to ensure that taxis and bus-like taxis will have accessibility designed into them. Otherwise, it will be like everything else for disabled people: reasonable adjustments after the event that are expensive for the manufacturer and never perfect for the user. Can the Minister say whether the contract with Wayve and Oxa will ensure that ramps, audio and visual announcements are designed in right from the start?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness knows that we consider the implications of transport for people with disabilities extraordinarily seriously. Whatever individual providers have said—and some of them have said something following the recent announcement by the Secretary of State—it will still be up to the Secretary of State to grant permission, under the conditions I described. For taxis and private hire vehicles, they will need local authority consent and, of course, that will all be subject to the public sector equality duty.
I think the noble Baroness is assuming that all these services will be provided by newly designed vehicles, when in fact the likelihood is that, in the very short term, they will be the same sort of vehicles used for taxi and PHV services. In the medium term, clearly there will be new designs, and there are already some that are suitable for wheelchairs and people with disabilities. We have to acknowledge that automated vehicles are part of an exciting future, but they have to be implemented safely, and she is right that they have to be implemented to benefit all parts of the community.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, what provision will there be for disabled passengers in all HMG’s transport plans?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. The Government are consulting on an integrated transport policy, which will of course include provision for disabled people. In the various modes of transport, there is extensive work going on in all cases to accommodate disabled people as fully as we can in the provision of public services going forward. Some of them are more difficult than others. The railway is 200 years old this year—some of its facilities are equally old—but the Government are striving to achieve what my noble friend looks for.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, it was a great pleasure to get the Automated Vehicles Act on the statute book before the last election. It puts Britain in a globally leading position to get investment and technology and be global leaders in this important technology. I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said: we should be ambitious about making this technology accessible for everyone. Automated vehicles have the potential to improve the life chances and the independence of all those who have a disability that means that they cannot drive themselves. I urge the Minister to be as ambitious as he can and to go as fast as he can to get this technology on to our roads. It is safe, we are leaders in it and it is a real opportunity for Great Britain.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There must have been a shadow of a question in there somewhere, but I agree with the noble Lord that it is an exciting prospect. He is right that the potential here is to increase mobility for the community and for people with disabilities, if we get it right. I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness in striving to make sure that disability is treated in the mainstream, but if we are going to do this quickly, we have to recognise that the early adoption under this Act is likely to be using the same sorts of vehicles as are used now. What we are looking for in the medium-term future is new designs, which should have the facilities such as audio-visual equipment and facilities for people in wheelchairs that she would expect.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister comment on what licences will be given to rural areas? We are very short of buses, both for people with disability and for the ordinary population. Surely these kinds of vehicles would be ideal in small, remote villages so that people could access essential services.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is entirely right. One of the really good prospects here is the provision of public services to people in rural areas where buses, with the best will in the world and despite the Government’s ground-breaking bus legislation, will not serve every need of the community because of the sparse population. That community is also getting older and many people there cannot drive, so there is a real opportunity here for autonomous vehicles fulfilling the need for public services in a way that conventional buses and taxis really cannot.
I go back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which is that we have to design in—as far as we can—facilities for disabled people among this. But we also, as the noble Lord opposite said, have to get going with this, because it is such an exciting future.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as well as the area of accessibility, what work have the Government carried out to determine liability in collisions involving self-drive vehicles as part of this pilot, given that human error will be removed from the equation?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right: safety has to be the first priority here. There has been a great deal of work worldwide on this. Clearly, the primary consideration for the adoption of autonomous vehicles is safety, so that people are not endangered by new technology but assisted by it. I will write to her about the precise steps that the Government have taken in the UK on this, but it is of course being addressed on a worldwide basis.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister spoke in the other place of the importance of getting disabled people into work. I ask the Minister in what way the retro, ad hoc inclusion of disabled people facilitates the realisation of that worthy goal. Can he also confirm that the Minister for Social Security and Disability in the other place was specifically consulted on the points that he has made?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are really committed to including people with disabilities in mainstream life and work, and I think the availability of autonomous vehicles ought, over time, to enable that more fully, as we have described—in rural areas, for example—than happens now. The Government have consulted extensively over where to go and what to do in this respect, and I will make sure that my department has consulted with all other necessary departments on this, but I would believe that to be the case, without doubt.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and other noble Lords have made some very important points, but I draw the Minister’s attention to an account in the Daily Telegraph this week of a report from the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism suggesting the real likelihood that these automated vehicles could be programmed by terrorists so as to launch mass attacks on pedestrians in our streets—so-called slaughterbots. This is a grave matter. Has the Minister read that report, and can he give an assurance that these vehicles will not be allowed on our streets unless that risk has been eliminated?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have no doubt that the noble Lord spends far longer reading the Daily Telegraph than I have time for. As it happens, I did not read that particular article, but I do know of the subject. Of course, we have to be concerned in all aspects of national security that things controlled by clever computers and technology are not misused by those who are enemies of the state anywhere. It is also a common issue with these vehicles around the world. I am not going to say any more about that now, other than that the Government know perfectly well that this is a possibility. When and as they take action on this, they will make sure that the risk to the public is absolutely minimised.
Israel and Iran
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current hostilities between Israel and Iran.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice. In doing so, I draw attention to my entries in the register of interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, since I spoke to the House on Monday, the situation in the Middle East has escalated further. We continue to work closely with our allies to press for restraint and diplomacy. The Foreign Secretary is in Washington today for discussions with the United States. We urge all British nationals to monitor travel advice and to register their presence if they are in Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that update. To use “escalation” to describe the situation in the last 24 to 48 hours would be an understatement. We are now facing a very great challenge in the region which will have an impact not just on the two countries involved, Israel and Iran, but the wider region. We are also talking about the economic impact of conflict in that region on the global economy. Can the Minister assure me that this House and the other place will be fully informed of whatever action the His Majesty’s Government seek to take? Many noble Lords on the Minister’s Benches, on the Cross Benches and on our Benches have insight on and experience of previous crises. Such consultation is extremely valuable, so that when the Government speak, they speak not just as a Labour Government but as the Government of our country and our nation. Can he further assure us that the citizens of our country who are in the region will be fully protected and that extra measures will be taken to ensure their safe passage from that region?
I turn to the final element, which the Minister knows I will focus on. He talked of the measures being taken on diplomacy. In the last day or so, what we have heard from across the pond is that it is not the diplomatic track but a very different track that is being pursued. Can the Minister assure me that whatever action is pursued, we will be fully informed? As he referred to in his Answer, can he also assure me that the diplomatic track, particularly with key partners—I mention Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Oman—will be kept fully active?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I can only agree with most of the noble Lord’s remarks. It is incumbent on all Governments to keep Parliament fully informed—in this case, of what is becoming an extremely volatile and dangerous situation. We will obviously do that, and I certainly agree with him about the expertise across the House and how we should embrace and inform it. I am very keen to do so.
No one will exhaust that diplomatic effort. We are focused on it, no matter what speculation we read in the press. That is why the Foreign Secretary is in Washington today. The Prime Minister spoke to the Emir of Qatar last night. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar, the Iranian Foreign Minister and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal. He has also had regular calls, particularly yesterday, with US Secretary of State Rubio, EU High Representative Kallas and counterparts from France and Germany. As well as close working with the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan, we are ensuring that all our ambassadors in the region are fully engaged and in regular contact with their host countries. We remain in close contact with those embassies. I reassure the noble Lord that we are absolutely focused on that diplomatic track. We will not exhaust it. We are focused on de-escalation and ensuring the security of all our citizens and the citizens of the world.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the danger that the Minister referred to is exacerbated by the unpredictability of our most significant ally, the United States. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary is in Washington. However, can the Minister assure these Benches that while the UK is so integrated with the United States— diplomatically and through the operations potentially through US Central Command—we have the capability and intent not to be dragged into a potentially protracted and very dangerous wider conflict, should the United States seek to be part of that? Can we have a distinct position from the United States, still focusing on de-escalation for the entire region, even if our key ally is part of escalation?
I am sure the Minister will be aware that many of our diplomatic friends within the region, especially within Jordan and elsewhere, are determined that we do not lose sight of what is happening within West Bank and Gaza, where queues for food have turned into arbitrary killing fields. In an incredibly complex situation between Israel and Iran, we must act to save the lives within Gaza of those people who are simply seeking food and medicine.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, I agree with him. Despite the urgency of the situation in relation to Iran, we are not taking our eyes off the situation in Gaza. We are focused on ensuring that we can get the humanitarian aid in, as we have promised. We are working very hard with all our allies and making the case very strongly that the restrictions that the Israeli Government have put on should be lifted.
I will not speculate on what the next steps of the US President may be, but the simple fact is that he has made it clear, as I said on Monday, that a military solution cannot resolve Iran’s nuclear escalation for the long term. We need a process in place and are focused on that. As the Foreign Secretary is in Washington, we remain in close contact with the United States. His Majesty’s Government will not give a running commentary on those conversations or speculate on the US’s sovereign decision, which is a matter for the US Government. However, I assure the House that we are absolutely focused on using all diplomatic means available to urge restraint, even at this stage, and de-escalate the situation. The UK teams throughout the world, as I mentioned in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, are focused on that.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, where possible, whether in this dangerous situation or any other, without compromising secrecy or urgency, the House of Commons should be consulted before any deployment of UK forces? If he agrees with that proposition, and what was an embryonic convention under the Cameron Government, do His Majesty’s Government have any plans to enshrine that convention in statute?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let us not speculate. I repeat the reassurance that I gave to the noble Lord. We are committed to keeping Parliament informed of this very difficult and delicate situation. It is important that we all focus on ensuring that we speak with one voice: that we want de-escalation and peace, and we will be focused on that. I will not speculate on what those next steps may be, but when the Prime Minister spoke at the G7, and with the Foreign Secretary in Washington today, we have been absolutely clear that the situation requires de-escalation. We will not move from that position.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, one of the many difficulties associated with this situation is the confusion that seems to have arisen over strategic objectives. Israel has stated that it does not want Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, but there has been a lot of loose talk recently about regime change. Can the Minister confirm that the UK Government’s view is that no matter how much one might wish for regime change in Iran, this is absolutely not the way to do it, and that the decapitation of the regime by assassinating its religious head will achieve little, since the structural underpinning and much of the control of the regime is in the hands of the IRGC? Can he assure the House that in all our international negotiations with partners and others, we will be stressing these points very strongly?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I fully understand the comments by the noble and gallant Lord. I was listening to the “Today” programme this morning, and I thought there was pretty unhelpful speculation about motives and intent. The simple fact is the reality in the world when we look. People mentioned Syria: there was an internal pressure in Syria and the regime fell because of that internal pressure, but history tells us that, when there is an external pressure on a regime, the consequences are the complete opposite. Some of those opposition people on the radio this morning were reflecting some of that—they saw things in a different light than perhaps we see from the newspapers.
I reassure the noble and gallant Lord: the reality is that we remain absolutely concerned about the nuclear potential of Iran. We want to see that limited and stopped completely, and we want to see mechanisms to achieve that. I know I repeated this many times on Monday: President Trump knows that, too. He wants a deal, and that is what we have to focus on and use all diplomatic means to do.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, Britain has an absolute right to protect British assets and British personnel in the region from hostile action. Will the Minister confirm that the Government regard that right as inviolable?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the Prime Minister has made it clear that we have sent flights to the region to ensure that our assets are fully protected and that we are fully prepared for any of the consequences. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question. I may have missed it—I was concentrating on reading—but if she cares to repeat it, we have plenty of time. Did I answer?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
There was comment in the media earlier today about possible legal interpretation of when conflict is permissible and when joining that conflict is acceptable legally. I was merely concerned to understand that the fundamental right of a sovereign country to defend personnel and assets in a region from hostile action is an inviolable right and that the Government understand that.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the Government fully understand that, which is why the Prime Minister has ensured that we are moving towards protecting those assets. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Before the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—who is not in his place—asks me a question, of course we are urging all parties to comply with international humanitarian law. That is quite clear, too.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, what is the Government’s thinking on the day after? We have observed this question a lot of times in the last 18 months in terms of the conflict in Gaza. Has any thought been given to the lessons learned, particularly from Iraq, about the day after? If the regime falls, what are the Government’s thoughts and plans for bringing stability to that region, given that the oil that travels through the Strait of Hormuz will have a huge impact not just in that region but all across the world, and particularly for ourselves here in the United Kingdom?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As I said in my answer to the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, I will not speculate on the consequences of, or reasons for, these. Our objective is to stop Iran having a nuclear capability. We are absolutely working with all our allies to achieve that. The means to do that, as President Trump has made clear, is through a deal. There cannot be a long-term military answer to that question.
To come back to the point made earlier, we should not take our eyes off the situation in the Occupied Territories and Gaza. It is very sad that the consequences of these actions resulted in the postponement of the two-state solution conference, which was going to bring Saudi Arabia and others together to look at the situation of the day after: “What next?” We need to ensure that the international community is absolutely focused on that, and we will be supporting and putting all efforts into a reconvened conference to ensure that that is the focus for the next steps.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, those on these Benches join others in calling for Iran and Israel to draw back from war, especially the killing of civilians, and, as His Majesty’s Government have rightly said, prioritise restraint, diplomacy and dialogue. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, rightly raised the fact that the conflict with Iran threatens to overshadow and move the focus away from the conflict in Gaza, and I am reassured by the Minister’s response to that. In both conflicts, though, civilians have been and are being targeted. What actions are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that internationally accepted norms of armed conflict are being respected, as well as the norms of humanitarian law?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I reassure the right reverend Prelate that compliance with international humanitarian law is exactly what we are urging on all parties, and we will continue to do so. It is very sad that, when missiles are fired off indiscriminately, it is inevitable that civilians will suffer. That should not be the case, and we are urging all parties to ensure that they comply with that international humanitarian law.
Crime and Policing Bill
Thursday 19th June 2025
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberCrime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 18 June 2025 - (18 Jun 2025)
HS2 Reset
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the history of the HS2 project is not a happy one. It was initially proposed in its current form by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and endorsed by Gordon Brown in the wake of the global financial crisis, then taken up enthusiastically by the coalition Government, in which all major decisions were made by a quad that included Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, and, indeed, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, sadly not in her place, was a Minister, as was Norman Baker. It was then taken forward further by the Conservative Government following 2015. Failure often has many parents, and there is no doubt that HS2 has been a mess. The letter from Mark Wild and the report from James Stewart leave us in no doubt of that at all.
I thank the Minister for the Statement. I welcome the appointment of Mike Brown as chairman of HS2 and the appointment last year by the Conservatives of Mark Wild as chief executive. Both are people with whom I have worked in the past, as has the Minister.
My first question to the Minister is whether there has been equally significant change in senior personnel at the Department for Transport. I ask that because the James Stewart report leaves one in no doubt that the Department for Transport failed sufficiently to distinguish its various roles in this project, including as sponsor, as funder, as policymaker and as shareholder.
This brings me to questions of governance model. The settled orthodoxy in recent years has been that, for government-supported projects to succeed, there must be a clear structural division between a sponsor body and a delivery body. On paper this is logical. The sponsor sets the strategic direction and prevents outside parties changing the objectives by gold-plating and adding further requirements as time goes by. It holds the delivery body to account, and the delivery body focuses on the execution.
In the case of HS2, this model has not functioned as intended: it has broken down. Rather than providing a framework for responsibility and efficient delivery, it has resulted in a culture of what might be called “deferral”. The dominance of the Department for Transport—well known anecdotally by those familiar with the project—over the board of HS2 has resulted, as James Stewart identifies in his report, in the board not carrying out its functions but deferring important questions it should have taken to the department. As a result, decisions were delayed, accountability was blurred, and independence of delivery was undermined.
At the same time, the department itself did not fully separate its own strategic oversight role as sponsor from its various operational entanglements. There was no clear split within the department between those who were supposed to hold the project to account and those who were working with it in other regards. We are therefore left with very serious questions that go way beyond HS2. They affect, for example, the restoration and renewal project of the Palace of Westminster. Something we relied on as a dependable structure—which appeared to prove itself largely in the case of Crossrail, for example—has broken down. My second question to the Minister, then, is, what thinking are the Government giving to a new model that is going to work well for future projects, or are we now steering blind?
My final point relates to Euston station. Euston is, strictly speaking, no longer part of HS2 Ltd’s responsibilities, as I understand it. It was a decision of the last Government to put it into a separate company, but I am not aware of the existence of that separate company; perhaps it exists on paper. I am not aware of the board of that company, or the chairman of that company. I am not aware of what that company is actually doing, because, while the Government have committed to taking the tunnels forward from Old Oak Common to Euston station, there is as yet no plan for the delivery of platforms at Euston station, which would allow passengers to make use of those tunnels.
I am not speaking for my party now, so much as for myself, when I say that I have always felt that a terminal-station solution for Euston was somewhat old-fashioned. We should perhaps take as an example Thameslink at St Pancras, which simply has two platforms underneath the station, and the trains come in and they go through. Perhaps we should be thinking now—it would cost money, but then, the plan for Euston station is going to cost a great deal of money—about alternative solutions that might take the lines through to a depot to the east of London. Can the Minister say something about the plans for Euston and how open the department now is to alternative solutions?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, in the late 2000s there was an absolute cross-party ambition in the UK to build a high-speed railway connecting London and the north of England, and ultimately Scotland, and increasing the capacity of our railway was at the core of that ambition. The Liberal Democrats—and I am speaking on behalf of my Benches today—have always supported this. It is not about a nice-to-have, fast, shiny new railway line which we all love, but helping to alleviate the pressure and capacity restrictions on the existing rail network, and supporting growth.
This Statement, the James Stewart review, which is to be commended, and the associated papers set out a damning story of Conservative mismanagement. What should have been a fantastic example of investment, connecting our great cities of Leeds and Manchester with London while boosting economic growth, has in reality been a Treasury spending spree wasting billions of pounds of public money and causing years of delay, based on a political whim of the day. It is a textbook example of how not to build modern infrastructure, and the Conservative Party should be ashamed of their mismanagement.
The Conservative Government focused on a schedule before sufficient design work had taken place—a recipe for disaster that we have seen play out—and constantly changed the scope and requirements of the project. Reading the Statement about HS2 brought back many memories about what happened with Crossrail. There was no real oversight, and there were confused lines of accountability. Key people were not listening to those who were reporting that the build was not on time, and they chose to water down those warnings up the line. There was constant pressure to change the scope, an obsession with an opening date above all else, and a lack of capacity in the Department for Transport to oversee major infrastructure projects.
This reset for High Speed 2 is therefore absolutely welcome. To date, the project has failed to follow international best practice in building major projects. We on these Benches stress how much we welcome the new leadership of Mark Wild, as chief executive of High Speed 2, and his forensic work in unpicking what happened and getting the programme back on track, to a realistic timescale and budget. He took over Crossrail when it was on its knees and turned it around, motivating the team to deliver the Elizabeth Line, which is such a pleasure to use and is one of the busiest train lines in the country. I know he can do the same with High Speed 2.
The project has again shone a light on poor procurement and poor contract management within the Department for Transport. What actions will the Government take to address insufficient capability within the Department for Transport, particularly in commercial and delivery expertise, and client work on major infrastructure projects on this scale? What will the Government do to build trust with local communities and wider stakeholders in this new HS2 project? What changes will the Government make to the governance structure and financing of High Speed 2 to ensure that costs and schedule estimates are reliable? As always, we want to gain wider learnings from this. As I called for after Crossrail—in fact, I briefed a previous chief executive of High Speed 2 and Ministers about the issues we had found during the Crossrail delays—we want to build more transport infrastructure to help our regional economies grow. To do this, however, we need a structure to deliver it on time and on budget.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by emphasising the benefits of a new railway to the Midlands and the north of England. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness referred to the capacity of the West Coast Main Line, and it is not in contention that new capacity needs to be built. Connectivity drives growth, jobs and housing, and the skyline of Birmingham is testimony to Birmingham’s expectations of a faster link to London. Indeed, the Government have put significant money into connectivity for the sports quarter, which, clearly, would not be being proposed were it not for HS2 serving Birmingham in the future. The development opportunities at Old Oak Common are already being realised, as will those at Euston. The benefits of greater connectivity are there to see and are really important for our country and its economic future.
We can also do some big projects. The trans-Pennine route upgrade is a £14 billion project to an existing railway and is on time and budget. But it is true, as both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said, that HS2 has gone badly wrong, and it falls to this Government to sort it out, because we cannot carry on like this. Currently, we can predict neither when it will open nor how much it will cost. That is a pretty terrible position to be in and it has to be said the consequences are as a result of actions taken by previous Governments.
I welcome the fact that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness welcomed the appointment of Mark Wild as chief executive and Mike Brown as chair of HS2. I have every confidence that both those people will begin to put this right and fundamentally restructure the company and the approach to the project through a very detailed review of where it is now—because, unless you know where it is now, you will not be able to find out where it is going in the future.
It must be the case that the criticisms of the governance model are justified. Indeed, James Stewart’s report sets out a whole a whole raft of recommendations that the Government have fully accepted. My own department clearly shoulders some culpability. The noble Lord asked what has happened in the department and, although I do not think it is not right to delve into senior personnel, he will, of course, note that a new Permanent Secretary is about to be appointed, the previous incumbent having retired.
We need a new model, but one in which the chair and board of HS2 take a far greater responsibility for the things they should be responsible for. The noble Baroness referred to Crossrail, where it was quite clear that the chair and board were not acting in the interests of the company. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I regard him as the best board member of Crossrail during his time as a non-executive director, because he diligently looked at the progress of the project. Indeed, the then chair of the project complained furiously, to me and others, about the noble Lord’s diligence in inspecting the real state of the project. That was as it should be and it is a shame that HS2’s boards do not seem to have done the same. It is right to have a new chair, and I have no doubt that in due course we will have a new or different board as well.
I will not go through the Stewart report. It contains a raft of recommendations, as I said, all of which the Government have accepted. It is also quite clear that, if you are going to put out big construction contracts, you should have a sponsor capability that is capable of understanding what the contractors are doing as they do it and of measuring how much is done and how much it has cost as it is happening. Mark Wild has found that HS2 itself is fundamentally unable to achieve that in its present state and will therefore change it.
What is in front of us in Mark Wild’s letter to the Secretary of State and the Stewart report is extraordinarily unhappy. Clearly, a number of really bad decisions have been taken. I helped Doug Oakervee with his review in 2020, and his strong recommendation was that the then construction contracts should not have been left in their current form because they had insufficient detail and there was insufficient design and encouragement to the contractors to perform properly and to budget. We can see the result of that here.
I will not go through the Secretary of State’s Statement in detail—because it is already in the public domain—nor the letter or the report. To answer the noble Lord’s question about Euston station, it is clear that Euston station is no longer to be delivered as part of HS2. That cannot be a great surprise because, as the Secretary of State remarked in the other place, faced with a first design that cost a huge amount more than the budget, when HS2 looked at it again, it came back with a design that cost even more—and that is without the air-conditioned platforms that were originally part of the design and were an eye-wateringly unnecessarily feature, since they do not exist even in railways in Saudi Arabia, where you would probably think they might like that sort of thing.
So, it is right for Euston to be dealt with separately. The reason the noble Lord is not aware of a separate company is that the Government have not yet got to that stage. It has taken a long and painful process to get to a stage at which all the parties involved in Euston now agree with the spatial plan, including the developer Lendlease and its new partner, the Crown Estate. The Government are now considering how best to procure that station, which includes an HS2 station and the concourse of the Network Rail station as a combined station, which it always should have been but, certainly when I started chairing the partnership board at Euston, was not. In fact, the original intention was to have two platforms numbered “1” because the HS2 people thought they were building a new railway in a separate station. How stupid was that?
So, we are progressing with Euston as a separate project to be delivered by a separate organisation. There will be more to say in short order, both here and in the other place, but the noble Lord has not missed anything. The state in which even that part of the project was left, after the peremptory cancellation of phase 2a and the statement by the previous Prime Minister that Euston should be built with no public funding, was one where it needed serious work to come to a conclusion. But I do not agree with the noble Lord that we should somehow further alter the design of Euston. We should get on with a plan that works in order to open this railway at the earliest possible time that Mark Wild can predict, at a cost he can predict, and with a delivery plan that will work.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement on HS2 yesterday. It has good detail and a lot of the plans that the Government intend to do. I was also pleased that the latest cost estimate of about £100 billion to get it to Birmingham, is much closer to the one that Michael Byng and I have been peddling for some years. I also welcome the new chief executive and chair of HS2 and, of course, the Ministers, who are both relatively new.
The worry I put to my noble friend is that the four new people at the top, excellent though they will be, have an incredibly difficult job ahead of them. One of the biggest problems is to unpick or change the mouthwatering contracts that most of the contractors have been given by the previous Administration, which means it will be very difficult to know what the future output costs will be and how they will be monitored. So, can one or two people—very good people, with two Ministers in charge—plan this without a much greater root-and-branch change in the Department of Transport and HS2? I hope I am wrong, but I think there is a lot of work to be done there as well.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. There is no latest cost estimate. One of the things we are absolutely resolved to do is not to have such a cost estimate until Mark Wild and the people he is bringing in have been through this project in such detail that an estimate can be reliable. It is not at all satisfactory to have contractors working on such huge contracts without a full understanding by a decent sponsor of what they have delivered as they deliver it, how much it has cost, and what the remaining work is. That is also a feature, because the contracts were let too early and the design was not certain, so all that work needs to be done.
My noble friend is right that four new people by themselves cannot do all this—not by a long chalk. But noble Lords will, I hope, have read Mark Wild’s letter in detail, in which he sets out that, fundamentally, HS2 is unfit for purpose and he will have to restructure that company, alongside getting proper estimates of cost and timescale. He will need some help doing it and much of my and the Secretary of State’s discussion with him in the last weeks and months has been about how many people he needs to do that, who they are, whether we can trust them and how quickly we can get them in. Those elements are all important.
One of the really important things in this is that, I think for the first time for a long time, we will have a chair and a chief executive of HS2 who are communicative, collaborative, straight and honest, and we can have a discussion with them about where this is going and what it is doing. One of the characteristics of this company so far and of the Crossrail company for most of its life is that they were both arrogant enough to believe that they knew what they were doing without any supervision and without telling anybody what was really going on. In both cases, it went badly wrong. Mark knows that he has to change the culture of the company. There clearly are some good people there, but they need to be led and directed properly.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a former Secretary of State for Transport, I think one of rather many in this House, and as an adviser for many years to the Central Japan Railway Company, which is now busy building the fastest railway in the world, the Yamanashi Maglev. It may be of some comfort to all sides of the House that it is running considerably over budget and two or three years late, emphasising the point that these gigantic projects again and again, almost for the last century, have been becoming wildly over budget and raising all sorts of issues, such as social and environmental consequences, that were not seen to start with and were not brought into the consultation. That remains the situation.
I welcome the moves the Government are making to pull it together with the new appointments, which I am sure are of the highest quality. I think we should all try to live with the remarks of the Minister and others that it is all the previous Government’s fault. They always say that. We should swallow our pride and recognise that if we have joint support, all round, of the least partisan and most constructive kind, we will get this project through. My Japanese friends said from the start that building should have begun from the north and come downwards rather than starting from London. There might have been rather different politics if it had.
Is the Minister aware that there will be more overruns? There will be more costs that no one had foreseen. Their efforts should be welcomed, as I said, but they must also be prepared for being quite frank in coming before this House, and obviously the other place, with the details of where the overruns are and how they fit in. There is a much bigger lesson, as my noble friend rightly said in his excellent opening remarks, that in these giant projects, we have not quite got right the co-operation between the Government, the state and the private sector. I see another huge whitish elephant coming up at Sizewell C, not because there should not be nuclear power there—I am all for that—but because it is the wrong design. It is vast. It is going to take years, and it is going to cost nearly the same sort of money in the end as we are spending on this railway. Figures of £30 billion to £40 billion are freely mentioned. There needs to be a vastly greater concentration on combining finance by the state that does not end in borrowing and taxation that we cannot afford with the private sector, where there is lots of money ready to go into well-formed and properly investable projects.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I remind the House that this is an opportunity for Back-Benchers to ask questions. We have several who want to intervene, and we will run out of time if we are not careful.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and former Secretary of State, of which there seem to be very many on the Opposition Benches, for his remarks and observations.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that the point of railways is moving people and freight around the country and that the railway system is not a kind of glorified train set for the great men of our age to play with. I have travelled up and down the west coast main line for more than 50 years, and during that period we have all experienced a great deal of trouble and difficulty. Can the Minister confirm that, as well as the other factors that are being taken into account in consideration of this woeful debacle, the interests of the travelling public and their convenience will be at the forefront of the consideration of what happens next?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I can indeed absolutely assure the noble Lord of that. One of the difficulties I found in coming into this position is that clearly the previous management of HS2 thought it was a construction project—I think there are some lessons from Crossrail here too. There was a view that somehow it was a big construction project and at the end you incidentally got a railway. That cannot be right. The original justification for this was the capacity constraint on the west coast main line, which is still there, and the projected inability to do anything serious about its capacity without years of disruption. What has resulted is a project that has created years of disruption, but somewhere else other than on the railway. I have it in mind constantly that this project will produce a new railway for the United Kingdom that will be regarded as part of the railway network by its customers. I refer to the ludicrous proposition that Euston should have had two platform 1s. Nobody cares anything about that. What they want is a train to Birmingham or a train to Manchester, and they want it to run reliably. We have that very much in mind. Indeed, Mark Wild, as the chief executive, knows perfectly well that he needs to turn this present construction activity into a railway, which is what he did with the Elizabeth line, and I have every confidence that he will do it again.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, this is a necessary but pretty depressing Statement announcing, as it effectively is, that when it comes to major infrastructure projects, whether they are railways or power stations or airports, this country does them very badly indeed. I hope we learn some lessons from that. I ask my noble friend to reflect that, on timescale, the Victorians managed in a period of 30 years, from 1830 to 1860, to build the whole rail network, and we cannot deal with one line in less time than that. I remind him as well that in the international context, pretty well every other country in the world—Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and others—has been building, is building or has planned major high-speed rail systems. Will my noble friend give us answers to these questions? Why do these projects take so long when we know from our history that it is possible to do them much more speedily? What can we learn from all these other countries that do not seem to have any of the headaches, disasters, mismanagement and overspend that we have in building a very necessary railway because the old Victorian one, wonderful though it was, is crumbling?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is not quite right. We do not always do these things badly. Indeed, I deliberately referred to the trans-Pennine upgrade in my previous remarks because it is a very large project. It is very complex because it is being carried out on an operating railway. Its current value is £14 billion. It has been through innumerable scope changes, sadly, but it is now being delivered on time and badly.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sorry. That is a slip of the tongue caused by looking at my notes. I should have said on time and on budget. We do not always do them badly.
If noble Lords look at the history of HS2 they will see not limited scope changes but enormous scope changes with miles of the railway being put into tunnels and some technical specifications that, now they are being contemplated, do not look half as clever as they did when somebody suggested the highest-speed high-speed railway in the world, which therefore has to go in very straight lines and might disturb bats and need a bat tunnel when a more modest railway would have gone around that issue rather than straight through it.
I have to say to my noble friend that it is not always true that the Victorians got it right, and I am sure that this must have happened to previous Transport Ministers too. When I got to Network Rail, I remarked that Brunel’s Great Western Railway cost three times what he suggested it would, and about a week later I got a letter in green ink several pages long from a retired engineer, who said that I was entirely wrong and had no idea what I was talking about: it was actually four times more expensive.
Lord Harper (Con)
When I was appointed to lead the Department for Transport, HS2 was already not in great shape, as is well known. I immediately implemented some changes to get a grip of the project by focusing the company on cost control, starting work to renegotiate those big civil contracts that the Minister referred to and cancelling the second phase—which, although controversial at the time, I notice the present Government have not changed—which freed up money to spend on projects across the country. The final thing was to appoint Mark Wild as the new chief executive. I am confident that, with his record in delivering the Elizabeth line, he will achieve great things.
I will ask the Minister two questions. First, I listened carefully to what he said about Euston. Of course, I worked closely with him in his previous incarnation as the chairman of the Euston partnership. Refocusing that as a development-led project with more housing, more business space, and more contribution from private sector investment and less from the taxpayer is the right thing. I am pleased with the progress that has been made. He said he would come back to your Lordships’ House “in short order”; can he give us a bit more detail about what that means? Is that before the Summer Recess or after? I would like to hear more detail.
Secondly, the Minister also referred to the main works civil contracts. We started the work on renegotiating them. Can he say a little more about the progress that has been made? I recognise there is some commercial confidentiality involved there. It was referred to in James Stewart’s report, and it is important to get value for the taxpayer.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the decision to appoint Mark Wild, which was obviously a good thing. The noble Lord is absolutely right that he did take some action. In the light of what has been discovered since, we could question how much action should have been taken, because this Government have clearly now taken some really strong action. In particular, we have had a serious look at governance. As a consequence, there is a new chair and there will no doubt be a new board in due course. That is one of the issues that has needed attention for some time.
I would be less complimentary about the cancellation of phase 2, which was pre-emptory. As for freeing up money, there was no money associated with phase 2. It is true that it would have cost money had it been delivered, but it was a delusion for many parts of the country. The Network North document promised everything to everybody without evidently having money in the short and medium term to deliver it. But everybody has had a part in this, and the truth is that this Government are committing themselves to this fundamental reset. Through that, we will get phase 1 to Birmingham and Old Oak Common and Euston done.
The Government are moving fast on Euston. I doubt we will be able to put anything in front of the House before the Summer Recess, but as soon as we are able to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I will come back about it. The noble Lord is certainly right about the main works civil contracts, but in order to have a reset of those you actually need to know where the project is. If you do not know where the project is and nobody can accurately say how much has been delivered then trying to negotiate your way out of those circumstances is really quite hopeless. Mark Wild is undertaking a granular review of how much has been constructed and how much value has been created through its construction. The noble Lord is right that we have to engage in discussion with the main works civil contractors and their consortia. We will do that in due course, but we first have to know where the project is in order to baseline those discussions.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister explain exactly what the purpose of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority is? It was created in 2016 and has presided over a number of these types of projects which have not worked out. At the moment, the police are looking to purchase a new radio system, which has gone from £2 billion to £12.5 billion. In all the political knockabout—and I understand why there is political accountability in this—it seems to have been a silent body but, as far as I can see, it was set up to avoid this type of event.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are creating a new body out of the IPA and the NIC. We expect it to assist those projects to help them do these jobs better. There are a number of projects through government that have not gone well either—the project that the noble Lord refers to is one of them. It is really important for a body such as that to embrace the learnings, both from the James Stewart review and from the actual experience of these big projects, and help government not commit the same mistakes again.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, one of the problems encountered by all major projects such as HS2 is the difficulty of getting the public generally on side. I declare an interest here as a former owner of a property that was on the route of the original plans for HS2. I am sure the House will understand the issues that arise when you wake up one morning and discover that your house might have a tunnel underneath it, or worse, and the reaction you have to that.
My question is not so much about the detail of the current report, but to ask whether the department is thinking more widely about how it can get people on board prior to and during the process of planning new infrastructure of this type. Is the department aware of a scheme proposed a few years ago by members of the insurance industry to try to create a fund that would be available to remove blight from the political issues that departments face when making proposals? If he has not heard of that or had any discussions with it, would he receive a representation from me on it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is right to say that the public need to be onside with these huge projects. Although, clearly, this is a high-speed rail project, I started what I said today with a reminder about the benefits of it because it is too easy just to refer to the project as a project without referring to why it needs to be done. I think there are some lessons in that. The other thing is that massive scope changes, such as the deletion of whole legs of a scheme, lead people to the conclusion that the original proposition was somehow not justified, and that is to be deeply regretted.
In detail, I have had many representations—as, no doubt, my predecessors did—from individual landowners, and it is clear that, in some cases, HS2 has not behaved properly or with due speed in what must be, personally and commercially, worrying and trying circumstances for individual landowners. We have just appointed a new commissioner for construction and residents, and I look to HS2 and to that commissioner to act with alacrity on some of the long-running claims that have clearly blighted individuals’ lives. I would like to hear further from the noble Lord about what he refers to, and I hope he will write to me.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Longfield
“(c) a supported accommodation setting in England.”
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 142 is in my name. It sets out to make the case for the inclusion of supported accommodation in the scope of the proposed profit cap. Following clarification from my noble friend the Minister, including in answers to questions in earlier groups in Committee, I am content that that is the case, and that the intention is to include supported accommodation within these measures, so I will not be moving this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I am sorry but, having spoken to the amendment, the noble Baroness must move it so that others can comment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 142A to 142C, 504A and 505A are in my name. I will not speak to Amendment 142 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and I thank her for giving me advance notice of her intentions. I will also probe the merits of Clause 15 standing part of the Bill.
Amendment 142A mirrors my earlier Amendments 138D, 138E and 139A, which would have excluded natural persons with a role in the management of a business from receiving personal financial penalties. I have reread the Minister’s remarks in Hansard from our debate on Tuesday, and I confess I am still not entirely clear about the status of a natural person who is registered at Companies House. The Minister said earlier that the figure of 10 operators out of over 2,700 was based on Companies House data. Forgive my ignorance, but I do not know what legal status an organisation registered with Companies House has if it is not a company. If it is a company, I am not sure what the status of a natural person is.
The reason for these amendments is simple, as I set out before. It is based on a concern that, without these amendments, the Bill will limit the number of people who are prepared to take senior management responsibility in such providers and will lead to providers exiting the sector. I may have misunderstood what is meant by “an operator”—namely, that it is the owner of a business rather than the senior management—but perhaps the Minister could clarify both those points when she sums up.
Amendments 142B and 142C would limit the maximum fine for a provider to 10% of its turnover and, if imposed on a natural person, to £100,000. We have heard that margins in the children’s home sector average 22%, although in the LGA-commissioned report this figure is taken from, the range of margins is very wide. If we took 10% of a company’s turnover and accepted an average margin of 22%, that would be almost 50% of its profits, which surely is a very strong incentive to avoid being fined. Can the Minister set out what level of fine the Government expect to impose and what the criteria will be for different levels of financial penalty?
Amendments 504A and 505A would delay the commencement of Clause 15 until the Secretary of State has published a report that sets out the current levels of capacity in independent children’s homes, independent fostering agencies and, perhaps, based on the Minister’s remarks on Tuesday, supported accommodation. Again, I wonder whether she could confirm that last point.
The report would also need to have an impact assessment on the number of available placements in relevant homes or agencies. I am definitely not an expert on regulatory impact assessments, I confess, but the Government’s own regulatory impact assessment has, to my amateur eyes, clear gaps; hence the need for my Amendments 504A and 505A.
In the section of the document titled “Expected impacts on businesses”, it states:
“It is not possible for the department to monetise the impact of any future profit cap at this stage. This is because the impact will depend on both the level at which any future cap is set and the market conditions—including profit levels, supply and demand and diversity of provision—at the time that a cap were introduced. Attempting to include straw man figures at this stage—far in advance of any decision about whether or not to introduce a profit cap—would be unhelpful and would have the potential to adversely impact the market by driving providers to make incorrect assumptions about the future level of any future cap based on such figures”.
My amendments would bridge this gap by requiring the publication of an impact assessment when the Government are clear on what their approach to a profit cap will be and by capturing the baseline data on capacity so that the impact of a future cap can be analysed and understood.
My reason for questioning the approach to capping profits as set out in Clause 15 is based partly on the concerns expressed by the Competition and Markets Authority. It was very clear in its report that
“taking measures that directly limit prices and profits, would further reduce the incentives of private providers to invest in creating new capacity (or even to maintain some current capacity)”.
I wonder what assessment the Government made of this risk which led them to ignore the CMA’s advice. Can the Minister set out what impact the department believes this measure will have on investment in sector? What do the latest figures show?
More broadly, there is an important point of principle here. As David Rowland, the director of the Centre for Health and the Public Interest, wrote in a blog published by the London School of Economics in December 2024, if the Government decide that one sector has excessive profiteering and will cap the level of profit in that sector,
“there is no good reason for it not to be extended to other areas as well”.
I wonder what other areas the Government might be considering. David Rowland’s work has highlighted other areas where companies are profiting from—I quote the right honourable Secretary of State for Education—the trauma and abuse of
“some of the most vulnerable children in our country””.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/24; col. 27.]
This includes in the management of sexual assault referral centres which serve children, where he cites one business as generating 25% margins after tax—much higher than the 22% margin on earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation generated by the average children’s home. Might this be an area in which the Government are considering profit caps?
It would also be helpful if the Minister could confirm what operating margin, as opposed to EBITDA margin, the Government think is acceptable for operators of children’s homes, independent fostering agencies and supported accommodation. What is the figure for operating margins today? The figures in the LGA-commissioned report that the Government reference in their regulatory impact assessment are for earnings before interest, depreciation, amortisation and tax, and date from 2023. They are for around the 20 largest providers only. Why have the Government not done their own analysis of profitability across the sector, rather than relying on an external document that is two years old and looks at only part of the sector?
On Tuesday, after I gave my back-of-the-envelope figure of, from memory, £500 million or £600 million, the Minister quoted the sector as having a combined EBITDA of £310 million. But this figure from the Government’s own report, which is taken from the LGA’s analysis, covers just the 19 largest providers of children’s homes. The report goes on to say that the top 22 providers own 40% of children’s homes. That, of course, will not necessarily equate to 40% of profit, but it seems clear that £310 million is not the right number. The Minister should set the record straight at some point—if not now, then in a letter.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s speech makes me think that looking at what “excessive profit” means, or at least what the Government think about it, would not be a bad idea, because we are agreed that these services are often gone to because the state cannot or will not provide them. What we consider to be reasonable to pay for them is something the whole Committee should be concerned about. I am sure—or at least I hope—that the Government have given this some deep thought, and finding out in a little more detail what that will be will help consideration on this and forthcoming business. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, as I said in Committee on Tuesday, in 2022 the Competition and Markets Authority found the children’s social care placement market to be dysfunctional. It found that the largest private providers were making profit margins significantly above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. Most significantly, notwithstanding the profit levels that are being made, we know that there are still insufficient high-quality placements for children who desperately need them. To that extent, the profit levels being made are not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, suggested, driving the sort of supply that we want to see.
The amendments in this group cover Clauses 15, 16 and 17, which implement important legislative elements of our children’s social care placement market reforms: the new profit-capping powers and their associated financial penalties. Introducing profit-capping powers will ensure that we have further powers to curb profiteering if the wider package of measures that I outlined on Tuesday, which we expect to rein in excessive profit-making, do not have their intended effect. This is a power to have in place if other elements of the programme do not work.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on whether Clause 15 should stand part of the Bill. Having outlined the broad intention of the profit cap, I want to be clear that, although some private providers are clearly doing brilliant work, we want to ensure that all providers deliver high-quality placements at sustainable cost. As I say, we know that this is not always happening.
The Competition and Markets Authority found the market to be dysfunctional and estimated that the largest private children’s social care placement providers were making profit margins of between 19% and 36%—well above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. As I have said previously, excess profits have not led to sufficient supply in this market. Furthermore, making these levels of profit from providing placements for some of our most vulnerable children is unacceptable and must end.
This clause provides important backstop powers to ensure that the Government can take action, if needed, to end profiteering. It also sends a clear signal to providers that the Government will not hesitate to take regulatory action to restrict this unacceptable behaviour if profit-making is not reined in. It is not the Government’s intention to extend these powers to any other sectors at this point, although I can confirm that the provisions would cover supported accommodation, along with the other elements noble Lords have already outlined.
To be frank, I hope that it does not become necessary to use these powers. I hope that people see the writing on the wall that there is an impact from the other elements of the Government’s plans, and that we see profits delivered at a more reasonable level and, more importantly, placement sufficiency improving. However, if it became necessary to use these powers, the clause already includes important safeguards through restrictions on the powers to ensure that they are used appropriately. Of course, if they were to be used, the point at which that was determined would be dependent on market conditions and profit levels at that particular point.
Regulations may be made only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are necessary on value-for-money grounds. The Secretary of State must also have regard to the welfare of looked-after children and the interests of local authorities and providers, including the opportunity to make a profit. Crucially, this clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations. This will be particularly important to ensure that all interests are considered in determining issues, such as how a cap would be calculated and the level at which it would be set. That would be the point at which the particular nature of profit levels—which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked about—would be considered in detail. In addition, Clause 15 also provides for regulations to be made that set out important details about the administration of any future profit cap by providing for annual returns from registered providers and the ability to request supplementary information. I hope that noble Lords can see from the discussions we have had on this Bill—notwithstanding other areas—just how important these powers are to ensuring that the Government can take proportionate action, if needed, to restrict profit-making in the market.
Amendments 504A and 505A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to require the Secretary of State to publish a report that would clarify the supply and capacity of independent children’s homes and independent fostering agencies, and the expected impact of the profit cap on the number of available placements, before Clause 15 is commenced. To reiterate, if the profit cap was to be commenced, this would be at a later stage, at which there may well be a different set of market conditions. We intend to use the powers in Clause 15 only if profiteering is not brought under control through the wider package of measures that we have set out.
The consultation requirement in this clause is particularly important because it will outline the details of the proposed cap itself and require the Government to respond and publish that response. This will set out our rationale, including on the matters in the noble Baroness’s amendment, if we judge that a cap is needed. In addition, the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations will set out the policy rationale. In effect, that already fulfils the aim of these amendments to require a report to be published. In response to the noble Baroness’s question, the regulations will, of course, be made by virtue of the affirmative resolution procedure, so there will be the opportunity to cover these matters in debate and address their potential impact. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness that a report on the impact and design of the profit cap would be necessary before it could be implemented.
I turn to Amendment 142A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which seeks to limit the ability of the Secretary of State to impose financial penalties. I understand her specific questions. We expect the vast majority of any penalties issued to fall on corporate structures of one form or another. First, however, as we said on Tuesday, an individual might run a provider within scope—for example, a children’s home—as a sole trader. It would seem strange and surprising if that sole trader were making profits that would be likely to breach a cap, but it would be a bit bizarre if that were way to avoid a profit cap, were it to be necessary to introduce one.
Secondly, even within a corporate structure, there might be an individual who is personally culpable for a breach under the requirements of Clauses 14 and 15. The ability to issue a financial penalty in those circumstances might act as a strong deterrent—the finance director, for example. Of course, the Government do not intend to issue financial penalties that would be disproportionate or unfair on an individual. Indeed, Clause 17 sets out a number of factors that must be considered in determining the amount of a penalty. These include the impact of that penalty on the person in question, the nature and seriousness of the offence, and any past breaches and mitigating or aggravating factors.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 142B and 142C, which seek to restrict the financial penalty that may be imposed for breaches. While the Bill does not limit the financial penalty that can be issued for a breach of the requirements, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that, importantly, we will set the maximum amount in regulations, after we have engaged in full consultation with interested parties to determine the most appropriate maximum for any financial penalties. That will allow us to adjust the maximum amount over time, as necessary, and regulations made will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That will afford Parliament the opportunity to debate and scrutinise the Government’s proposals, and the Government to provide timely answers at that point to issues such as profit levels and operating arrangements, which the noble Baroness identified. Of course, even if a maximum amount is set, that does not necessarily mean that a provider would automatically be fined the maximum amount. As set out in Clause 17, there will be discretion when determining an appropriate amount for any financial penalty.
I hope that that provides more clarification of some of the meanings in this clause, that it responds appropriately to the amendments the noble Baroness has tabled, and that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, has the right to reply.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
I have already indicated my intention to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply.
On the point of principle—why you would put a profit cap on one area of the economy where you think there is profiteering on the back of vulnerable children, but not on another—the Minister said that there was no intention to extend this; indeed, she said that she hoped it would not be used. I certainly agree with that, but I do not really understand why, where children have been sexually assaulted or raped and companies are making far higher profit margins than the ones we are talking about here, the Government would choose to apply a profit cap on one and not the other. That does not feel very coherent to me.
I also felt that the Minister was slightly selective in the quotes she chose to identify from the Competition and Markets Authority report. The CMA was clear that it thought that a profit cap was not a good idea. I would also like to clarify something for the record. I think the Minister suggested that I said that current margins were driving supply. I said that current margins, according to the recent data, are uneven and actually falling, so I did not suggest that they were driving supply.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness cited analysis that expressed a concern that by capping profits, you would somehow or other reduce supply in the market. I was simply making the point that the converse—that is, excessive profits—has not driven supply in the market.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I understand that, and I stand by what I said. There is a risk that this will result in an exiting of capacity, and that the reverse of what the Government rightly want to happen will happen: that in some areas that will put even more pressure on capacity and price. I do not accept that you can say on the one hand that these margins are unacceptable, but, on the other, you cannot say what is acceptable.
What we are seeing is a failure of commissioning. One of my amendments in an earlier group—I think it was Amendment 119ZA, but I may be wrong—sought to align the interests of children and those of operators. The commissioning model we have today is not working, and that needs to be fundamentally addressed. Maybe the Government could reconsider their response. We have examples in defence and pharmaceuticals of commissioners setting what is an acceptable margin, and providers bidding or not bidding based on that margin. I do not understand why the Government cannot say what an acceptable margin would be.
I accept that the Minister’s response to my Amendments 504A and 505A goes at least some way towards what I was aiming for. I was more troubled by her response on natural persons. I thought we were talking about 10 sole traders, but we are now talking about finance directors in businesses, so I think that my concerns are entirely valid.
On financial penalties, my recollection, which may be wrong, is that we have a limit on fines in the Online Safety Act. The Minister will correct me if it is in regulations but, if it is in that Act, I do not see why it cannot be in this Bill too. That matters because we need local authorities, charities, social enterprises or the private sector to add capacity in those areas and, without certainty, they could be forgiven for hesitating.
A striking omission in the Minister’s remarks—perhaps she could respond in writing on this—concerns what was said at the Dispatch Box on Tuesday about the level of profitability in the sector. I think I am right in saying that the figure was for 19 businesses and not the whole sector. I repeat: the financial regime that the department wants to introduce is very sophisticated, and I do not think it fair to send a Minister to the Dispatch Box with out-of-date and incorrect data.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this stand part notice is to probe, and therefore understand, what changes the Government intend to make to the regulation of agency social workers and how those changes will work in practice.
I am very well aware of the concerns about social worker recruitment, but I was in fact slightly surprised when preparing for this debate to find that, as of 30 September 2024, there were 34,300 children and family social workers in total, which I gather is the peak since data started to be collected in 2017; and 6,500 agency social workers, which is the lowest since data collection started. Vacancies fell by 6.9% year on year, there was a drop in staff turnover of 13.8% and the average caseload fell to 15.4%. The vacancy rate is still high at 17%, but down from 22% in 2022, and 76% of vacancies were filled by agency social workers. Retention has improved, with the number leaving to work in an agency falling by 38%, while the number of social workers leaving the profession entirely fell by 5.3%. So I know the situation on the ground is extremely difficult, but I think it is helpful to have a bit of context.
As I understand it, in terms of the current regulatory environment, agency children and family social workers are covered by the Agency Rules: Statutory guidance for Local Authorities on the Use of Agency Child and Family Social Workers of September 2024. As I understand it, this has the same aims as the proposed regulations: to control costs, improve quality, reduce turnover and ensure that governance is retained by local authorities. Two main requirements are planned to be implemented this year: first, there must be data collection by local authorities on the number of agency workers, with the first submission having happened in April and May 2025; and, secondly, that local authorities must submit plans on locally agreed price caps by this October. The main thrust of Clause 19, therefore, is to make regulations for what is already covered in statutory guidance.
The department’s policy summary says that the Government intend to regulate
“a broader cohort of agency workers than child and family social workers including, but not limited to, social workers”—
forgive me for being slow, but it is not the clearest explanation. The summary goes on to state:
“The regulations are likely to include similar provision to the current statutory guidance which currently applies to social workers only, but to a wider cohort of workers”.
Sir Humphrey would be proud.
In the other place, the Minister for School Standards said on 28 January that this could include
“agency workers delivering targeted early intervention or family help”.—[Official Report, Commons, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, 28/1/25; col. 234.]
I therefore ask: are the Government’s plans restricted to these two groups only, and if not, who else will be covered? How many of those workers are there nationally? And what is the current cost of agency workers in the different categories to local authorities? The proposal to expand the replacement regulations to a wider cohort is not defined anywhere in the Bill or the accompanying policy summary, so it would help to understand the Government’s intentions better.
Can the Minister also explain how the regulations will differ in terms of local discretion from the current statutory guidance? I am unclear on this, but perhaps suspicious that it might result in a more directive approach from the department and less discretion for local authorities themselves. Can she confirm that there will be exceptions to the specific requirements detailed in the regulations, for example for payments above the national rate if there is a local staffing crisis?
The Minister knows that the use of agency workers varies greatly across the country, but the powers in this clause are wide-ranging and—yet again—are going to be set out in regulations. The powers in new Section 32A(4)(b) and (c) appear to be very broad indeed, including about how social workers will be managed and the terms on which they may be supplied, including the amounts that may be paid under such arrangements. This would allow the Secretary of State to set payment rates from Whitehall. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can explain to the Committee why this is a good idea.
The fundamental problem underlying this clause is, as we debated in the area of children’s homes and foster placements, a shortage of capacity. No local authority is using agency workers other than because it has no choice but to do so. The previous Government had taken steps to address this with the Step Up to Social Work scheme and the creation of social work apprenticeships. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of these? I beg to move.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave the background in terms of the statistics and figures, which make for quite a salutary understanding. Agency workers are, as we know, three times more likely to leave a case mid-assessment compared with permanent staff, which obviously would increase risks to children. Let us remember that local authorities spend £500 million annually on agency social workers—on average 60% to 70% more per worker than on permanent staff. Inconsistencies of local policies allow agency staff to move frequently between councils, undermining safeguarding and continuity and, of course, causing resource churn—what a phrase, “resource churn”.
Some rural and high-need areas rely on agency workers due to staff shortages, with poorly defined regulation risks shrinking this vital stopgap workforce. Do we ensure that the training, supervision and caseload standards for agency workers are the same as those of permanent staff? I worry considerably that we see permanent local authority staff taking early redundancy payments and then reappearing as agency workers. In some cases—I do not know whether this is the case with social workers; my research has not shown me that yet—they are then reappointed by other local authorities. That surely cannot be right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right to raise that, but—I hope she will not take this the wrong way—the figures that she cited are as much the responsibility of the previous Government as they are figures that the present Government have had to inherit. Towards the end, she mentioned some of the initiatives that her Government had started; I do not know whether the Minister has a briefing on them, but it would be interesting to know whether they have at all been helpful.
One thing I cannot understand—well, I can understand it—is that many public services face a shortage of public service workers. It is not just social workers; it is right across the board—teachers spring to mind. Yet at the same time our universities face shortages of students wanting to come to university. Surely, that is a way of sorting that out. Why do people not want to go into social work? I know why; you know why. Why do people not want to go into teaching? I know why; you know why. That is the answer to the problem: we want to make people want to be teachers and social workers, and we want our higher education and further education sectors to be geared up to that. The Government’s mantra, which we all agree with, is, “Training, training, training”, but training is no use if people are not prepared to take it up. This is a classic example of the problem we face.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I agree with all the questions that have been asked by the previous speakers. The use of agency workers is apparent when we see the variety of people who come to court to give evidence. Obviously, there is a problem of lack of capacity, but there are two real problems. The first is the higher cost of agency workers and the second is the lack of continuity which their use involves. Continuity is particularly important when one is considering work involving families and children, who need familiarity and continuity. The noble Lord is quite right. Surprisingly, sometimes the same worker reappears, no longer as an employed social worker but as an agency worker, and one is frankly pleased to see a familiar face. But also, too often, it is somebody completely different who has not grasped the basics of what has been happening hitherto.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I urge the Minister to increase the incomes of social workers, so that they are not tempted to become agency workers, who are of course paid a lot more than social workers. The pay levels of these workers need to be addressed.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, through the introduction of a regulation-making power, Clause 19 allow the Government to take stronger action to alleviate the significant affordability and stability challenges that have arisen from the increase in the use and cost of agency workers in local authority children’s social care in England. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, identified some of the progress being made in the staffing of children’s social care. I can confirm that the current level of agency use in the sector stands at 16.2%, a small fall on the previous year, but she is also right, of course, that this varies considerably from authority to authority.
What I would say about that 16.2% is that, in essence, more than one in eight of the people who are working in children’s social care do not have the long-term association with their employers that we would expect to see in any service where we were able to provide the training, the stability and the certainty about future costs that we would want. It is considerably higher than in similar sectors, whether in the health service or in education.
Agency work continues to be a considerable issue within children’s social care. That is not to say that there is not excellent work being carried out by individual agency social workers—I know from my previous experience in Sandwell Children’s Trust that there are many excellent agency workers. Nevertheless, the cost and stability issues that I have outlined remain serious for local authorities and those providing children’s social care. This clause ensures that while agency workers will remain an important part of local authority children’s social care, they will not become a long-term replacement for a permanent, stable workforce. It will allow the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on the use of agency workers in English local authority children’s social care services.
I accept that progress has been made since the introduction by the last Government of the statutory guidance relating to local authority children’s social care services, but that was limited specifically to social workers. We want to extend the framework beyond social workers to the wider local authority children’s social care workforce, including workers such as those delivering early intervention or family help.
A new phenomenon has come into the workforce, and particularly agency provision within children’s social care: that of project teams, where agencies provide not just individual workers but teams to respond to particular challenges. In doing that, partly through the associated management costs and partly through the range of different workers, there are even larger uplifts in the amount of money charged to local authorities. I have seen from personal experience that it is not unusual for social workers and other staff in those teams to be earning £50 an hour or upwards. We may well think that people who are doing this important work are worth £50 an hour, but that is a considerable and, some might argue, unaffordable premium over social workers and other workers who are employed on a permanent basis with teams.
There is a broader range of workers that we should cover here, and a requirement to strengthen some of the principles in the statutory guidance, both by widening it and by this legislative provision. We will of course work in partnership with stakeholders across the system, including agencies, to ensure that the proposals implemented are proportionate and effective. They will make clear to local authorities, the recruitment sector and agency workers what they should expect from one another, and the consistency that this brings to the market will benefit all parties. If we are able by doing this to reduce local authority spend on agency workers, that will allow local authorities to invest more in services supporting children and families and enhance the offer to permanent employees.
I take the broader point that one important way of solving this problem of agency workers is to ensure that those permanently employed, either as social workers or doing other work in children’s social care, get the rewards that they deserve, receive the training that they need in order to get the career satisfaction and progression that they would want, and are employed by local authorities and children’s trusts in ways that value them and provide them with the resources they need. All those things are important, and the Government are addressing them all, but that does not remove the requirement that we believe exists for a stronger ability to make regulations covering children’s social workers and to broaden the scope of those regulations, which is what this clause enables us to do.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response and her explanation. I think I understand now the scope that the Government intend in terms of the wider social care workforce, although I did not hear her give the Government’s estimate of the number of agency workers involved in that area and the cost to local authorities. Maybe if the department has that data, it could write to us and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly raised the issue of social workers retiring and then reappearing, magically, as agency social workers, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, highlighted the impact of that in a court setting, with the obvious cost to the local authority and the disruption and lack of continuity. Given that this builds very much on the statutory guidance that we prepared when in government, we hope that this works really well for the Government in achieving greater affordability and continuity of staff.
I guess we are in a world where the working environment has changed, and social workers can now do a couple of days a week of agency work and work from home the rest of the time. Those are challenges that I am sure the Government are wrestling with, and we wish them every success in so doing.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
(e) to have due regard to the need to remove or minimise the disadvantages suffered by looked-after children and relevant young persons.”Member's explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to expand and strengthen Clause 21 by replacing the light-touch duty to be “alert to” their needs with a stronger requirement for public bodies to have “due regard” to eliminating disadvantage and to take reasonable steps to mitigate any harmful effects of their policies. The amendment intends to create a legally enforceable, lifelong safeguard for anyone who has ever been in care.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, I move the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. In relation to Amendment 146B, 120 councils around the country have already committed themselves voluntarily to embrace the “due regard” implementation, but this amendment intends to create a legally enforceable, legislative and lifelong safeguard across government for anyone who has ever been in care.
The tragic case of Nonita Grabovskyte starkly demonstrates the urgent necessity for this amendment. Nonita’s death highlighted severe systemic failures by the corporate parent and associated agencies, as identified by the recent inquest. These failures directly contributed to her preventable death, underscoring how critical it is that public bodies proactively mitigate the disadvantages faced by care leavers. Had all parties exercised due regard to eliminate these disadvantages, Nonita’s death might have been prevented.
Ground-breaking research from University College London reveals that care leavers are 70% more likely to die prematurely than their peers, living on average 20 years fewer. Adults who spent time in care between 1971 to 2001 were significantly more vulnerable to premature mortality, including unnatural deaths such as suicides or accidents.
Terry Galloway, who campaigns passionately for these changes, personally embodies these stark statistics. Terry and his siblings, Hazel and James, were all care experienced. Tragically, Hazel and James died prematurely, embodying the cruel reality highlighted by UCL’s research. Shortly before Hazel was murdered by domestic violence, she and Terry made a solemn promise to change the care system to prevent others from enduring their experiences. Terry’s journey through care was marked by abuse, repeated separations from his siblings and frequent moves involving over 100 different placements.
Children who have experienced abuse and neglect prior to, or during, their time in care may remain at heightened risk of similar abuse as they enter adulthood and beyond. The clause in the Bill that requires public bodies merely to be “alert” to these issues is insufficient. Having due regard requires active, preventative measures through impact assessments, to genuinely protect vulnerable young adults from repeated victimisation.
The urgency is not only in terms of the policy enaction of the corporate parent system and the Government but around the cultural context. This amendment is necessary not only for legal clarity, but to counter negative perceptions of care-experienced young people, exemplified by a recent Reform councillor’s statement characterising children in care as
“not just naughty children, they can be downright evil”.
Such harmful rhetoric underscores why robust legal protections and proactive obligations are essential for systemic cultural change and safeguarding the well-being and futures of care-experienced individuals.
Amendment 147A strengthens the existing duty, moving beyond simply being aware of the needs of children in care and requiring much more active engagement. If a school policy affects children in care, the school must consider how that policy might disadvantage them and take steps to mitigate any negative impacts, such as providing additional support or adjusting the policy. This would strengthen the corporate parenting responsibilities in a way that will actually make a difference to people’s lives.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions thus far. Amendment 146B in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester seeks to strengthen the duty on the local authority to ensure that it has due regard to that very duty to either remove or minimise the disadvantages faced by looked-after children. In applying this language, the local authority has a stronger legal duty to support the looked-after children in its area. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for putting the case so well.
Amendment 147A, also in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, builds on the previous amendment in the right reverend Prelate’s name, and would require local authorities not only to be aware of the disadvantages that looked-after children in their area face but also to take steps to avoid and reduce these disadvantages. It is vitally important that local authorities fully support the looked-after children in their area and that they take all the steps and precautions possible to prevent looked-after children from being harmed in any way by the policies they introduce. These amendments seem entirely sensible, and we thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing these issues to the Committee.
Amendment 151 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which I have signed, seeks to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of relevant authorities in Schedule 1. This amendment seeks to ensure that the future career opportunities of looked-after children are considered as a priority, which is most appropriate. There are an alarming number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, and this amendment seeks to quite rightly place importance on finding young people who were previously looked-after children appropriate career development opportunities.
I hope all noble Lords would agree that giving disadvantaged young people the best career advice possible and helping them on that route-to-employment journey is absolutely essential. Whether it be assisting with writing CVs and cover letters, preparing for interviews, gaining work experience and job trialling, providing guidance and support for individuals looking to start their own businesses or providing detailed knowledge of the local labour markets to help employers find the right candidates, these are essential foundation stones to help our young workforce.
Our Amendment 152A addresses the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House, which included the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Finlay and Lady Ramsey, regarding Clause 24:
“we recommend that the guidance is made subject to parliamentary scrutiny, with the draft negative procedure offering an appropriate level of scrutiny”.
His Majesty’s Government’s Amendments 148 to 150 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, are technical amendments and seek only to clarify the reference to integrated care boards and NHS foundation trusts, and His Majesty’s Official Opposition will not seek to oppose them.
We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on these important amendments and trust that His Majesty’s Government will see fit to acknowledge and incorporate into the Bill these positive amendments.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, these amendments go to one of the most important points about just how important the parent is in a child’s upbringing. Many years ago I came across a piece of black humour that never seems to stop giving: the first thing that a disabled child, or a child with special educational needs, must do to be a success is to choose their parents correctly. Without that back-up, you are asking a lot of any system. Making sure that all the systems take that seriously is key.
The situation has got better and there has been progress, but we are not there yet. The statistics—which we all have in front of us and have all talked about—prove that. Still, people who lack that strong body of support tend to fail, and often quite dramatically. Success—even moderate success—within that group is celebrated, so it is important that we go forward with this work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—who is my friend—and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, were right to table an amendment saying that jobcentres should be brought into this. That would expand the web of support and make sure it goes wide and goes through. If people do not have the central drive, we will need a wider net to pick them up when they slip. I hope that the Government will give us some positive response to this approach, because it is needed. They have gone far; go a little further.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 151. My friend—the noble Lord, Lord Addington—has done my job for me, but I will not be done out of my few moments to speak.
I am absolutely thrilled that the Bill seeks to strengthen the support provided to looked-after children and care leavers. I seek to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of organisations classified as a relevant authority. Currently, the authorities listed—I will not name every single one—include central government, education, health and youth justice. On a previous amendment I gave something of a statistic sandwich, but let me remind noble Lords of those figures. As at May 2025, there were 923,000 NEETs, and 41% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 were deemed to be NEET. Some 66% of young people in Feltham young offender institution, and 25% of the adult prison population, have been in care. That is frightening.
Ultimately, the Bill seeks to improve outcomes for looked-after children and care leavers, but the one organisation that is missing is Jobcentre Plus. I have known that organisation for—I do not want to give away my age—35 to 40 years. I know people who have worked there for 25 years; they ring me and tell me about all the things they are doing or are struggling with. Jobcentre Plus has an excellent network of staff and of third-sector and other organisations that, collectively, can wrap these people up in their arms and make sure that we improve outcomes for young people. The rationale for its existence is sustainable employment—which is critical to care leavers and looked-after children—and jobcentres are already delivering services aligned with the Bill’s aspiration.
Recently I went to visit the Margate task force. It is in a room not much smaller than this wonderful Chamber, but it has Jobcentre Plus, the police, immigration and social services in there—you name it, it is there. The youngsters and the people at most risk of getting themselves into trouble are known to them all, and when there is a problem they can sort it. I cannot speak highly enough of the potential for them to be added to this list.
Formal inclusion of jobcentres would ensure accountability and consistency in the quest. Their role has the potential to improve outcomes for all young people, particularly those who are in care and looked after, and help them make a good transition to the world of work, giving them the best start in life. I spent yesterday talking to another organisation about how, if we started this thing in schools, if we got hold of them and started early, we could prevent a lot of this happening—but you have heard all that from me before, so I will not go on again.
I urge the Minister to include jobcentres and their network of excellent delivery partners in the list of relevant authorities. I look forward to her reply and live in hope that she will do this or, if not, help us understand why.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, all these amendments help in some way and are important. It seems to me that Thursday afternoon in the Chamber has become friends day. I will add just a few thoughts. On the whole issue of children in care, we have constantly said that we should do everything that we possibly can to support those children and young people.
To add to the figures that the noble Earl gave, 13% of care leavers go on to higher education by the age of 19, but that compares with 43% of all young people. They also have higher rates of homelessness, unemployment and mental illness. The noble Earl mentioned those young people not in education, employment or training, and those figures are starting to deteriorate rather than improve. We need to watch that situation very carefully.
On balance, I support Amendment 151 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, but I just make this additional point: expanding duties to more bodies may stretch already underresourced systems, especially if there is no additional funding allocated to support any legal changes.
I will make one point that has not been mentioned by any noble Lord. It is about children in care who do not have British citizenship and lack the support to secure it, risking detention, loss of rights or removal. As we know, the average cost of registration is £1,012, and that is often a significant barrier. Immigration and asylum decision-making has historically failed to consider the welfare of children, particularly those under Section 22 of the Children Act. Maybe the Minister can respond to that issue when she replies.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Lord’s point about resources and stretching people too far is well made. I would never want to do that, but these people are doing it now. I sat with a lady who has worked for the jobcentre for 25 years. People she has helped still come to her before they get into trouble, and I just think it is well worth considering.
Lord Storey (LD)
For a number of years, when the noble Baroness’s Government were running things, I was always concerned about the issue of Jobcentre Plus mentors, who are hugely important in this area, and was trying to probe to find out what training they had. I never got a straight answer, and never found out whether they were equipped with the tools to do the work, particularly in this area.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott’s amendment on jobcentres. I hear the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about resource stretch, but from my own experience of this in my academy trust, we have about 50 looked-after children, and I require a report on them to come to every one of the trustees’ board meetings. It does not cost anything, but it just gives a little bit of focus to these very vulnerable children.
The same could apply in jobcentres; it just needs an asterisk by the person’s name so that when the advisor is talking to him or her, they can use a little bit more empathy and maybe ask a couple more questions about the status of that child. I strongly support my noble friend and hope that the Government will support her amendment as well.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the very compassionate comments that ran through their suggestions.
By way of background, the new corporate parenting measures in the Bill will, for the first time, impose a duty on a number of public bodies to be alert to matters that affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers. This means that every Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, schools, colleges, NHS England, integrated care boards, NHS trusts and foundation trusts, Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and the Youth Justice Board will be named as corporate parents and therefore will be required to take the needs and circumstances of looked-after children and care leavers into account when designing policies and delivering services that affect them.
There were powerful comments from all sides, which I hope to address in some more detail. But I start by emphasising that I believe all of us in the public sector or in a position to drive change have a responsibility and, indeed, a moral obligation to do this, levelling the playing field for looked-after children and care leavers, who, as we have heard, are among the most vulnerable groups in our society, have suffered the worst outcomes across a range of measures and deserve this attention to detail, care and understanding, which, quite frankly, is not presently evident in all areas.
We have had lots of figures, but I will add some more: some 26% of the homeless population are care experienced, around one-quarter of the adult prison population have been in care as a child and—as we have heard, but this is a slightly different take on it—care leavers aged 19 to 21 are more than three times more likely than their peers to be not in education, employment or training. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln referenced Terry Galloway, and it was my privilege to come into contact with Terry through my previous role before I came into this House. I do not think I have ever met anyone who is quite so determined, persistent and absolutely dedicated on behalf of other young people across the whole of the country, so I pay tribute to him from us all.
Government Amendments 148 to 150 in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith are minor and technical amendments simply to improve the drafting of the list of corporate parents in Schedule 1. Amendments 148 and 149 add clarity to the definition of integrated care boards and NHS foundation trusts. Amendment 150 clarifies that the reference to NHS trusts in the list of corporate parents applies only to NHS trusts in England.
Clause 21 sets out the responsibilities to be introduced for corporate parents, and the duty aims to drive a widespread culture change across the public sector, which will involve adapting services; increasing awareness of matters that adversely affect looked-after children and care leavers; importantly, tackling stigma and discrimination; and improving all aspects of their lives.
Clause 23 introduces a duty for new corporate parents and local authorities in England to work collaboratively when performing their respective corporate parenting duties. This would prevent silo working—we are all well aware of how damaging people working in their narrow fields can be, particularly in this very important area—and highlight where duplication of effort sometimes gets in the way and how we can make sure that the conversations happen between all relevant people, to help deliver targeted and timely support. Running through all this is a constant reminder of the importance of listening to young people themselves and making sure that their influence is heard and acted upon. We have experience at local authority level of making departments work with responsibility, picking up the corporate parenting responsibilities. That experience will help inform the work of the national institutions to show that it is not only the right thing to do but is empowering in its own right and changes behaviours in a very constructive and positive way.
I turn to Amendment 151, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—I want to continue to bring noble Lords together in their mutual admiration, and I would hate to get in the way of this. The amendment seeks to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of relevant authorities to which the corporate parenting duty applies. Of course, I recognise the passion for this area of work and, importantly, for the personnel who deliver the services. We know that the statistics are far from where they need to be, which is why this Government are absolutely determined to work in this space to make sure that the opportunities we create are available for all. That has to be a basic understanding. While agreeing with the noble Baroness that Jobcentre Plus plays the crucial role in supporting care leavers in making that difficult transition to parenthood, whether through training or a whole range of different skills, I am pleased to be able to reassure her that her amendment is not necessary, as Jobcentre Plus is part of the Department for Work and Pensions and therefore is already in scope of the measures by virtue of the inclusion of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We have several other examples of good practice in this space—
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, having an overall duty and having an access point to make sure that it happens are very often different—I mean, it just happens in government. If the Minister could write to us, telling us how the Government propose to implement that, it would remove certain anxieties on this.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I will consider whether that is necessary when I get to the end of my speaking notes.
To continue, the corporate parenting responsibilities will also apply to bodies that exercise functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, such as the Prison and Probation Service. Of course, there should be real overlap between the different services in this regard. This will be explained in statutory guidance. So that it can be rolled out properly, it is absolutely crucial that, as it is written, the statutory guidance is co-produced and everyone has an opportunity to put money in.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I have no desire to put pressure on the Minister, because I know what it is like to be there, responding to a debate. She is doing very well and giving us confidence. Can she tell the House when the statutory guidance might be available? Can she go back and talk to colleagues and see whether there is any clarification she could put in writing to add to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has just made and to the points in my contribution? Or could we have a cup of tea and talk about it? That might sound better to her; I see that she is smiling.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am from Yorkshire. A cup of tea and perhaps a piece of cake or a biscuit would be absolutely great.
This is a very important point. We want to reassure the House of the level of detail that is going to go into this. I cannot give a guarantee of exact timing, but I am happy to keep the conversations going. While we are on the same page, I think the noble Lord, Lord Storey, made a valid point about the risk of increasing burdens, but I want to reassure him that the responsibilities do not require corporate parents to provide new services or to make specific policy changes that are not compatible with their wider priorities or affordable within their existing budgets. The broad duties can be implemented in a way that reflects the nature and circumstances of the individual corporate parent. I made the point earlier that it is the culture change—the different way of approaching this— that is critical to make sure that this is picked up across the board and drives its way through.
I turn to Amendments 146B and 147A, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and brought to the House by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln—I thank him for doing that and for the way that he got over the points that I know from previous experience that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was concerned about. I have been involved in debates with him on these issues over the last few months and recognise his concern and passion for this area.
These amendments probe the extent to which the corporate parenting responsibilities will lead to action by corporate parents in removing or minimising the disadvantages suffered by looked-after children and care leavers, or in taking steps to avoid, reduce or otherwise mitigate any adverse impact of its policies and practices on them. I agree with the amendments’ intention, but I am satisfied that this is achieved through the duties set out in Clause 21 requiring corporate parents to be alert to matters which might negatively affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, to assess the availability and accessibility of their services, and to seek to provide opportunities to participate in activities which enhance their well-being or employment prospects. The right reverend Prelate is quite right to highlight the rhetoric that can be so damaging, which means that these areas of work are still necessary.
There are plenty of examples of action taken to minimise the disadvantages that care leavers face in the labour market, including the NHS Universal Family Programme, which has supported almost 200 care leavers to find jobs, and the Civil Service Care Leavers Internship Scheme, which has enabled more than 1,000 care leavers to take up opportunities in the Civil Service. The corporate parenting duty will mean that such best practice is shared, creating incremental improvements to care leaver outcomes. It is beholden on everyone who works in this space—and of course it is not just the public sector; the private sector has in many areas stepped up to the plate—to be alert to the range or cocktail of circumstances that contribute to poor lifetime outcomes. Educational disadvantage, financial vulnerability, loneliness, isolation, poor mental health, and the higher risk of exploitation and harm are all factors that we need to take into account.
We cannot repeat enough that the most effective way for corporate parents to understand these challenges is to engage directly with the young people looked after, care leavers and their representatives. We will appoint an expert external organisation to support this engagement so that it is taken forward with the utmost seriousness. We will set out in statutory guidance the examples of best practice to show how the duty can apply to particular corporate parents. We will also set out ways for corporate parents to mitigate the negative impacts of their policies on looked-after children and care leavers.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I want to pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, was saying about needs. It is really alarming that nearly a million young people aged between 16 and 25 are not in education, employment or training. I am a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on social mobility. While not wishing to pre-empt what our chair will say in her report, I am sure that this will be a strong recommendation from the committee. We are very keen to know, especially if I do not press the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, what the Government’s intention is within the operation of this Bill to address this urgent and damaging situation for such a significant number of young people, some of whom are not able even to leave their bedroom and have insufficient support. What is the Government’s intention in this regard? I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(1A) When discharging its duty under subsection (1), the relevant authority must consider the right to British citizenship of looked-after and relevant young people and how that entitlement can be secured to avoid adverse effect on their wellbeing.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 152. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who regrets that he cannot be here—perhaps an absent friend, taking what was said earlier—and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for supporting that amendment.
Amendment 152 would remove the exclusion of immigration, asylum and nationality functions from the new corporate parenting duty. There is strong support throughout the children’s sector for the new corporate parenting duty, but there is also widespread dismay that it explicitly excludes immigration, asylum and nationality matters. This exclusion was raised with the Children’s Minister by the Education Select Committee in the Commons. In a subsequent letter, she explained that
“immigration functions are exempt because the Home Office is already subject to existing statutory duties to safeguard children through Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act”.
Not being a lawyer, I sought advice from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, and I am very grateful for its response. ILPA was clear that Section 55 does not justify the exclusion, as argued by Minister Daby. The Section 55 duty is to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children; this is different from the set of duties in Clause 21(1), which is specific to looked-after children. ILPA advises that the new duties are neither in conflict with nor identical to the existing Section 55 duties.
The Refugee and Migrant Children's Consortium, to which I am also grateful for its help, likewise argues that the new duties are fully complementary to and compatible with Section 55. They are, moreover, very modest, as they apply only so far as compliance with the duties is
“consistent with the proper exercise of a Department's functions”
and is “reasonably practicable”. Nevertheless, they are important. Given that this explanation does not really hold water, can my noble friend the Minister explain exactly which elements of Clause 21 are incompatible with immigration, asylum and nationality functions?
There is an important point of principle at stake here: the principle of universality. As the RMCC points out, children’s social care principles and children’s legislation have hitherto been universal. A carve-out such as this in a landmark piece of children’s legislation sets a dangerous precedent by setting up a two-tier care system that potentially undermines the safeguarding of some babies and children. Barnardo’s has expressed disappointment that a Labour Government should be the first to single out a group of children in this way. The principle of universality is fundamental to respecting children’s rights.
The RMCC has warned that, unamended, this clause would be the first piece of primary legislation relating to children since at least our ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to distinguish children subject to immigration control or nationality considerations as somehow different from other children. It also points out that this undermines the cross-government mission-led approach by creating a carve-out for certain functions. It is at odds with the commitment in the opportunity mission to ensure every child has the best start in life. This has serious implications for the well-being of children affected by the carve-out.
Catch22’s National Leaving Care Benchmarking Forum, which is made up of 131 local authority leaving care teams, points out that one in three young people turning 18 and leaving care last year was an unaccompanied asylum-seeker. Catch22 points to the impact that delays in the processing of immigration claims for unaccompanied children has on their mental and physical health and relationships. These children are particularly vulnerable when leaving care.
Become argues that the inclusion of immigration et cetera matters in the corporate parenting duty should
“act as a catalyst to ensure greater collaboration between the Home Office and local authorities”
and help achieve “more trauma-informed practice” in relation to a group who are highly likely to have experienced trauma before their arrival in the UK. Local authorities rely on partner organisations and government departments—the Home Office in particular—for certain functions and support. The removal of Clause 22 would
“help ensure that all children in care facing uncertainty over their immigration or asylum status receive appropriate safeguarding and protection”,
and the same applies to those entitled to register their British nationality.
The need for this was underlined by a newly published study of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people by the LSE and the University of Bedfordshire commissioned by London Councils. It highlighted a separation between practices of care and the practicalities of asylum support, even when the children had a positive relationship with their social worker. Those who did not receive social work support through the asylum process said it amplified their sense of being alone, while others who benefited from corporate parenting felt held and understood. Among the report’s recommendations is much greater involvement of social workers as corporate parents in the asylum-seeking process.
Not only does Clause 22 exclude migrant children, but in its reference to nationality functions it would appear to exclude children who are entitled to British citizenship but have to claim it, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. Can my noble friend explain why children and young people who have lived in the UK in care for most, if not all, of their lives and who are entitled to British citizenship should be covered by this exclusion, if that is indeed the case?
This group is the subject of Amendment 147, a probing amendment, which would require an authority discharging its corporate parenting responsibilities under Clause 21 to consider the right to British citizenship of looked-after children and young people and how to ensure that right is secured.
I am grateful to the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, PRCBC, of which I am a patron, and Amnesty International for their support on this matter. PRCBC provides legal assistance and representation to many children and young people to overcome formidable barriers to claiming their nationality rights. We are talking about children who may have been born in this country, who certainly have lived most of their lives here, but who have to register their right to citizenship with the Home Office under the British Nationality Act 1981. Awareness of this law remains low, including among social workers. The point of this amendment is in part simply to draw attention to the profound importance of the right to British citizenship for the identity, sense of belonging and confidence—in other words, well-being—of this group of children and young people.
PRCBC has witnessed young people devastated when they discover they are not automatically British citizens but have to register their entitlement, and some have even experienced mental breakdown as a result. In order to avoid this happening, the amendment also points to the practical need for action to improve the understanding and capacities of local authorities to ensure that this group of children and young people in their care claim their entitlement. Too many children enter care without the necessary action being taken so that nobody can now identify or obtain the evidence needed to prove that the child is a British citizen entitled to be registered as such.
The vulnerable persons team within the nationalities section of the Home Office, established under the last Government, supports local authorities to take formal steps to secure the citizenship rights of children in their care, and this is very welcome. However, as PRCBC continues to experience, too little is done too late by too many local authorities. They need to understand from the start the importance of British citizenship to the children in their care and act to ensure that vital evidence is identified and secured while it can be.
These two amendments underline the importance of the actions of local authorities and other bodies for the well-being of all children for whom they have corporate parental responsibility, regardless of immigration or nationality status.
In conclusion, returning to Amendment 152, while Clause 22 carves out a function rather than a group of children as such, the effect is to exclude a particularly vulnerable group of children and young people whose well-being is heavily dependent on immigration, asylum, and nationality functions. What this amendment comes down to is that we must put all children and their best interests first. I am sure the Government believe in this principle; therefore, I hope and trust that they will acknowledge that the effect of exclusion of any group of children from the corporate parenting duty because they are affected by immigration, asylum or nationality functions, offends this principle and will thus accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 152 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have put my name. I declare an interest as vice-president of the children’s charity, Barnardo’s.
Currently, nearly one in 10 children in care is an unaccompanied asylum seeker. While their immigration status remains uncertain they face significant disadvantages in accessing services. It is good that the Government recognise that extending corporate parenting duties to a range of public bodies has the potential to improve the agency support of children in and leaving care, yet they also decided specifically to exempt decisions relating to immigration, nationality and asylum. Barnardo’s believes that children who have fled persecution and arrive in this country seeking sanctuary must be seen as children first. They are victims who are not in control of their destiny. Amendment 152 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would end that exemption. I very much support it; I hope that the Government will too, and will show consideration and compassion to these sometimes traumatised children.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, corporate parenting means providing the best possible care, safeguarding and support, ensuring that children thrive and have opportunities to reach their full potential. It involves actively promoting their well-being, health and education, and preparing them for adulthood, mirroring what a responsible parent would do. As such, Amendment 147 seeks to ensure that local authorities must consider the rights of looked-after children to British citizenship, which is exactly what a responsible parent would indeed do. It is important that a local authority is able to focus on the well-being of the child and to consider whether this should apply to citizenship. It is certainly a most relevant issue for the Minister to opine on.
Amendment 152, which seeks to remove Clause 22(1)(a), would extend the local authority duty to take care of looked-after children to the Secretary of State
“exercising immigration, asylum and nationality functions”.
We can see plausible reasons why the Government would choose to include that exemption but it merits further discussion and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to a potentially sensitive and complicated subject.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions in this group, which relates to corporate parenting and, in particular, to immigration functions. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Lister for introducing her amendments.
Amendment 152 seeks to apply corporate parenting duties to immigration, asylum and nationality functions. As we discussed in the previous group, our new corporate parenting measures will place an important responsibility on each Secretary of State and relevant bodies to support and seek to provide opportunities for looked-after children and care leavers, which in turn will improve their long-term outcomes. This means that Secretaries of State, including the Home Secretary, and relevant public bodies are required to be alert to matters that might negatively affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, regardless of their immigration status, when exercising any functions other than those relating to asylum, immigration, nationality or customs. To be clear, children and young people in the immigration system will absolutely benefit from the additional care and support that new corporate parents will provide. The exemption is to a set of functions, not to a set of children.
This Government recognise the importance of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the UK. As my noble friend identified, this is already reflected in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Section 55 requires the Home Secretary to make arrangements for ensuring that immigration, asylum and nationality functions are discharged
“having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom”.
Statutory guidance linked to this sets out the key principles. This includes that the best interest of the child is a primary consideration when making decisions affecting children. Children should be consulted, and their wishes and feelings taken into account wherever practicable, when decisions affecting them are made. Children should have their applications dealt with in a way that minimises the uncertainty that they may experience. The guidance also emphasises the importance of interagency working.
My noble friend made the point about the requirement to speed up asylum decision-making processes and questioned whether this exclusion would mean that asylum decision-making for these children was not as quick as possible. Applying the duty to the asylum functions of the Home Office would not require it to decide asylum claims for young people in care as soon as possible on its own; that would not be the impact of applying that particular responsibility to this function. The Home Office is committed to ensuring that vulnerable claimants, such as children and care leavers, have their claims decided at the earliest opportunity. However, there are many factors, some beyond the control of the Home Office, that can delay and contribute to the length of time taken to process children’s asylum claims, such as age disputes and the availability of legal representation.
The Home Office works continuously to improve the speed of decision-making—I have to say that, under this Government, it has had some success in doing that—and reduce the number of outstanding claims for children. However, there will always be complex cases, and it is right that the Home Office takes the time to consider those carefully.
Also, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children looked after by local authorities are already subject to the general corporate parenting duties. They will be covered by the specific duties on the local authorities that care for them and by the broader duties this Bill will bring in.
The Government are reflecting on the requirement to support children in gaining certainty about their legal status, in particular in gaining citizenship, and taking further steps to consider looked-after children’s and care leavers’ interests as we reform and manage the immigration system, as set out in the White Paper Restoring Control Over the Immigration System, published on 12 May. That White Paper contained proposals to ensure that children who have been in the UK for some time and who discover, when they turn 18, that they do not have status are fully supported and able to regularise their status and settle. This will include a clear pathway for those looked-after children and care leavers. I hope that responds to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on the previous group. The Home Secretary will set out further details about how progress will be made on that objective.
Amendment 147 also deals with this issue and seeks to ensure that new corporate parents consider the right to British citizenship of looked after children and care leavers, and how that entitlement can be secured to avoid adverse effects on their well-being. Local authorities already follow a separate set of corporate parenting principles, as I have suggested, and are best placed to take steps to consider whether a young person in their care needs support to seek British citizenship.
I know from experience, and from having seen some of the practice, that considerable care is already being taken to ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and other children subject to the immigration system in care are receiving from local authorities the care and attention that they specifically need because of their needs. In fact, I can remember, when I was chairing Sandwell Children’s Trust, being asked to help a social worker assistant who was trying to ensure that two of the children for whom we were responsible were able to get the passports they needed in time to be taken on holiday by the foster parents who were caring for them.
A lot of day-to-day work is going on in this area. As I have already suggested, all that work and support for those children is not exempted by this provision in the Bill; it is only with respect to the functions that I have already talked about. The White Paper that I touched on earlier also sets out the Government’s intent to consider measures to reduce the financial barriers to accessing British nationality for young adults who have lived here through their childhood. The previous Government already removed some fees in those circumstances, back in 2022.
That the Home Secretary is bringing forward proposals in this area I hope makes clear the Government’s commitment to ensuring that children, as we seek to regularise their status in this country, are getting the necessary support, and that it will be improved by this Government. Given the assurances I have provided, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment on this point.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for making the case and reminding us that we are talking about children first. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for what was actually a very sympathetic response to what I said.
I absolutely take the point—I finished with this point—that we are taking about functions and not a group of children. I have not quite finished reading the new study that has just come out, but the trouble is that, in many cases, parts of corporate parenting functions involve asylum and immigration matters, so it is difficult to disentangle the function from the group. I will have to look more closely at what the Minister said, but I have to admit that I am not totally persuaded.
I still do not really understand why it is necessary to have this exclusion. I tabled this amendment on behalf of the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, in which there are a lot of children’s organisations. A lot of the people who are briefing on this Bill—Barnardo’s and many others—welcome the corporate parenting duty and then say, “We must not have this exclusion”. There seems to be a disconnect between their reading, interpretation and understanding of what this will mean and the Government’s. We may have to come back to that—I do not know—but I still do not really understand why it is felt necessary to have this exclusion, which is creating such alarm among children’s organisations.
On children who are entitled to claim British citizenship, I have been working on this issue for many years, pressing the previous Government and finally getting somewhere. That is not just because of me—it is primarily because of the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, which has been indefatigable in pushing on this, together with Amnesty. I welcome what is in the White Paper and look forward to getting more detail about what is meant. Certainly, after the way things were left under the previous Government, it is still difficult—it costs so much to put in that claim. I remember that when we discussed in this House the rules on who can be exempted from having to pay, we were very unhappy about them. It would be excellent if the Government were taking another look at that. The fact is that there are too many children—and my noble friend talked about them after the age of 18. Ideally, local authorities would be more aware of this and would make sure that the claim was made before young people reached the age of 18.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the entry in Schedule 1 relating to integrated care boards.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the entry in Schedule 1 relating to NHS foundation trusts.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the reference in Schedule 1 to an NHS trust is a reference to an NHS trust in England.
Lord Lucas
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 154 effectively asks the question, “Why? What is the justification for such an examination?”. I look forward to listening to the Minister’s response to Amendment 155. I beg to move.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 168, 228, 376 and 377 concern child performances and sporting activities. I declare my interest as per the register.
On Amendment 168, there is no system in place to safeguard and protect children’s earnings from financial abuse when they are engaged in performances, paid sport or modelling activities. Other countries, such as the US and numerous EU territories, have legislation in place to ensure that employers pay a percentage of the child’s earnings into a trust account where earnings are protected by the state until the child reaches the age of 18. We lag behind the times with this provision, and safeguarding and protection are long overdue.
Local authorities can add stipulations to licences—for example, that 80% must be paid into a child’s savings account or 50% used for the child’s benefit. However, these conditions differ throughout Great Britain and are sadly ineffective, as a parent can access and use the child’s money and not necessarily for the child’s benefit or in their interest. Local authorities themselves are concerned about how best to protect these earnings but, sadly, there is no system or law in place to support this.
My amendment would ensure that a small percentage of the child’s earnings is held in trust until the child reaches adulthood and is not accessible by a parent, guardian or the child themselves. If this amendment becomes law, trust accounts will protect the child’s earnings until they reach the age of 18. Income will be protected and any tax liabilities more easily calculated. As we enter a world of streaming platforms, social influencers and headline child stars, these earnings can be in the millions of pounds and we have a responsibility to ensure that all children, regardless of which local authority they reside in, have effective means to safeguard their future and their earnings.
Amendment 228 deals with a child not appearing on the school register. The Bill as it stands fails to recognise the unique needs of children working within the entertainment industry, where many are educated in flexi-alternative provisions. The safeguarding elements of this pre-approval to be absent from school have already been scrutinised by the licensing authority and the education provisions are accounted for in the conditions of the licence period.
What is proposed in the Bill is the opposite of what should be a positive. This life-changing experience for a child is regarded as a negative absence, not only for the child but for the school. It will not record the beneficial reason for their absence—merely another day missed from school, which negatively affects both the child and the school’s record and could affect its Ofsted standing. This unique opportunity should be celebrated, not penalised.
When the child is granted a licence to perform within Great Britain, the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, combined with the Children (Performances and Activities) (England) Regulations 2014, make provision for the approval of education to be shared with local authorities. Requiring this information not only to be carefully considered and shared but then duplicated and, as often happens, amended at the last minute due to the requirements of the production, would divert valuable resources away from the safeguarding of young people and the most vulnerable children.
The Bill’s current requirement to include children within the register with pre-approved flexi-education from licensing authorities would divert attention from the very children the register is intending to capture. It will slow down the process of licensing children to perform. Local authorities will require information not available at the time of a licence application to add children to the register. The licensing process, in reality, is evolving and live; it is where industry collaborates with licensing authorities. It is imperative that the process works for all parties involved.
Amendment 376 concerns a body of persons approval, or BOPA, which is in the wrong place. It currently sits within Part 6 of the regulations, which targets only performance abroad rather than performance in the UK. My amendment highlights the need for a licensing authority that approves a performance abroad or exempts a performance within the UK to notify the local authority in which the child lives. This will ensure that the local authorities are fully aware of the children who are performing, to finally join up the dots and offer a working solution using the technological advances of 2025. This in turn will help safeguard a child from overperforming and not receiving the regulated overnight rest breaks, and give consideration for meaningful education.
At present, local authorities are aware of performances by children in their area only if they have granted the licence. Exemptions granted under a body of persons approval, or licences granted by a magistrate’s court for children to perform abroad, are not shared with the local authority where the child resides. However, under the Bill, they are expected to note on the register information that is not being shared. There is currently no legal requirement or process for a magistrate’s court to inform the child’s local authority that they are missing school under the child employment abroad order, so it will not be aware of the child’s involvement in a performance.
Amendment 376 requires licensing authorities that approve a licence, or authorise a performance under a body of persons approval, to notify the local authority in which the child resides. We have a duty to protect our children, regardless of where they perform, and the current system requires urgent consideration of we license children for paid and unpaid performances, to ensure that we have an effective, joined-up approach.
Finally, Amendment 377 calls for a review of the child performance regulations 2014. Since the regulations were revised in 2014, we have seen a substantial change to the entertainment industry, with streaming platforms, new film studios and diverse opportunities for children to be involved and perform. The industry is fast-paced and must adapt to new technologies. The very interpretation of the performance regulations across each local authority makes it hard to take a balanced approach when multiple children from different areas are involved in the same production. Children performing in the UK from other countries, which have their own regulations and union rules that must be followed alongside our laws, result in a mixture of regulations that do not always have the best interests of children at heart.
In 2014, the then Government agreed to revisit these regulations after 10 years, some of which I was instrumental in securing. It is important to acknowledge that, to move forward in the best way to support all children to partake in performance, there needs to be a period of reflection to stay current with an ever-evolving industry. Would the Government commit to review the child performance regulations to include the necessary improvements needed?
Our world has changed, and we have to adapt or face being left behind, otherwise children will miss out on potentially life-changing experiences and opportunities. We have an opportunity, by agreeing to my amendments, to make a positive change for children and young people in performing arts and sporting activities. I look forward to working with the Government to make these changes.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 155. It is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and I agree with everything that she said; I therefore also support her.
What prompted me to look at this space were the government Amendments 157 and 158 on the employment of children in England and Wales and in Scotland. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that they do not sufficiently cover the difficulties and discrepancies between what is in the Bill and the on-the-ground opportunities for children in the performing arts. I was especially concerned by the timing restrictions in proposed new Clause 2(1)(d)—as well as in the proposed new paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h)—which requires children not to work before 7 am or after 8 pm. The Minister is shaking her head, so clarification from her that this does not apply to children in the performing arts would be great.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, about the opportunities for children to take part in the performing arts. My first pay packet came as a performer with Scottish Ballet at the age of nine, which introduced me to all sorts of career opportunities that I would not have had in school, including becoming a choreologist. I would therefore welcome anything to clarify that children are encouraged to take up these opportunities. I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify the licensing agreement for performing arts and children being paid as performers. I look forward to hearing her answer.
Lord Meston (CB)
Since the noble Baroness has mentioned them, I shall also offer some observations on the government amendments in advance of hearing the Minister speaking to them. Amendment 157 and the Scottish equivalent, Amendment 158, are indeed better and simpler than Clause 26 as originally formulated, but I have some reservations about either formulation.
The intention is to replace Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. A treasured possession of mine is an ancient copy of the 1933 Act. The original Section 18 provided that
“no child shall be employed … to lift, carry or move anything so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him”.
That had the merit of clarity and simplicity. The Bill will now say:
“A child may not be employed … to do any work other than light work”.
One turns to the end of the new section to find, in subsection (8), a rather wordy definition of “light work” in negative terms, which tells us what light work is not. In particular, it means
“work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed … is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and … is not such as to be harmful”
to their education, through attendance at school or otherwise. That may somewhat widen the scope of the original Section 18 but, frankly, the drafting is less focused. Indeed, whether, as drafted, it is an improvement on the original Section 18 remains to be seen. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider looking again at trying to retain some of the best of the old version in a more modern context. I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I hope that at some point the Government can look at it, perhaps before Report. Meanwhile, I will say a slightly sad farewell to the original Section 18.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in this group relating to child employment. Amendment 154 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the ability of a local authority to require medical examinations of children for their employment. This seems like an eminently sensible amendment, and we will be most interested to hear from the Minister in what circumstances His Majesty’s Government expect this power to be necessary.
Amendments 155, 168, 228, 376 and 377 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Parkinson and Lord Storey, relate to child performers and seek to protect their ability to perform. We see them often on our screens and on our stages and there can be no doubt that child talent plays a truly integral role in creating excellent productions, whether in film, television, theatre or music, so it is really important that this well-intentioned clause does not inadvertently negatively impact the creative industry but allows child performers to continue to play an active role in the industry where they choose to do so.
Amendment 156, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, who sends her apologies, seeks to probe His Majesty’s Government on the definition of “development” in relation to the definition of “light work”, which cannot include anything that is
“likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children”,
as just referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
Our amendment seeks to question how technology will be considered within this definition. There is considerable evidence that suggests that technology and the use of screens hinders children’s development and, as such, we ask the Minister whether children will be able to interact with technology in their employment. By way of an example, many restaurants and public houses use technology devices to take orders. With this definition, would it be possible that any workers under the age of 18 would not be able to use such devices?
Government Amendments 157, 158, 503, 506, 507 and 510 to 514 clarify the scope of this clause in relation to the devolved Administrations in both Scotland and Wales. His Majesty’s Official Opposition will not seek to oppose them.
Amendment 176, in the name of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, which I have signed, seeks to require an impact assessment on weekend jobs. There are many children, including my own, who work at the weekends in order to save money for clothes, their first car or a multitude of other reasons. Without wanting to state the obvious, working is brilliant. It is the first step towards understanding the value of money and saving for something. It facilitates interpersonal skills, which are so critically important in an age that is now dominated by smartphones and online conversations. It promotes punctuality, time-keeping and, to a certain extent, stability. So when Clause 26 potentially reduces the number of hours that can be worked over a weekend, we believe it is important that the impact of this should be fully assessed—hence our amendment. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions thus far on such an important topic and look forward to the response from the Minister.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I just remind the Committee that, 12 or 13 years ago, when we were looking at the Children and Families Bill, my noble friend Lady Benjamin took up this issue with great vigour, and quite rightly so. Since then, of course, times have changed, as traditional child employment laws have often failed to address online influencer work, digital content creation and remote gig roles taken up by children.
My own experience as a head teacher at a primary school was that I had a number of such children. I remember Josh Bolt, who appeared regularly as a main character in “Last Tango in Halifax”, and the problems that we faced trying to ensure that he could fulfil his acting potential. He was able to do so, and appeared in the film “Nowhere Boy”, about the life of John Lennon. But it was us bending the rules, quite frankly, and not following the exact letter of the law, which allowed him to fulfil his dreams and ambitions. There were other children as well; I think of sports and those children, both boys and girls, who went to football academies, for example. A number of them went on to have successful careers in sport.
So we must make laws that not only protect the young person but work for the young person as well, enabling them to enhance their skills and take up the opportunities that are available. According to the Education Policy Institute, part-time jobs can support resilience, time management and confidence. But, of course, unregulated work can harm education as well; it is about getting the balance right.
I am looking forward to discussing the amendments on school registration. Some schools can be overzealous on registration and do not take personal factors into account. It is really important that we listen to my noble friend Lady Benjamin, in particular; she has huge experience in this area. If we want to be a successful nation in the cultural industries, which we are, little hiccups such as this need sorting out.
One noble Lord mentioned that there are discrepancies between England, Wales and Scotland in child labour and performance law, and that creates confusion and enforcement challenges. While performance licences require education provision, oversight is inconsistent and, as I have been saying, schools sometimes incorrectly mark children absent when, in fact, that should not be the case. I am sure that the Government will want to listen to what is being said and to make this work for families and children.
I was particularly taken, as it had not occurred to me until I read the amendment, by the point that my noble friend raised at the very beginning about how these earnings should be, if you like, looked after for the future. That is a really important point.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that we have been able to have a wide debate on the measures in the Bill that relate to child employment. I am sure many noble Lords agree that employment can have a hugely beneficial impact on a child: it can contribute to their development, introduce them to the world of work and help them develop key life skills. However, current legislation needs to be updated to better reflect the world of employment today and to make things simpler and clearer for children, families and employers.
I should perhaps be clear at this point that, in this group of amendments, we are talking about two different sets of regulations. We have heard, and I will come to, the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser—by the way, both of them demonstrate the benefits of being a performer, child or otherwise. To be clear, these are two completely different sets of regulations. To respond to the specific point, the changes made in the employment regulations do not impact on the ability of children to be performers.
I speak first to the government amendments in this group, which include Amendments 157 and 158 and consequential Amendments 503, 506, 507 and 510 to 514. These amendments seek to bring these changes in employment regulations to children in Scotland and Wales too. Our aim is that all children, regardless of where they live, can benefit from these new employment opportunities. These amendments will ensure that children in Wales and Scotland, as well as children in England, will be able to take advantage of the greater flexibility that this clause allows. This means being able to work more hours on a Sunday, an hour before school, and until 8 pm—crucially, without increasing their overall weekly working hours. This is to ensure that employment does not negatively impact on their health, development and education.
We have also made a small amendment to the definition of “light work” so that it better reflects the circumstances of children who are educated at home, not just those who attend school. I will try to come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The new definition of light work is probably more appropriate at this time, when children’s work is not necessarily going to be about only the physical efforts that they are engaged in but other elements of that work which could have an impact on their health, development and education. Overall, this increased flexibility will ensure that a child can, if they want to, benefit from the positive impacts we know that the world of work can bring, and we will have a more consistent approach across Great Britain. In doing that, we will be allowing all children to benefit from the same employment opportunities. I hope noble Lords will feel able to support these government amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for those extensive replies. The delightful reminiscence from my noble friend Lady Fraser conjures up the thought of Report on the hereditary Peers Bill being conducted through the medium of expressive dance, featuring the Committee fly.
On the more prosaic question of these amendments, on Amendment 228 I hope that the Government will be determined that children should be recorded somewhere at all times. It would not be an acceptable part of the system if people could drop in and out of being registered at all. The point of the register is that we know where children are.
On Amendment 154, I got the impression that the Minister does not know any better than I do what this phrase is doing there or what it would be used for. I will write to her between now and Report to see whether we can explore what practical application it has, because I cannot see that, in the context of our modern attitude to disability, it should be the business of a local authority to say, “No, you’re in a wheelchair; you can’t do this”. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“Employment of children in England and Wales(1) The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is amended as follows.(2) For section 18 substitute—“18 Restrictions on employment of children(1) A child may not be employed to work—(a) so long as the child is under the age of 14 (subject to regulations under subsection (2));(b) to do any work other than light work;(c) to do work of a description specified in regulations made by the appropriate national authority;(d) before 7.00 a.m. or after 8.00 p.m. on any day;(e) on any day on which the child is required to attend school—(i) for more than one hour before the start of school hours,(ii) during school hours, or(iii) for more than two hours in total in the day;(f) for more than 12 hours in any week in which the child is required to attend school;(g) for more than eight hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than five hours in any day on which the child is not required to attend school;(h) for more than 35 hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than 25 hours in any week in which the child is not required to attend school;(i) for more than four hours in any day without a break of one hour;(j) at any time in a year unless at that time a person employing the child is satisfied that the child has had, or could still have, a period of at least two consecutive weeks without employment during a period in the year in which the child is not required to attend school.(2) The appropriate national authority may by regulations authorise the employment of children aged 13 to do specified descriptions of light work.(3) A child may not be employed to work except in accordance with a permit (a “child employment permit”) granted by a local authority on an application made in accordance with regulations made by the appropriate national authority.(4) The appropriate national authority may by regulations—(a) make provision in relation to child employment permits;(b) provide that subsection (3) does not apply in specified cases or circumstances;(c) make provision about the keeping of records.(5) The provision that may be made in reliance on subsection (4)(a) includes provision—(a) authorising a local authority to request such information as the authority considers appropriate, or to require a child to have a medical examination, for the purpose of enabling the authority to determine an application;(b) requiring a local authority to have regard to specified matters when determining an application;(c) for the grant of a child employment permit subject to conditions determined by a local authority; (d) requiring a child employment permit to contain specified information;(e) authorising a local authority to vary, suspend or revoke a child employment permit in specified circumstances;(f) about appeals against—(i) a decision to reject an application, or(ii) the revocation of a child employment permit;(g) imposing requirements on persons employing children (including requirements to produce child employment permits for inspection);(h) requiring or authorising a local authority, in specified circumstances, to disclose information about a child employment permit to another local authority in England or Wales or to a local authority in Scotland.(6) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision (subject to subsection (1) and regulations under subsection (2))—(a) specifying the number of hours in each day, or in each week, for which children may be employed, and the times of day at which they may be employed;(b) specifying the intervals to be allowed to children for meals and breaks, when in employment;(c) about entitlement to leave;(d) specifying other conditions to be met in relation to the employment of children.(7) Nothing in this section, or in regulations made under any provision of this section, prevents a child from doing anything—(a) under the authority of a licence granted under this Part, or(b) in a case where by virtue of subsection (3) of section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 no licence under that section is required for the child to do it.(8) In this section—“appropriate national authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;“light work” means work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed—(a) is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and(b) is not such as to be harmful to their education (through attendance at school or otherwise) as required by section 7 of the Education Act 1996 or to their participation in work experience in accordance with section 560 of that Act, or their capacity to benefit from the education received or the experience gained (as the case may be);“local authority in Scotland” means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;“specified” , in relation to regulations made under any provision of this section, means specified in the regulations;“week” means any period of seven consecutive days;“year” means a period of 12 months beginning with 1 January.18A Regulations under section 18: further provision(1) Regulations under section 18 may—(a) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(b) make provision subject to exceptions; (c) make transitional or saving provision.(2) Except as provided by subsection (3), regulations under section 18 may provide for the processing of information in accordance with the regulations not to be in breach of—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person processing the information, or(b) any other restriction on the processing of information (however imposed).(3) Regulations under section 18 are not to be read as requiring or authorising the processing of information that would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether particular processing of data would do so, take into account the duty imposed or power conferred by the provision of the regulations in question).(4) Regulations under section 18 are to be made by statutory instrument.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 18 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section 18 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of Senedd Cymru.(7) In this section“the data protection legislation” and“processing” have the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”(3) In section 21 (penalties and legal proceedings in respect of general provisions as to employment), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(4) In section 28 (powers of entry), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(5) In section 30 (interpretation), in subsection (1), after “byelaws” insert “or regulations”.(6) In Schedule 36A to the Education Act 1996, in the table, omit the entry for section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (including the title of that Act).(7) In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Act 2012 (anaw 2), in the table, in the English language and Welsh language texts, omit the entry that relates to byelaws made under section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (referred to as “adran 18 o Ddeddf Plant a Phobl Ifanc 1933” in the Welsh language text).”Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 26 makes provision for England restricting employed work by children. This amendment replaces that clause to extend the application of that provision to Wales. It also includes a change to the definition of “light work” in the inserted section 18(8) to reflect that children may receive their compulsory education outside of school.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“Employment of children in Scotland(1) The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 is amended as follows.(2) For section 28 substitute—“28 Restrictions on employment of children(1) A child may not be employed to work— (a) so long as the child is under the age of 14 (subject to regulations under subsection (2));(b) to do any work other than light work;(c) to do work of a description specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers;(d) before 7.00 a.m. or after 8.00 p.m. on any day;(e) on any day on which the child is required to attend school—(i) for more than one hour before the start of school hours,(ii) during school hours, or(iii) for more than two hours in total in the day;(f) for more than 12 hours in any week in which the child is required to attend school;(g) for more than eight hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than five hours in any day on which the child is not required to attend school;(h) for more than 35 hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than 25 hours in any week in which the child is not required to attend school;(i) for more than four hours in any day without a break of one hour;(j) at any time in a year unless at that time a person employing the child is satisfied that the child has had, or could still have, a period of at least two consecutive weeks without employment during a period in the year in which the child is not required to attend school.(2) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations authorise the employment of children aged 13 to do specified descriptions of light work.(3) A child may not be employed to work except in accordance with a permit (a “child employment permit”) granted by a local authority on an application made in accordance with regulations made by the Scottish Ministers.(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations—(a) make provision in relation to child employment permits;(b) provide that subsection (3) does not apply in specified cases or circumstances;(c) make provision about the keeping of records.(5) The provision that may be made in reliance on subsection (4)(a) includes provision—(a) authorising a local authority to request such information as the authority considers appropriate, or to require a child to have a medical examination, for the purpose of enabling the authority to determine an application;(b) requiring a local authority to have regard to specified matters when determining an application;(c) for the grant of a child employment permit subject to conditions determined by a local authority;(d) requiring a child employment permit to contain specified information;(e) authorising a local authority to vary, suspend or revoke a child employment permit in specified circumstances;(f) about appeals against—(i) a decision to reject an application, or(ii) the revocation of a child employment permit;(g) imposing requirements on persons employing children (including requirements to produce child employment permits for inspection); (h) requiring or authorising a local authority, in specified circumstances, to disclose information about a child employment permit to another local authority in Scotland, to a local authority in England or to a local authority in Wales.(6) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision (subject to subsection (1) and regulations under subsection (2))—(a) specifying the number of hours in each day, or in each week, for which children may be employed, and the times of day at which they may be employed;(b) specifying the intervals to be allowed to children for meals and breaks, when in employment;(c) about entitlement to leave;(d) specifying other conditions to be met in relation to the employment of children.(7) Nothing in this section, or in regulations made under any provision of this section, prevents a child from doing anything—(a) under the authority of a licence granted under this Part, or(b) in a case where by virtue of subsection (3) of section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 no licence under that section is required for the child to do it.(8) In this section—“light work” means work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed—(a) is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and(b) is not such as to be harmful to their education (through attendance at school or otherwise) as required by section 30 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 or to their participation in work experience in accordance with section 123 of that Act, or their capacity to benefit from the education received or the experience gained (as the case may be);“local authority in England” and“local authority in Wales” have the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996 (see section 579(1) of that Act);“specified” , in relation to regulations made under any provision of this section, means specified in the regulations;“week” means any period of seven consecutive days;“year” means a period of 12 months beginning with 1 January.28A Regulations under section 28: further provision(1) Regulations under section 28 may—(a) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(b) make provision subject to exceptions;(c) make transitional or saving provision.(2) Except as provided by subsection (3), regulations under section 28 may provide for the processing of information in accordance with the regulations not to be in breach of—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person processing the information, or(b) any other restriction on the processing of information (however imposed).(3) Regulations under section 28 are not to be read as requiring or authorising the processing of information that would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether particular processing of data would do so, take into account the duty imposed or power conferred by the provision of the regulations in question).(4) Regulations under section 28 are subject to the negative procedure (see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).(5) In this section“the data protection legislation” and“processing” have the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”(3) In section 31 (penalties and legal proceedings in respect of general provisions as to employment), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(4) In section 35 (confirmation of byelaws), in subsection (1), for “Secretary of State” substitute “Scottish Ministers”.(5) In section 36 (powers of entry), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(6) In section 37 (interpretation), after “byelaws” insert “or regulations”.(7) In section 38 (savings)—(a) omit subsection (3);(b) in subsection (4), for “The said provisions” substitute “The provisions of this Part relating to employment”.(8) In section 110(1) (interpretation), omit the definitions of “borstal institution” and “residential establishment”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause makes equivalent provision for Scotland to that made for England and Wales by my amendment to replace clause 26.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
“Establishment of Child Protection Authority(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, establish a Child Protection Authority for England.(2) The purpose of the Authority is to—(a) improve practice in child protection,(b) provide advice and make recommendations to the Government on child protection policy and reforms to improve child protection,(c) inspect institutions and settings at some times and in such ways as it considers necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with child protection standards, and(d) monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other inquiries relating to the protection of children.(3) The Authority must act with a view to—(a) safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children;(b) ensuring that institutions and settings fulfil their responsibilities in relation to child protection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment establishes the Child Protection Authority for England.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 160 to this important Bill. Amendment 159 relates to the establishment of a child protection authority and is also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. These amendments, grounded in the belief that every child, no matter where they live and what challenges they face, should be guaranteed a basic level of protection. Amendment 159 proposes the creation of a child protection authority, in direct response to one of the most urgent and widely endorsed recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Amendment 160 seeks to establish national thresholds for children in need support under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Neither of these proposals is theoretical. Both are urgent responses to real-world system failures that we have seen repeated with devastating consequences across our country.
Amendment 159 calls for the creation of the child protection authority, as recommended by the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. That inquiry, after seven years, 325 days of public hearings, and testimony from over 7,000 victims and survivors, concluded that existing child protection mechanisms are fragmented, inconsistent and insufficiently accountable. Among the 20 recommendations, the establishment of the independent child protection authority was second only to mandatory reporting.
This body would have four core responsibilities: to improve child protection practices across public and private institutions; to provide expert advice to the Government and the sector; to conduct inspections of institutions and systems where safeguarding concerns are raised; and to monitor the implementation of the recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other major safeguarding inquiries. Critically, this authority would be independent and established as a non-departmental public body, similar to the structure of the National Crime Agency. Its independence would give it the mandate and credibility to act across departmental and institutional silos.
We cannot ignore the repeated failures of the current framework. The names of Sara Sharif, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson will remain etched in our nation’s conscience for years to come. Each of those children was known to professionals and each was failed by a system that saw the risk but lacked the clarity, co-ordination and accountability to prevent harm. The Government’s response has been to strengthen existing structures rather than create a new body. Although that is understandable, it risks reinforcing the very fragmentation that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse warned about. We must be bolder, take a systematic view and act decisively.
Amendment 160 is on national standards for children in need support. Let us begin with the children in need framework. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 empowers local authorities to offer services to children whose health or development would suffer without additional support. Yet, in the absence of a national threshold or quality standards, this power is deployed deeply inconsistently. In her 2022 report, the Children’s Commissioner for England uncovered stark regional disparities of how children in need plans are used. For example, in Knowsley and in Blackpool more than 60% of children known to social care were supported through a child in need plan, in stark contrast with Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, where the figure is less than 20%.
Let us be clear: this variation cannot be explained by demographics or the level of need alone; it is a result of fragmented local practice in the absence of national guidance. That creates a system in which access to help is determined not by a child’s vulnerability but by their postcode. The situation is compounded by variations in the quality of those plans. Many are vague, lack time-bound goals and fail to specify what support a child will actually receive. Social workers have expressed frustration with a system that burdens them with process but does not enable them to deliver change.
This amendment seeks to fix that. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake a national review of how Section 17 is currently implemented, including an analysis of demographic variations and effectiveness; to issue statutory guidance establishing clear minimum thresholds for child eligibility and a template for high-quality planning; and to use automatic referral triggers, such as a parent entering prison, in-patient mental health care or a child being arrested, to ensure early intervention where risk is identifiable. This is not about removing local flexibility; it is about setting a national baseline of protection so that a child’s right to support is not dependent on what they have.
This Bill is an opportunity to do more than pass yet another set of well-intentioned clauses. It is a chance to confront two crucial, long-standing failures: the lack of consistent, enforceable thresholds for when and how a child receives support under Section 17—on that note, I add that the Children’s Commissioner has today come out in support of my Amendment 160—and the absence of a single, independent body tasked with improving, inspecting and co-ordinating our child protection infrastructure. We often speak in this Chamber about opportunity, fairness and levelling up. These amendments are a test of whether we mean what we say because, for children growing up in hardship and at risk of harm, fairness begins with visibility and opportunity begins with protection. Let us give these children more than words; let us give them a system that supports them and keeps them safe where they live. I urge noble Lords to support my amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling Amendment 159, to which I added my name. It is a probing amendment, so I hope the Minister has not been equipped with various intricacies on the drafting. I believe that His Majesty’s Government intend to consult on child protection.
As the noble Lord outlined, this is a recommendation from IICSA, which envisaged the child protection authority having an inspection function of certain settings within its purposes. However, there was another recommendation from the independent inquiry, which said:
“All religious organisations should have a child protection policy and supporting procedures, which should include advice and guidance on responding to disclosures of abuse and the needs of victims and survivors. The policy and procedures should be updated regularly, with professional child protection advice, and all organisations should have regular compulsory training for those in leadership positions and those who work with children and young people”.
Although the child protection agency will be led by the Home Office and the honourable Member Jess Phillips, this second recommendation sounds like a description not only of charities but of out-of-school settings. I am aware that, since the amendment was laid, a call for evidence went out from the Department for Education on safeguarding for out-of-school settings, but how are they intended to fit together?
In addition to religious organisations, sports clubs, informal educational settings, summer clubs and private tutors seem not to be within a regulatory framework at the moment. Is this not what the independent inquiry envisaged that the work of a child protection authority would be, or could be? Those organisations are outside Ofsted and, despite the excellent work of the Charity Commission—many of them will be charities but not all of them—the threshold for intervention by the Charity Commission on the grounds of safeguarding is statutorily very high. It is not an inspectorate, it seems, or an accreditor of safeguarding training.
If one looks momentarily at the scrutiny function that the Church of England is trying to set up, that function, which should be independent, looks as if it should be inspection, audit, accreditation and an end of complaint process facility. In these informal settings, out-of-school settings or charities, who accredits the safeguarding? Who does the inspecting? Who holds low-level concerns regarding staff and volunteers? Many of those settings will be a single charity under no umbrella organisation—and I thank the safeguarding charity Thirtyone:eight for its excellent work on safeguarding. If you are the trustee of a stand-alone charity and you begin to have concerns about a volunteer or a staff member—the kind of low-level concerns that are that are dealt with in Keeping Children Safe in Education—where is the umbrella organisation that will keep track?
We have to keep one step ahead of people who have this intention to get access to children. They will disappear from one independent stand-alone charity and have the potential to pop up, maybe in a different place—a different church or sports club—but who is keeping track of those concerns? You might informally tell another charity such as thirtyone:eight, but who will be collating that information? Could the Minister consider arranging a meeting for any interested Peers at which we can talk about the scope of the child protection authority and the call for evidence for out of school settings?
The call for evidence is, I believe, like a survey that you fill in. I promise the Minister that I will fill out the survey and go through that facility. But could she also confirm to noble Lords that the child protection authority will go out for consultation? What will the scope be for that and how will it fit together with this large gap—or number of small gaps—we have with out of school settings? This is an important moment to finally cover the many loopholes that still exist in relation to child safeguarding, particularly in out of school settings.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I find these two amendments extremely interesting, and I very much support the spirit of them. But I am not at all happy, I have to say, about exactly how they are put forward. I think it is important that the Government reflect on Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and the extent to which it could be updated and improved. I am delighted that the Government are taking steps to find out rather more about it.
I was extremely interested in the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, but I am not sure that they come into either Amendments 159 or 160. It does not mean that it is any less important. This is a wider issue of some real importance. I am not quite sure where it should come, but it certainly needs to be regarded .
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am grateful to be able to respond, as this is Committee. With the child protection authority, the question is about what scope that will have. If it is to have an inspectorate function, which is what was recommended by IICSA, will it have a role to inspect out of school settings? That is the way that, I would say, it comes within the scope of the amendment. But I accept it is a probing amendment. We need to make sure that we put the DfE and Home Office together to keep children safe .
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, on his powerful speech. I listened to his maiden speech, and this is the second time I have heard him speak. I see that he will be an important addition to the expertise in your Lordships’ House.
In relation to his Amendment 159, I am slightly puzzled and look forward to the Minister’s response. As the noble Lord said, the Government have accepted the recommendations of IICSA to create a child protection authority and this will initially, as I understand it, form part of the child safeguarding practice review panel. My noble friend Lady Berridge made good points about out of school settings although, in general, I worry about the extent of regulation that might fall on very small organisations and the impact that might have. I remember thinking about this when in office. One of the organisations we met with said there were no incentives in the system today to encourage organisations to do the right thing; there are just penalties if you get it wrong. Maybe that is a constructive path for the Government to consider.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are committed to protecting children from serious harm and ensuring that they can access the right level of support at the right time. That is what the amendments in this group seek, rightly, to pursue and challenge on.
Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, is on the establishment of a child protection authority, as recommended in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Just to be clear, this Government have made a series of announcements that demonstrate our commitment to strengthen the response to child sexual abuse and exploitation. Establishing a child protection authority was one that we have, in looking at the recommendations from IICSA, committed quite clearly to. I was a bit unclear about the charge made by the noble Lord that we had not accepted that recommendation. In the Government’s update on our work to tackle child sexual abuse, published in April, we announced that we would establish a child protection authority in England. As the noble Lord says, this will help to make the child protection system clearer and more unified and ensure ongoing improvement through effective support for practitioners.
Of course, there will be lots of questions about what form the authority takes and its scope—some were raised today by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, with specific questions on safeguarding. I reassure the noble Baroness that we have absolutely aligned the work on the CPA with the out-of-school settings call for evidence that she referenced. She identified that the design and the delivery of the authority require consultation, including with child protection experts and victim groups to ensure that it has the right constitution and the right powers. We have already begun our work towards a consultation on the child protection authority, and I assure the noble Baroness that we will engage with key stakeholders as part of this process. We will consult on developing the new child protection authority this year, and the consultation will set out in more detail the proposed roles, responsibilities and powers of the authority.
However, we do not want to wait until we are able to set up the child protection authority in full to take action—there has arguably been too long a delay in acting on the recommendations of IICSA—so we have also already begun to strengthen the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel on some of the key aspects IICSA envisaged for the child protection authority. In 2025-26, we are increasing the resources at the panel’s disposal so that it can increase its analytical capacity and its ability to develop high-quality material for practitioners.
That is part of the overall action that this Government are taking: the strongest possible action to tackle child sexual exploitation, including immediate action to take forward all 12 of the recommendations for change from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which were published in her audit just this week. That includes setting up a new national inquiry, with which government departments will co-operate fully to make sure we are tackling this vile crime and supporting victims and survivors. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, also recommended that the mandatory sharing of information be enforced between all statutory safeguarding partners in cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation. The child protection authority will play a critical role in addressing this recommendation through national oversight of the child protection system and supporting the co-ordination between agencies. Of course, provisions within this legislation are already taking forward other elements of the IICSA recommendations.
Amendment 160, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, aims to reduce regional variations in the type, frequency and duration of support that children receive under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which, of course, places a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child in need by providing appropriate support and services. Here, I fear that I disagree with the noble Lord’s analysis. Prescriptive national criteria with automatic referrals would risk narrowing the cohort of children and limiting local flexibility in providing support. Section 17 rightly allows local authorities discretion to provide support and services based on local need and resources. On this at least—and on other things as well—the noble Baroness, Lady Barran and I are in agreement. A danger of being specific in the way suggested is that groups are left out, narrowing the cohort who receive support—exactly, in fact, what the amendment is seeking to avoid.
It is not the case, as the noble Lord suggested, that there is no national guidance. There has recently been strengthening of the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, to make it explicit that local authorities and safeguarding partners should publish a threshold document for statutory services under Section 17 so that there is clarity for those working within an authority area about what that threshold would be and what action they should take. Furthermore, Ofsted inspects whether these local thresholds are set appropriately.
Working Together is clear that plans setting out support and services for children should be reviewed regularly against progress. All this comes within the broader context of our reforms to family help and multiagency child protection, which we have talked about at some length in earlier proceedings on the Bill and in Committee—reforms precisely aimed at supporting provision at an earlier stage for identifying children who will need support and wrapping that around them, and reforms backed by over £500 million of investment in this financial year and supported by additional investment made available in last week’s spending review for future years. These will provide help for families at the point of need and decisive action when protection is needed.
While I accept that the noble Lord raised important issues about the current working of the system and the need to develop the child protection authority for all the reasons that he spelt out, I hope that I have addressed some of his concerns and reassured noble Lords that this Government are committed to protecting children from significant harm, providing the right support at the right time and, ultimately, improving outcomes so that all children can thrive. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Barran, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their interventions and comments, some of which I agree with and some I may not agree with—but that is the nature of the Committee; we are here to debate and improve Bills that come forward from the Government. I welcome the comments from the Minister, particularly on the national protection agency. Clearly, the devil will be in the detail about its powers and how it functions, rather than just establishing the authority.
On Amendment 160, I clearly still have issues with the disparity between some local authorities having up to 60% of young people in their care with child in need plans and others having 20%, as in the examples I gave. My aim was to raise this in Committee and hopefully for the Minister to look into it. I will continue to press and probe as this Bill travels through your Lordships’ House but, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
“Automatic enrolment for Healthy Start scheme(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, introduce a scheme to automatically enrol certain individuals for the purposes of the Healthy Start scheme.(2) For the purposes of this section, “certain individuals” means people who are eligible for the Healthy Start scheme on the basis of having a child under the age of 4.(3) The scheme must provide the means for individuals to opt out of enrolment for the Healthy Start scheme.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the auto-enrollment of certain individuals on to the Healthy Start scheme.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 190 in my name and one or two other amendments in this group. Amendment 161 would allow auto-enrolment of families entitled to the Healthy Start prepaid card. The Healthy Start scheme provides extra cash for families on certain benefits when the mother is more than 10-weeks pregnant or has a child under four years old. The card can be used to pay for milk, formula milk, fruit, vegetables and vitamins. Families receive £4.25 per week for a pregnant woman and for each child aged one to four years old, and £8.50 for each baby under one year old—unless the Government have changed this in the last few days.
The value of the payment has not increased since April 2021, despite considerable food cost inflation since then; Scotland’s similar scheme has been uprated. Some supermarkets, such as Sainsbury’s, have topped up the card with an extra £2 a week, which has been shown to increase purchases of these healthy foods. Presumably as well as increasing footfall in the shop, those supermarkets understand the importance of this extra money to the health of a young family on benefits. Even though it is not enough, it certainly helps in light of the inequalities in diet and obesity among young children below school age. In 2022-23, 12.4% of four to five year-olds in the most deprived areas were already living with obesity—more than double the number in the least deprived areas. These payments are an important lever to address this inequality.
However, many eligible families do not know about their eligibility for this scheme and therefore suffer more food insecurity than they need to—I know one myself. The House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee last year heard that there are no current figures on uptake due to a “data issue”. That is just not good enough, because we know, anecdotally, that many families are missing out. The committee heard that the local authority in Blackpool was so concerned about it that it launched a programme to inform eligible families—on which I congratulate the local authority. It has now reached 80% by its calculation, which is much higher than other areas, but what about the other 20%? Its success indicates that there is a need for a national scheme.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I attached my name to Amendment 161 on automatic enrolment for the Healthy Start scheme, as indeed did the noble Lord, Bethell—so if we are looking for broad, cross-party-political spectrums, this is one of those.
The noble Baroness has already set out the powerful case for this amendment—I will just add one thing. She spoke about the Government’s apparent lack of data in this area. In the other place, my honourable friends asked the Government a whole series of questions about this. The response was that the NHS Business Services Authority, which operates the scheme, does not hold any data on the number of people eligible. That is surely fixable, so it should surely be fixed.
I will focus on Amendment 175 in my name, which is kindly supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. It would insert a new clause to provide for
“holiday … and activity programmes for pupils in receipt of free school meals”.
This would be a lot of pupils. Before the Government’s recent changes, about one in four pupils were already eligible for free school meals. Those were extremely tight criteria; the Government have now opened them up a little. There is some debate about the number of children affected. None the less, these are children whom the Government have acknowledged, and most of whom the previous Government acknowledged, really need the support of hopefully healthy—I will get back to that—hot meals during term time.
However, what happens at weekends? There is a reason why #HolidayHunger has almost become a cliché. Those children come from families whose budgets are at the absolute edge anyway. Then, the holidays come, and they cannot be guaranteed to be fed.
This amendment would also ensure that there are activities and programmes relevant to those children during the school holidays. One thing we have seen in many of our areas, particularly some of our poorest areas, is that the availability of free activities during the school holidays has fallen and fallen. We have seen the privatisation of public spaces, the fencing-in of playing fields and the removal of public spaces that then become privatised and can be quite hostile to children. If you go out and you need access to a loo, you have to buy something, and that is just not available to people. So, this amendment would ensure that there is a meal and a holiday programme that supports those children and those families. It is tackling poverty and tackling some of the very acute issues of public health that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to.
I note, declaring my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, that this would have to be funded from the centre. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred, I think, to difficulties with the free school breakfast programme and how some schools have had to pull out of it because they did not have the funding. Certainly, local government would really struggle to fund the proposal in this amendment, but I would argue to the Government that the relatively modest costs would be far outweighed by the benefits for public health of the inclusion of some of the poorest children in our communities, giving them a space that is constructive when otherwise they might be spending their time in potentially destructive ways.
I think it is worth noting that this is not just something that I have dreamed up. My honourable friend in the other place, Ellie Chowns, tabled a similar amendment. We have only to go to the Republic of Ireland, which quite recently announced a programme for the coming year that looks remarkably like this: activity programmes for two to four weeks aimed at the children at most risk of disadvantage and those with complex special educational needs. In Ireland, 58,000 pupils took part last year and they are expecting more next year, so this is something that a very broadly comparable society is already doing, acknowledging the need and acting on it.
Finally, there are a huge number of positive amendments in this group, and I am not going to speak to anything like all of them, but I particularly want to highlight Amendment 190, to which I would have attached my name had I got my act together, and Amendment 194, to which I would have attached my name if it were not already fully subscribed. Both are about the quality of school breakfasts and lunches, which is so crucial. I make one general point in this context. The Times Health Commission reported recently and it had a really interesting look at Japan and what a contrast Japan shows compared to us. In Japan, just 4% of adults are obese, compared to 26% here. In Japan, fewer than 2% of under-fives are overweight: they are essentially all at a healthy weight.
What we have is school systems. The Times journalists visited the school system and saw what school lunches are like at Kohoku primary school. The children were eating spiced baked fish and vegetables sprinkled with dried bonito and rice and they were ladling out the food themselves. A pupil got up at the start and explained why the sweetcorn in the rice had a beneficial nutritional advantage. The school is built around a giant kitchen with windows on every side, so pupils can see the chefs preparing the meal.
I wanted to say that because I was reflecting on the Committee’s debate a couple of days ago, when we were talking about children’s social care and I had an amendment that said we should end for-profit provision in children’s social care. It struck me when I read Hansard afterwards that nobody had actually defended the idea of a market in private provision of social care. All the people speaking against my amendment said, “Oh, well, we are where we are now and it’s too difficult to change”. I think that when it comes to free school meals or school meals—on a later group I am going to say that there should be school meals for everybody—we have to say that this needs a giant leap of change. We cannot allow this to continue as it is now. We have to have the imagination to think, yes, we are in a bad place, but we can do significantly, massively better than this, not just try to have a little improvement.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I shall be brief, because the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has set out comprehensively so much about the amendments that I support, Amendments 175 and 194. Amendment 175 echoes what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said about the need for “holiday hunger” to be sorted out in this country. For a parent the summer holidays are a cliff edge in all sorts of directions. Not only are you deprived of the possible childcare while struggle with your two jobs, your mortgage and so on, but your children are also deprived of possibly the only decent meal that they might get in the day—and I shall qualify the word “decent” when I come back to it in a minute.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I invite the noble Baroness to acknowledge that this Government, since they were elected, have committed £1 billion to school meals. It would be nice if she would mention that, as well as everything else, which I am sure we all agree about.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
Thank you—I acknowledge that more money is going in and absolutely acknowledge that there is an expansion of free school meals. I am only worried about the evidence that we have seen. Yesterday, we had a whole-day meeting of Feeding Britain, and I am afraid that a lot of the information that we heard is that this is not there yet. I hope that it filters down, because it is a very straightforward thing to do.
I have put a lot of things into the amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Walmsley, on what school standards should be. It is a good thing for the Government to aim at, and I hope that they will look favourably on the amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendments 183D, 186A and 187A in this group. I am delighted that the Bill will deliver on Labour’s manifesto commitment to offer universal breakfast clubs for all primary-age children, which will be a significant step towards ending morning hunger in schools across England. But there is a concern that the policy appears to be designed solely for mainstream pupils and, as a result, risks failing to meet the needs of those with special educational needs and disabilities. My amendments would make school breakfast provision more accessible to SEND pupils and create a more individualised approach to the provision.
Although most pupils with SEND are in mainstream education, special provision is vital for many children and young people across the country, for whom there are different barriers to accessing education, which need to be acknowledged and supported by government. The format in the Bill for universal free breakfasts applies only to primary-age pupils, which would mean excluding secondary-age pupils in special schools from breakfast provision. That is inequitable and, within those schools, ultimately unworkable. Special schools are more likely than mainstream schools to be all-through settings, where children can be taught based on need rather than age. My Amendments 183D and 186A would therefore extend the school breakfast provisions in the Bill to include secondary-age pupils in special schools.
Many of these children also access school transport funding, and it is vital that schools and local authorities work with families to create flexible transport approaches, so that anyone wanting to access breakfast clubs is then enabled to. Additionally, some children with SEND access one-to-one support during the school day. This support is a vital key in unlocking the education system to these young people. Without funding for this support being extended to breakfast clubs, they face the prospect of being locked out. For that reason, I support Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would ensure that breakfast clubs are accessible for all pupils with SEND.
Breakfast clubs need to be accessible, but they should be able to deliver a mixed-model approach to breakfast provision. That means being delivered in the classroom or in nurture groups, as opposed to being available only in the normal dining area. Breakfast clubs are harder to access for pupils with SEND, which is why, in special school provision, only 16% of schools partnering with the charity Magic Breakfast operate a breakfast club without another style of school breakfast being delivered as well. I was privileged to witness that at first hand when I visited Eko Pathways school in East Ham recently. More than just instructive, it was an absolute joy to see the children so enthusiastically engaging in the breakfast club. I was struck by the way in which some of them, after queuing for their food, then took it to their classroom and began to tuck in as the lesson began. I accept that that would not be appropriate for mainstream pupils, but it was clearly an important part of making the delivery of breakfast at Eko Pathways school so effective in preparing pupils for their lessons each day. For that reason, I am happy to signal my support for Amendment 187 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister.
I turn to my Amendment 187A, which calls for the Secretary of State to gather and then publish detailed information on the state of breakfast club provision in schools. Of course, the Department for Education will monitor the overall uptake levels of school breakfast provision, which is the key metric in understanding how far-reaching the impact of the policy is proving to be. I believe that the DfE should gather representative data on the characteristics of those receiving breakfast in schools, such as eligibility for free school meals, eligibility for the pupil premium and inclusion on the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index, which has been referred to in previous groups today. That list is not exclusive, but these are the measures that include children and young people most at risk of morning hunger.
I believe the DfE should also consider collecting what is known as satisfaction data from pupils, teachers and caregivers. Without underlying metrics such as satisfaction, it is difficult to improve and augment the policy to increase its reach. Finally, impact measurements should be considered. These can include measuring positive effects on attendance, behaviour and health and well-being, as well, of course, as educational achievement further down the line. The charity Magic Breakfast collects data in relation to these, through both school surveys and academic studies. I hope my noble friend will agree that the Government should consider a balance of such methods to ensure robust data collection. I suspect she may say in her response that this is not required in the Bill, and I would accept that if she would also give a commitment that the data will be collected along the lines that I have suggested.
However, outside of the legislative structure, the Government are showing a commitment to developing better evaluation of policy. The Evaluation Task Force says that it drives
“continuous improvements in the way government programmes are evaluated in order to inform decisions”.
Including data collection and publication in the Bill would be a strong indicator of the Government’s commitment to evaluation.
The risk of not collecting this data is shown by the Welsh Government example. I refer to Amendment 187B in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, regarding impact assessment. I believe that six months is too short a timescale for meaningful assessments to be made. To some extent, the same might be said of Amendment 190 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Cass, but a period of 12 months would at least allow a full school year to be assessed.
Data collection is essential. Primary school free breakfast provision has been available in Wales since 2007, but the Welsh Government do not publish, nor seemingly even record, significant data on the effectiveness of their policy. That might explain why there have been no substantial changes to that policy, which has been in place for some 18 years.
In 2022, Wales was included in Magic Breakfast’s Hidden Hunger report, which found that, despite the legislation being intended to reach all primary schools in Wales, 85% of disadvantaged pupils were not reached by the provision. In another 2022 report, the Child Poverty Action Group and Parentkind noted that school breakfast clubs in Wales were
“not being made available to all families, despite a universal free primary breakfast offer”.
Wales was a leader in school breakfast provision, but a lack of monitoring risks the policy falling behind. Robust data collection being mandated by the Bill could avoid the risk of England falling to the same eventuality.
Lastly, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is not in his place to speak to his Amendment 184, which seeks to ensure that the Government underwrite the cost of providing breakfast clubs. Although it is not appropriate for that to be in the Bill, I sympathise with the noble Lord’s point. Indeed, this point was also made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Bennett, in their contributions. I was of course pleased to see the rollout in April of the first 750 schools providing free breakfasts for almost 200,000 pupils, but some schools have either not put themselves forward to participate or, in a few cases, have even withdrawn, citing financial reasons.
We all want the breakfast club provisions to be in place the length and breadth of the country, and eventually that will happen. I hope my noble friend the Minister will have something to say on the question of schools having their costs covered to ensure that the rollout can be completed as quickly as possible.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 175, 190 and 194. The recent Food, Diet and Obesity Committee special inquiry, very ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was a wake-up call for all of us who served on it. We were shocked by the evidence from parents, campaigners, academics and others about the quality of food in schools. Our recommendations were powerful but are, sadly, unimplemented to date. However, there were bright spots, including Chefs in Schools, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which showed how good food can be delivered at very little extra cost.
The Government’s announcement that they want a major shift to prevention in healthcare is welcome, but they need to follow through with children’s nutrition if they are serious about that. Frontier Economics has estimated that overweight and obesity costs the UK economy £98 billion every year. Much of that is due to increased spending on the NHS—money that is then denied to other departments.
We have an obesity crisis—especially childhood obesity—in the UK. One in five children is already overweight or obese when they start primary school. That rises to one in four among the most deprived 20% of the population, who are most likely to be receiving free school meals. We also have increasing rates of tooth decay in children, and type 2 diabetes. Before 2000, it was unheard of for children to get type 2 diabetes. Many of the poorest children require a strong nutritional safety net to ensure that they are well fed and well nourished as they grow.
Amendment 175 relates to the holiday activities and food programme. The introduction of that programme was a proud achievement of the previous Government. It does what it says on the tin, providing activities and meals to children on low incomes during the summer holidays at a time when they are not able to access free school meals, which many rely on. However, unlike free school meals, the scheme has no basis in legislation; this amendment would change that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 187 in my name, and I am supportive of others in this group, particularly those in the names of my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to promote and support a mixed model of breakfast provision, already mentioned by my noble friend, which would better meet the Government’s objectives, in the view of Magic Breakfast, which has years of experience of school breakfast provision, and to which I am grateful for its support.
I have long been a supporter of free school breakfasts, particularly for children living in poverty, for whom the provision of breakfast can make so much difference to their well-being and their ability to benefit from their schooling. I was therefore delighted that the Government had included them for primary school children in the bill. However, I am persuaded by Magic Breakfast’s argument in favour of a more flexible approach that would embrace other forms of provision as well as breakfast clubs—“breakfast clubs plus”, if you like. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that the duty it places on schools is a minimum. The official guidance for the early adopter scheme makes it clear that schools are encouraged to go beyond the minimum standards. This amendment would signal that more clearly and would support schools in going beyond the minimum.
Magic Breakfast very much supports the breakfast club model as a minimum standard, but suggests that, because its inflexibility means that it can limit access to food in ways we already heard about, it is not the best model on its own for tackling hunger and child poverty, which I know the Secretary of State cares passionately about. The two other models that could play a valuable role are classroom-based and nurture-group provision. Classroom provision is delivered within the main learning environment, either straight before the start of the school day or as part of a soft start to the day. The latter can support the development of soft skills and ensure that all pupils are adequately fed and ready to start learning.
Nurture groups are commonly used in both mainstream and specialist settings to provide a small-group environment, particularly for pupils with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties. Many Magic Breakfast partner schools deliver such provision in a variety of ways, enabling them to take a more person-centred approach to the needs of pupils. The amendment will support both these models but would leave it open to the Secretary of State to promote other models that go beyond the delivery of food.
Magic Breakfast sums up the amendment as encouraging a “place-based approach” to breakfast policy-making. It believes that such an approach has been a key driver behind the scale of take-up of breakfasts in its partner schools. On average, this is 375% higher than among non-Magic Breakfast schools. It suggests that the reason is that alternative models do not require access to childcare or necessarily being at school early. Not every pupil at risk of hunger is able to access before-school provision due to factors beyond their, and often their parents’, control.
This is particularly true of those with SEND, an issue that was raised a number of times in the Commons and by my noble friend Lord Watson. A mixed model is better able to respond to difficulties that SEND pupils might have with transport, specialist medication and eating needs and large-group provision. It can offer the kind of pupil-centred provision that is needed. It is no accident that only 16% of special schools partnered with Magic Breakfast operate a breakfast club-only model. I am sure many noble Lords have received the open letter signed by leading charities on this matter.
According to Magic Breakfast, the breakfast club model is particularly expensive. In 2021, analysis by the Education Endowment Foundation found mixed models make more efficient use of staffing and that, on average, a mixed model approach was up to 75% cheaper than a pure breakfast club model. I would have thought that that would be music to the ears of the Government.
In conclusion, the Government’s laudable objectives with regard to education, hunger and child poverty would be better met by adopting the mixed-model approach put forward in this amendment. If my noble friend the Minister does not feel able to accept this, or an alternative, amendment, I would urge her in her response to first explicitly recognise the case for schools delivering school breakfast in a way that has regard for the varied needs of their pupils and that is focused on alleviating hunger and, secondly, to commit to encouraging mixed models of provision in national guidance.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I would like to say a few words about my amendment, which is about a slightly different area but attached to the same part of the Bill.
School activity has taken rather a pounding of late. If you link sport, arts, music, culture, youth clubs and so on only to a school, so they happen only in a school setting, they stop when school stops. If you make it just about education—sport is a very good example of this—dropout ages are 16, 18 and 21, because that is when you leave your educational institution. I hope that here we would have an opportunity to get the voluntary sector back talking to and helping young people.
On the amendments I tabled, subsection (2A) in Amendment 185 is at least as important, because it means providing voluntary activity in schools so they can identify with and get in contact with these groups outside. The groups outside want to make contact. Their survival and the survival of their activity depends on getting new people in, and they are giving something positive back. Anybody who has had any experience with anything from an am-dram group to a rugby team knows there is a social network that is interdependent and builds up a sense of community and purpose, and helps that group and those people in it, effectively providing almost a family group at times. It is a place where you can find jobs, structure, help, support and purpose; it is all there.
Apart from a diatribe that amateur sport will save the world, it is a fact that we are going to very solid, well-established ground here. I do not think anybody is going to disagree that these things are beneficial. We talk about the health aspect and the need for a good diet, but it is possible to put on weight on healthy food if you do not move. Let us look at how we can expand education not just through the education establishment. We should look to people who are doing positive things on a voluntary basis and helping you get out there.
Just to cast an eye on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we are about to discuss, this is another good amendment. I know the noble Lord well, and I have no doubt that he will have more to say on it. He refers to me as his “friend in sport”, and I am glad to carry on that one. Basically, if we do not encourage these formal lines back into our education system—unfortunately we have broken, or at least damaged, the informal ones—we are going to lose this contact with somewhere where you go on to do something positive. I look forward to the Minister’s answer, and to her answer on the amendments led by my noble friend Lady Walmsley.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, while we are still on breakfast clubs, I hope I can jump in to speak to Amendment 184, which relates to the additional costs of breakfast clubs in primary schools, combined with the quality of food expected. The amendment is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Agnew, who is sorry that he cannot be in the Committee right now. Like others in this group, this is, to a certain extent, a probing amendment to understand how much the Government understand about the whole-of-service costs that this part of the Bill will impose on schools and how they plan to meet them, based on conversations with those currently involved in making breakfast clubs work.
I support breakfast clubs. I have previously declared an interest as a mum whose daughter goes to breakfast clubs, and I am a big fan of their provision. For me, they provide hugely valuable additional childcare that allows me and my partner to meet our work commitments, but I also recognise the role that they play in ensuring that no child starts school hungry and unable to learn.
Turning to the practical implications, let us assume that a breakfast club in a primary school is taken up by 50% of the children in that school. A two-form entry school would require oversight by seven members of staff, and a school with a single form would require four members of staff. This does not include the catering element. That ratio is set out in regulations, so it is not advisory. A single-form entry primary school is highly unlikely to have sufficient unused non-teaching staff resource to handle the new obligation without drawing on directed teacher time.
That brings us back to the vital concept of the hard cap on directed time. If, for example, a teacher now has to be diverted for an hour a day to support and supervise a breakfast club, that is around 170 hours a year out of 1,265. Some 15% of the time, they will no longer be available for other duties—most significantly teaching. How are the Government going to account for this?
To the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I say that I completely acknowledge the additional money that has been put into schools through last week’s spending review settlement, and previously, but, when we take into account increased eligibility for free school meals—which is welcome—increased SEND costs, teacher pay awards and increased national insurance costs, my understanding is that there is currently no additional funding to meet the costs of a national rollout of breakfast clubs. That is a question that remains unanswered. The same applies to non-teaching staff: more hours will be required, so how will it be paid for?
Currently, schools can charge parents for early delivery of children before the academic day begins. As I have said, this enables working parents to drop their children off on their way to work, and it works well. I pay £3 for 45 minutes, including breakfast. This will rise to £4 pounds in September, but with provision extending to an hour. For me, it is fantastic value. Many schools deliver this provision for free or at a lower cost for children in receipt of free school meals, with the costs covered by the pupil premium income that a school receives.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this group of amendments and to follow all noble Lords and give more than a nod to many of the amendments that have already been debated. I also wait in anticipation for my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s amendment, which I would have signed if I had been quicker with my drafting pen. I shall speak to Amendment 186 in my name and I thank my friend in sport, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for co-signing that amendment. I am also grateful to all organisations that have been in contact with me on the issues this amendment addresses.
The Government have set out their plans for breakfast clubs, but in many ways those plans are silent when it comes to children with special educational needs and disability. There is a whole series of risks with not being clear in the Bill in relation to the issues that are specific to those groups of children: not least the question of food itself and the attendant issues; transport—how those young people get to school in the first instance—and the specialist support that is often required throughout the school day. Without consideration of those three issues, it is likely that the plans will leave children with special educational needs and disabilities with suboptimal—or potentially no—ability to access the breakfast club provisions.
Current data shows that a third of children with special educational needs are entitled to free school meals but do not access them. That stat would increase if you considered the specific context of breakfast. The evidence is clear that, as other noble Lords have pointed out, when it comes to good-quality, nutritious food there is an academic benefit and a mental and physical benefit—food for thought, food for sport.
If a third of young people with special educational needs and disabilities are not enabled to take the opportunity of free school meals, it seems clear that the Bill needs to be far more specific when it comes to the nature of provision that can be inclusive for all those who would wish to benefit from such provision. It is a question not just of the nutritious food but of the social network and the relationship element. If SEN and disabled children are unable to access the breakfast clubs, they are cut out of not only the food provision but that important part of the social network—the relationship nature of the whole school day experience. What happens if the transport is structured in such a way that it does not get to the school until the official start of the academic school day? Again, SEN and disabled children are effectively excluded.
For many people, food can be a difficult subject to discuss. There are specific issues when it comes to those with disabilities, particularly those who suffer from ARFID and other such conditions. The relationship to food can be complex. The Bill is largely silent in this respect. If the Bill does not specifically address the issues around transport, the provision of that specialist support and food provision, breakfast clubs will not be inclusive and will not enable and empower those with SEN and disabilities. There are many start points in life that impact people’s educational career and, subsequently, their work career. They can be positive or otherwise. Breakfast clubs need to be in that positive bracket. Currently they are somewhere short of it.
In short, the Bill needs to be clear that breakfast clubs are inclusive for all. As ever, “inclusive by design” does not just mean making provisions that benefit those with special educational needs or disabilities. It means benefiting the whole school population and the whole school experience. If the Government do not make amendments to this effect, the outcome is far more likely to risk those children with special educational needs and disabilities being disadvantaged before the school day has even begun.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Holmes. I am a little surprised that we are making such fast progress in this Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is making her way here as quickly as possible from chairing another meeting, her amendment having been reached mildly in advance of when she thought. She is passionate on this subject. If anybody can get here quickly from a meeting, it will be one of our finest Paralympians in history. I hope that she will be joining us shortly.
I welcome that we have grouped the importance of food with that of physical education and activities. To use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, if she had got her act together, I hope she would have also signed my amendment and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. When it comes to activities, it is exceptionally important. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, a passionate sports fan and an exemplar of fitness and well-being from Lanarkshire, would also have added his name to this amendment. It is great to see the Minister for football now taking her seat on the Front Bench for this important debate, even if she is not wholly focused on the importance of the UK Chief Medical Officers’ Physical Activity Guidelines, which are the subject of my amendment.
Before I come to Amendment 185A, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that I thought she spoke outstandingly well about the Healthy Start scheme, but while the Healthy Start scheme focuses on nutrition, physical education in schools contributes to physical activity and overall well-being, which are essential to a healthy start in life. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in focusing on provision before the start of the first school session to improve well-being, highlighted an important point about not just community sports but arts and music and their engagement in the schools programme.
In my Amendment 185A, I talk specifically about
“the provision of activities consisting of physical activity which contributes to the UK Chief Medical Officers’ Physical Activity Guidelines before the start of the first school session on each school day”,
although, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, we could stretch that out throughout the whole school day. In that sense, this is a probing amendment.
By any educational measure, physical activity in our schools would be placed in a category of concern. It requires improvement. It needs special measures. Physical activity in schools, sport, physical literacy, teacher training, the opportunity to engage in sport and the benefits that come from sport in schools have been in decline over not just the past year but the past 20 years. I have said many times that one of the greatest sadnesses in my life has been the fact that despite an outstanding London 2012 Olympic Games, with the fantastic changes that took place in the East End of London, we did not leave a legacy for school sport or in opportunities for young people to engage in sport.
The Chief Medical Officer expects young people from five to 18 to engage in moderate to vigorous-intensity physical activity for an average of at least 60 minutes per day across the week. This can include all activities, such as physical education, active travel, after-school activities, play and sports, including walking to and from school. That is a very low bar. In Australia and New Zealand, the chief medical officers add on top of that several hours of light physical activity. The chief medical officers in both those countries take walking and playing out. The UK Chief Medical Officer’s focus on one hour includes those things, so we have a very low bar.
Let us look at what is happening in the UK when it comes to delivering on those guidelines. I mentioned the Chief Medical Officer’s basic recommendation for physical activity. The reality is that 30% of children do less than 30 minutes of exercise a day, and a further 22.7% average between 30 minutes and an hour. That means that more than half our children, some 3.9 million, do not meet the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation. If that is not the definition of a crisis of physical education in schools and a crisis of opportunity for our young people, I do not know what is. It is essential that in an important Bill such as this, on well-being, we have at least some mention of physical activity, some mention of sport, some national plan that remedies and addresses one of the biggest crises that we face in schools at present.
I put today’s amendment out there as a probing amendment to set the scene for many amendments that are going to come before this Committee much later in the Bill when we will look in detail at what can be done. Right across the board, it is important to look at the curriculum, teacher training, facilities, and co-operation and engagement with local authorities and local clubs, maximising the opportunity for young people to participate in physical education and sport in schools.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I was not originally planning to trouble this chorus, so I will be very brief. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I absolutely endorse and support his Amendment 185A, which he spoke to just now in very cogent and powerful terms. If we can ensure that there is more sport in schools, that will have a read across to health and well-being and it will help counter obesity.
I suggest that one of the most important takeaways from this short debate has been the figures put forward and explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, around the obesity crisis we are facing in this country. It really is quite shocking. The impact that will have on the health service in future generations is something we should all be really concerned about. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also made that point extremely well.
During my 32 years as an MP, I tried to visit a school every fortnight. Over 32 years, that is quite a few schools. I saw a great variety—a huge spectrum—of performance in terms of school meals. To be honest, you can have whatever standards you want, but if there is not leadership in schools on the part of the head and the chairman of governors, and there is not determination and will to ensure that food is of a high standard, then even with more money schools will not deliver. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, made a very good point that it is not just about cost, as you can deliver better-quality food with really good ingredients at very little extra cost. That has been proven beyond any doubt.
I had a look a moment ago at Ofsted’s responsibilities. Ofsted is not actually responsible for food in schools but can comment on the standards of food. I have read a huge number of Ofsted reports over the last number of years, and I do not recall any of them commenting on food standards, even when it is well known that food standards in that school are at a very low level. It is legally the Minister’s department’s responsibility, but Ofsted can comment, and I think that it should comment much more often. Can she comment on that point?
I raise very quickly the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, regarding SEN pupils at special needs schools. In my old constituency, there were two special needs schools and there were a number of autistic units in secondary schools. A special school, with the leadership and the right policies in place, can often deliver really high standards of food; I have seen that on many occasions. Normally, there is a determination and will in those schools to make sure the pupils are properly fed and given every opportunity. That is very often in the context of a well-equipped and well-funded special school.
However, when it comes to an autistic unit within a secondary school, as my noble friend Lord Holmes pointed out, there are lots of issues around transport, the one-to-one attention that these children often demand, the role of TAs and the fact that very often you have an autistic unit that is separate from the main school, although it is part of the school. I suggest to the Minister that sometimes that unit can get left behind. What is her department going to do about that, because so much of what we heard during this group of amendments is very positive but it requires delivery? Even when the legislation is passed, I hope that some of these amendments will be picked up by the Government. Although my noble friend Lord Moynihan said his was a probing amendment, I see no reason why the Government cannot adopt and support it, go away and think about it and include it in the Bill when we come back on Report.
With those few remarks, I hope the Minister will take on board the point that, whatever the Bill says, it will require her and her department to make sure it all happens in the future.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I always enjoy the sports love-in we get in these debates. I admire the support we have for each other.
I was a great fan of the Blair Government in so far as, on the curriculum, they ensured that in primary schools there was at least two hours of physical education a day—and that happened. They also encouraged swimming and after-school activities, with the setting up of after-school clubs. That was really important but, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, suggested, since those days we have gone backwards.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Addington that you can link after-school provision and breakfast clubs to activities as well, and that happens all the time. We have talked about the 400 breakfast clubs, or however many there are, but for years many schools up and down the country have been providing breakfast clubs, either for free or sponsored by a local business or provided by the school itself from its pupil premium or at very little cost. There are probably more breakfast clubs in that category than the current pilot has to offer. We should thank those schools for what they have been doing.
I also have a great deal of time for the coalition Government’s decision to bring in free universal meals for all of key stage 1—that is years 1 and 2. The independent results from the provision showed that providing free meals improved attendance and learning, helped children who were in poverty and improved social interaction between children, because when you have breakfast together, you talk and relate to each other, and that is hugely important.
The amendments that have been tabled have to be thought through very carefully. They all have something that adds to what we understand. I do not understand, for example, why the Government never consider automatic enrolment. Is it to try to save money? Surely not. I also think that we have got to a stage now where we have the 300 or 400 pilot schemes in the breakfast clubs, and I would like to know when the next phase is going to happen and how many schools we think we will want to encourage. There will no doubt be a question about the provision of kitchens and all those sorts of things. I would like to know the answer to that.
We have that. We have the free meals for key stage 1, which have been extended with the Government’s announcement. Presumably we will look at after-school provision at some stage because providing meals for children after school is important as well. There is the issue of meals in holidays. All those have a cost to them. I understand why the Government do not want to do things straightaway, because you have to find the money to pay for them, but we could have a road map of where we want to go—what do we want to do first? What are the next things we want to do?—so that the points made in Committee can be clearly thought through.
We started this debate with the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. I was fascinated by the information that she gave us, which was picked up, of course, by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. It is not just about provision; it is about the quality of the provision and how healthy that provision is for children. It is easy to give a plate of toast or whatever, or a soft drink, but that is not necessarily healthy. It is easy to give Kellogg’s—and yes, Kellogg’s would want to sponsor various schools, would it not?—because it is filled with sugar. That is not the breakfast I think children should be having. Those are really important issues and when the Minister goes away from this Committee stage, I hope she will reflect on these amendments, because I think they are potentially life-changing for our children and young people.
Finally, let us just remind ourselves that, as of 2023, over 4 million children across the UK live in food-insecure households, with the cost of living crisis creating further problems in terms of access to nutritious food. The absence of school meals during holidays has been linked to cognitive decline, poor nutrition and a rise in child hunger-related hospital admissions. That is independently verified. I thought the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in relation to special schools was hugely important; again, the Minister should think very carefully about that. I thank noble Lords for the amendments, which, if enacted, will make a huge difference to our children and young people.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the provision of food in schools. It is essential that children have a balanced diet to ensure that their development can progress as it should. As such, this is an incredibly important group of amendments, as a balanced diet is the cornerstone of ensuring that our children grow up healthily.
I will speak first to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which I have signed. Amendment 186B is a probing amendment that seeks to understand why the Secretary of State would not be able to exempt a school from the duty of providing free breakfast clubs without a prior application from the school. It seeks to question how this application system will work in practice. Can the Minister say what the process will be and whether there will be a time by which the Secretary of State must respond?
Amendment 186C probes the same area but seeks to clarify the consultation process that a school authority must take before making such an application. It seems important that teachers are also involved in the process, so will the Minister give greater detail about the process and explain why the teachers are not included?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we know—and it has been expressed several times in this very wide-ranging debate this afternoon—that too many children are not getting the nutrition that they need to thrive at school. We know that hunger affects concentration, behaviour and learning, yet many pupils arrive at school without breakfast. Many schools excel in meeting the nutritional standards expected of their food offer, but some fall short. We also know that excellent schemes such as Healthy Start remain underused, not because families do not need the help but because they are not aware of it.
Clauses 27 and 28 seek to close the gap between intention and implementation. Together, they aim to ensure that no child is too hungry to learn and that our school food system works fairly and consistently for all.
Amendments in group 7 cover a wide range of areas, from breakfast clubs, school food standards, the Healthy Start scheme and the holiday activities and food programme, and I will respond to all those amendments. To begin with the point about breakfast clubs, the delivery of breakfast clubs is a government manifesto commitment. We have committed to introduce free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school. Of course, I accept that, for very many years, including when I was last in the Department for Education, there have been schools that have offered support for breakfast, or breakfast clubs, in a whole variety of ways in order to support children.
However, what there has never been is a consistent entitlement to that opportunity which is universally available for all children and free. That is what this legislation aims to promote. It places a duty on state-funded schools providing primary education to make accessible a free breakfast club lasting at least 30 minutes before the school day, for every pupil from reception to year 6, helping them start the day ready to learn. This is of course about food, but it is not only about food. Free breakfast clubs will mean that every primary school child, no matter their circumstances, is well prepared to learn. It is good for attendance, behaviour and attainment, and it will also support parents to have more choice on when to work and will support families with the cost of childcare.
Amendments 183D, 186 and 186A, in the names of my noble friend Lord Watson and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, rightly concern access to breakfast clubs for children with special educational needs and disabilities of all ages in special schools, and access for children receiving education otherwise than at school.
My noble friend, the noble Lord and others have made a very fair point about the unique challenges for special schools in delivering breakfast clubs. It is categorically the aim of the Government to design this scheme to be inclusive. We all know that the landscape across SEND is extremely complex, particularly given that needs and abilities can vary significantly across age groups.
I also accept the important points made by noble Lords about the challenge of transporting children to school and the challenges of the additional support necessary for some children. We are convinced of the benefits of a breakfast club and we want to start by giving the youngest pupils, regardless of their circumstances, a great start to the school day.
However, we are not hiding from the fact that there will be challenges in doing that. That is why we are working with our early adopters—of which there are 750, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Storey. They include special schools and mainstream schools with pupils with SEND. The aim of this scheme is to test what works, where there are difficulties and how the policy can best be implemented.
Amendments 185 and 185A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Moynihan, seek to extend the definition of breakfast club provision to include physical enrichment, art and cultural, and youth mentoring activities. Amendments 187 and 187B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to promote alternative forms of breakfast provision, alongside publishing an impact assessment. I absolutely assure your Lordships that I agree that sporting and enriching activities offer fantastic benefits to pupils’ health and well-being.
I am enormously delighted that I can respond to the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the Government’s commitment by pointing him to the Prime Minister’s announcement today, while visiting the Lionesses to offer them support in the forthcoming Euros tournament. He announced a new approach to school sport, with new school sport partnerships bringing together schools, local authorities, local sports clubs and national governing bodies, and a new enrichment framework for schools to ensure that all young people have equal access to high-quality sport and extracurricular activity. The new approach includes aims for minimum teaching times for PE, and for girls to be given the same opportunity as boys to play sport at school, as well as equal access for those with special needs and disabilities. I think that is an important announcement, and I hope that noble Lords will look further at what the Prime Minister has announced today, as well as offering their support to the Lionesses in advance of the Euros.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I appreciate the detail that the Minister has gone into and that further information about the national rollout will happen in due course, but we have just had the comprehensive spending review, so can I ask whether the funding for the national rollout is included within the DfE’s settlement from the comprehensive spending review or whether there will be additional funding on top of that settlement to fund the national rollout? I am not asking how it will work but whether it is in the CSR settlement or whether there will be more, in addition, at a later point.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
What we have announced as part of the spending review settlement is separate to the funding for the national rollout, about which we will bring forward information.
On Amendment 505B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, early adopters are key to ensuring that we get implementation right before national rollout. This learning will help develop our statutory guidance. More information will be made available, including on the exemptions process, to Parliament and in the public domain.
On that exemptions power, in relation to Amendments 186B and 186C, I understand that there may be extreme and, critically, individual circumstances that could prevent individual schools meeting their duties to provide breakfast clubs. The exemption power is designed to address this on a case-by-case basis. That is why schools would be expected to apply and to be able to demonstrate their exemption eligibility under one of the criteria set out in the legislation. Our expectation is that any school seeking an exemption will actively engage with its school community, the local authority and the department to ensure that it has done all it can to meet its breakfast club duty.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt. It may be me—I may have missed it, as it getting to the end of the week—but I am not sure that my noble friend responded to Amendment 187 with the Government’s position on the mixed models. I know she talked a lot about physical activity and so forth. If she did say, can she repeat it? There is quite a lot that she is having to cram together into different slots, and I do not think there was anything explicit about the mixed model promoted by Amendment 187.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The point I made was that I and the Government disagree with my noble friend that there should be a sort of all-flowers-blooming approach to breakfast clubs. I set out the reason why the Government believe there should be a basic set of conditions and criteria for breakfast clubs. Of course, it is completely possible that schools may well then decide to put on other provision alongside the basic provision laid out in the criteria set out for breakfast clubs in legislation—this is one of the things that we will look at in the early adopters scheme—but the Government are not favouring the idea that there would be a variety of different routes. That is because of the points I made about this being about the provision not just of food but of the club and of the 30 minutes of childcare. Those things are quite an important basis of what is being delivered through the breakfast club programme.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I just have one more question for the Minister before we move on from breakfast clubs. I really appreciate what she said about the pathfinder schools being used to understand how, for example, the very clear provision that the Government want would work alongside existing provision or extended provision and to learn from that. Can the Minister commit to publishing the findings of those pathfinder schools and that initial work and laying those findings before the House before we consider the regulations that would come subsequent to this legislation, so that we can see and fully understand what has been learned and taken on from those initial 750 schools when moving to a national rollout?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have already made clear that monitoring and evaluation are a fundamental part of the early adopters scheme. That will not only enable us to work out how to develop the scheme further in terms of a national rollout but allow noble Lords and others to analyse the extent to which the model is working and what some of the challenges may be around issues raised by noble Lords this afternoon.
Baroness Penn (Con)
To be really specific, will the outcomes of that monitoring and evaluation be made available before the regulations are laid to implement breakfast clubs nationally? That is my question. If the Minister’s answer is no, that is fine. Maybe she has been clear, but I would hope it would be yes—that is what I would like to know.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
What I have been absolutely clear about is that the point of the early adopters scheme is to enable us to design the national rollout. If the noble Baroness wants me to commit to bringing back further information to the House, I am of course willing to do that. My point is that the information will in fact be much more widely available in terms of all of the issues that have been raised by noble Lords. I thought that I have been pretty clear about that.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the statement that was made by the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon, which is very welcome. It is very similar to a proposal made by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which, sadly, did not happen, in the build-up to the London 2012 Games. One reason why it faltered was because the cost associated with delivering those objectives was very high indeed. I happen to believe it was well worth the budget. Can the Minister confirm whether the costs associated with what has been announced this afternoon will be covered by her departmental budget, or are they coming from elsewhere in government?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, I am not going to go into those details, and neither would the noble Lord expect me to. He challenged me about whether any announcements had been made, and I pointed him to one made today. I will just point out, however, that the reason why the plans outlined by Prime Minister Gordon Brown did not come to fruition was because, of course, after 2010, Gordon Brown was not the Prime Minister anymore and those who were did not choose to take forward those plans. That is why we have had to wait until this point, under a Labour Government, for another commitment to the sort of sporting entitlement that he asked about earlier.
To move on from breakfast clubs, I turn to Amendments 190 and 194 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Boycott, which seek to establish a school food improvement scheme and to update the school food standards. I recognise the importance of these reforms and the vital work that noble Lords have done to raise the profile of school food policy. That is why I am pleased that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was able to announce in the other place, on 5 June, that we are working with stakeholders and experts from across the sector to revise those standards, to ensure that they support our work to create the healthiest generation of children in history. We will share further details on this consultation in due course. I invite noble Lords to engage on this, including on the important question of how we can ensure that schools comply with the updated school food standards. I am sure that that will build on the work already done by the compliance pilot and by the work done to support governors to challenge and assure the quality of food that is being offered in their schools.
There were several questions raised relating to free school meals and entitlement. We will of course have the opportunity to return to those and to deal with them when we come to the group that is specifically about free school meals. That is why I am not covering them now.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have really enjoyed this debate, which has covered many aspects of the well-being of children, including good food and exercise and the effects they have on their health, learning and ability to socialise. I particularly enjoyed a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, when he said he enjoyed seeing the children “tuck in”. I think all of us want to see children tucking in to healthy, tasty food.
I was a little disappointed by the Minister on Amendment 161. I had hoped that she would be able to tell me how she can do it, rather than why she cannot, but I think I shall have to be satisfied for the time being. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, responded to the recommendations of the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, and I expressed disappointment that all she was able to tell me was that she was going to implement some of the things that the previous Government had already promised, but she did promise that there would be more. I said that I was really encouraged by that, and I hope that the Minister took on board that I said earlier, in terms, that I very much welcomed the widening of eligibility for free school meals and the commitment to reviewing school food standards, which Minister Morgan promised me last November. That is very good indeed. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that I welcome every extra penny that goes to providing children with more good food.
My noble friend mentioned Tony Blair. I do not know if the Minister is aware that a few months ago, Henry Dimbleby and Dolly van Tulleken produced a report called Nourishing Britain, in which they interviewed previous Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State for Health and other appropriate Ministers and asked them what they wished they had done. Most of them said that they wished they had done more. Tony Blair said that his advice to a Government is to be bold and act fast. While welcoming what the Government are already doing, I say to them—and I hope I will not be blamed for saying this: be bolder and act faster. I hope that the Minister will recognise that, although the Government have taken some important steps forward, there are still a number of places in which to do even better. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 161.
Lord Bird
“Child poverty targets(1) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the publication of the Child Poverty Strategy and no later than 31 March 2026 if that strategy has not been published, lay regulations made by statutory instrument that establish binding child poverty targets.(2) Child poverty targets must include—(a) targets for reducing the number of children living in poverty, and(b) timescales by which each target must be achieved.(3) The Secretary of State must lay an annual report before Parliament setting out—(a) steps they have taken to deliver on the child poverty targets, and(b) progress that has been made towards the child poverty targets.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to set binding child poverty reduction targets in regulations.
Lord Bird (CB)
Amendment 163 in my name would place a duty on the Secretary of State to set binding child poverty reduction targets and report on them annually to Parliament. This amendment will hold the Government to their promise to reduce child poverty and enable them to measure their progress. This amendment would secure long-term focus on tackling child poverty which transcends changes of government.
I have listened to the former discussion and I am of the opinion that a lot of government and parliamentary time goes into chasing the horse once the horse has bolted. That is one of the big problems we have. We are talking about food and the fact that our children do not get fed properly; the poverty of knowledge, experience and need means that there are many millions of children in this country who have inherited poverty and, because they inherited poverty, they have a particular attitude towards food. I myself came from the Tizer-swilling, ice cream, Kit-Kat, Twix generation that took all those sorts of things, largely because that was what was on offer. I was culturally educated and socially created in that tradition.
I would like to see the Government have targets on reducing poverty, and I would like to have a debate on how we reduce it. I am not saying that I stand against the idea of giving children food—I welcome it. We welcomed it in the Big Issue and we celebrated the occasions when people like Marcus Rashford rushed forward and said, “Let’s have more food and free school meals for children”. I am a great believer in that. But the point is, when are we going to move beyond always responding once the horse has bolted? When are we going to move to a situation where we prevent children needing this?
One of the things that we could be doing is setting targets. We would be helping the Government, and ourselves, to look at all the things we can do to get rid of poverty, prevent poverty and cure people of poverty. I do not think that being well fed at school will necessarily make enormous changes to the trajectory of your life if you have been an inheritor of poverty. That is one of the major problems that we have. We have this situation where we are always coming up with bright and clever pilots, programmes and initiatives. Governments spend an enormous amount of time doing that.
I would love a situation where we try to say goodbye to poverty, and that will mean moving beyond these emergencies. I listen to the Government and the debates in society and I feel, in a way, that they are not much different from refugeeism. They are not much different from the internal refugees who exist in Britain: the people in the poorest situations who have inherited poverty. What we are doing is trying to make poverty a little bit more comfortable.
I am calling for the Government to have targets so that we can measure the effects of their efforts and advise and help them to move beyond this emergency-ism into prevention and cure-ism. Those are the kinds of areas I am interested in and why I tabled Amendment 163.
Will the Government commit to targets to reduce child poverty? Will the child poverty strategy include targets? I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in support of Amendment 163, to which I have added my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for tabling it.
A recent article in the academic journal Social Policy & Administration on the harm done to children by the benefit cap and the two-child limit, demonstrated the implications of poverty for children’s well-being. The authors concluded that their evidence provides
“a stark illustration of the multiple and severe harms”,
including social and emotional harms,
“caused by poverty, and … the benefit cap and the two-child limit”.
Similarly, other academic research points to the “hidden injuries” and “degradations” suffered particularly by families in deep poverty. The Children’s Society’s The Good Childhood Report makes clear the damage poverty does to children’s well-being. New research from the Child Poverty Action Group, of which I am honorary president, highlights the ways in which lack of money can prevent secondary school children attending school and limits their time at school.
The establishment of the child poverty task force and the commitment to an ambitious child poverty strategy, which is the kind of thing the noble Lord is asking for, is thus very welcome. In a report I wrote recently for Compass, I supported the case made by End Child Poverty and many others for legally binding targets with clear milestones, pointing to the experience of the last Labour Government, when targets helped to galvanise action on child poverty, leading to a reduction of 600,000 or six percentage points. That experience underlined the importance of targets to the effectiveness of the emergent strategy.
CPAG conducted interviews with 40 practitioners with a range of expertise relating to child poverty. They were unanimous in their view that an effective strategy must set clear targets. CPAG argued that such targets for the short, medium and long term need to be “aspirational yet achievable”, learning from other countries.
The practitioners also make the case for a target relating to the depth of poverty, such as reducing average or median poverty depth. This, they suggest,
“will spur the strategy to increase incomes for all children in poverty and help to demonstrate progress even for children who remain in poverty”.
It might be “making poverty more comfortable”, to quote the noble Lord—like him, I would like to see the end of poverty—but in the short term, for those who are really pushed deep into poverty, making it slightly more comfortable is, perhaps, no bad thing. It would also help to counter the argument sometimes used against targets: that they encourage a “poverty plus a pound” mentality that thinks the job is done once enough people are pulled just across the poverty line. Incidentally, the same could be said of a parallel duty to measure children’s well-being, which is the subject of a later amendment.
In its latest poverty report, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation observed that the average person in poverty has an income 28% below the poverty line, up from 23% in the mid-1990s. Those living in very deep poverty have an average income 57% below the poverty line—an increase in the gap of nearly two-thirds over the past 25 years. Families have been pushed deeper and deeper into poverty, largely due to the huge cuts in social security made by the Conservative Governments.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 163, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bird, to which I added my name. One of the advantages of membership of this House is the free subscription to the New Statesman, which recently devoted a whole issue to Britain’s child poverty epidemic. From it, I will quote Andrew Marr, who wrote that
“child poverty is inescapably central to any party with a sense of justice and fairness—it creates damage for a lifetime”.
As a teacher, I am increasingly aware of the growing research that shows that education is not the leveller that we thought it was. What comes in goes out. Poverty, lack of opportunities, transport and cultural capital all impact on a child’s progress and attainment. As Gordon Brown said, it costs more not to invest in children than to invest in them. We have déjà vu here. Once again, like the curriculum review, the Bill is arriving before a crucial report. This amendment, so movingly and passionately introduced by my noble friend, enshrines that the findings of the child poverty strategy are acted on. If they are not, a lot of work that we have been doing on this Bill will eventually be proven to have been expensively wasted.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his tour de force. One thing he did not say was that, as soon as children, particularly children from low-income families, go into school, the gap in their learning narrows as a result of child poverty. Growing up in poverty is strongly linked to lower educational outcomes, worse health and reduced lifetime earnings. As of 2022-23, 4.3 million children, 29%, in the UK lived in relative poverty. Rates are higher for single-parent and minority-ethnic families. An estimated £500 million in unpaid child maintenance exists, and many lone parents do not receive the money that is due to them. The Child Poverty Act 2010 led to measurable progress until—and this is crucial—the targets were removed in 2016. During that period, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%.
We could all get involved in talking about the effects of child poverty, but the amendment is about saying, “We need to have targets”, and that is absolutely right. You cannot go on a journey unless you know what you want to achieve and measure as you go along. I will repeat the evidence to support that: the Child Poverty Act 2010 had targets, and it led to improvements. As soon as those targets were removed, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%. What does that tell us? Does that tell us targets are right or that they are not the best way of moving forward? I do not know, but my common sense tells me that you need to have targets to understand where you are going. I do not understand what I am saying, to be quite honest, because I thought the targets were—
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I have not spoken on the Bill, but I have been present for quite a lot of the debates. I am slightly confused by the what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, and I wonder whether he meant to phrase it like that. He said that when the targets were removed, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%. Does he mean it the other way round—that it rose, rather than fell? I just wondered whether he might be able to clarify that.
Lord Storey (LD)
I have to be careful here with what I say. When are you are in Committee, you are dealing with dozens of amendments, and you get handed briefs to do that. Initially, I read that to be the way the noble Baroness said it. But when I read it again, I thought, “This does not make sense. Could it be the other way round?” I slightly inwardly panicked and thought, “I am not going to mislead the Committee and say something that is not correct”. I am going to put that down and say that my common sense tells me that if you are doing something, you need to know where you are going on that journey. You need to be able to understand that a target is set and ask, “Have I reached that target or not?” The best example of that is—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am so sorry; this is perhaps just to put the noble Lord out of his misery. I remind noble Lords that under the last Labour Government, there were targets. They were made legally binding in the 2010 Act, but the targets were already there, and child poverty fell. Under the subsequent Governments, child poverty started to rise again, and it has risen. I am not saying it is just because of the targets, but the targets certainly helped to galvanise civil society, local authorities and central government. That is why the noble Lord’s gut feeling is absolutely right.
Lord Storey (LD)
It is wonderful to be surrounded by so many supportive people, including someone in the Official Opposition, who has just told me it should be the other way round.
What I originally said should have been the other way round. You have only to look at the NHS to see that: when we had clear targets in the NHS, we could see the progress that was being made or not being made. As soon as we did away with targets, we did not know how successful or unsuccessful we were. I support this amendment because it says, “If we are going to deal with child poverty, we need to say what we want to achieve and the targets we want to set”, and we can monitor them and know whether we are successful or unsuccessful. I apologise for misleading the Committee.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I begin by stressing that reducing child poverty is a goal that we clearly share across the House, and tackling the challenge of child poverty must be a priority for every Government. This Government have been very clear on that point.
Understandably, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, reflects his desire to drive forward real progress on this issue, and he brings extraordinary experience from his own life. My remarks and caution about the noble Lord’s amendments are in the spirit of honesty and respect to the noble Lord and in no way diminish the aims of his amendment but raise, I hope, reasonable questions about the approach.
As the noble Lord said—I have never heard the phrase used like this before, but I thought the concept of inherited poverty was very helpful—we know that child poverty stems from a number of different interconnected factors, including employment patterns, housing costs, structure of families, educational opportunities and regional economic conditions. My overriding concern is that having binding central targets risks oversimplifying this very complex challenge and could overlook local interventions that genuinely improve children’s lives. The challenges and underlying causes of a child living in poverty in Hackney or in Jaywick are significantly different, despite them being only about 50 miles apart. In fact, I would argue that, for a child growing up in poverty, the differences between Bristol and Weston-super-Mare, which are on each other’s doorstep, are also very great.
We have seen repeatedly how targets can distort behaviour and priorities. When governments and local authorities face binding targets, there is a risk that they are driven to pursue interventions that improve statistics rather than outcomes. This can lead to short-term fixes that artificially move families just above the poverty threshold without addressing the underlying causes; somewhere back to the empty stable and bolted horse that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, referred to. However, I absolutely recognise the reality behind the call that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made to make particularly deep poverty more comfortable—a slightly curious concept, but I think we all understand exactly what she means.
Child poverty, as noble Lords know, manifests differently across England—from rural communities that face challenges with transport and access to employment, to urban areas grappling with housing costs and concentrated deprivation. What works in Manchester would be inappropriate for rural Devon, and I would argue that local authorities, combined authorities and community organisations are perhaps often better placed to understand and respond to their specific poverty challenges than central government.
Setting binding targets risks creating a hierarchy of government priorities which may not reflect emerging needs or, indeed, changing subjects. Such targets risk us focusing on specific areas rather than the underlying causes of child poverty. So again, I do not agree with the approach set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, but I do agree with his ambition; and I also agree with the call of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for action as well as words.
As I said in opening, I know that the Government are very focused on reducing child poverty, and I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I just ask her why she thinks that all the charities working in the field and with local authorities, as well as academics, are calling for legally binding targets, if they would have the effect she says and would not help to address the systemic causes of poverty?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Obviously, I respect their opinions, but there is plenty of evidence—and the noble Baroness will know this in other contexts, not necessarily about child poverty—where targets have distorted behaviour, not always delivering on the aspiration of those who recommended them at the time.
Before I sit down, I would like to put on record a clarification about my closing remarks earlier on the first group that we debated today. I remain very concerned about the lack of a comprehensive and up-to-date dataset and analysis of the financial position of independent providers won from the Government, but I was wrong to say, in the earlier debate on Tuesday evening, that the figure the Minister quoted regarding the profits of the independent children’s home sector was for the whole sector. When I reread Hansard, possibly for the third time, it was clear that she had stated that it was for the largest 20 providers. In fact, the figure was for the 19 largest providers, but none the less I apologise to the Committee, to the Minister and to officials.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I inject one further thought that she might agree with? While the sentiments adduced in this debate are entirely right, and the concern is absolutely an important concern, does she agree that, in that discussion of centrally imposed targets versus the removal of targets, looking at the particular circumstances is profoundly important? The targets were removed after what those of us who do financial services call the global financial crash, when GDP declined considerably—in fact, we are still seeing the effects of what happened in 2008—but, because child poverty is relative, a decline in GDP has a material impact on whether child poverty goes up or down. I wonder whether that should be part of the consideration of where the targets fit. My own view is that some targets are important, but it is more important to get GDP going, which I think is the Government’s intent in this case, so relative child poverty of itself becomes less of a problem.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very helpful point, and I absolutely agree with it.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
Very briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Hampton in saying that education is fundamental here. You do not resolve poverty unless a child is put through education successfully. Therefore, my plea is that the main message from this debate should be that local authorities should prioritise promoting education for children in poverty. That is actually the way to a successful resolution of this problem.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for the clarification at the end of her comments.
Amendment 163 has enabled us to have a very good debate about the importance of making progress on child poverty. I agree fully with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and my noble friend Lady Lister for ambition on reducing child poverty. The success of the last Labour Government in tackling child poverty is the legacy that we are aiming to build on in this one. We want to see an enduring reduction in child poverty over this Parliament as part of a long-term, 10-year strategy for lasting change. The child poverty strategy, which we will publish in the autumn, will set out the Government’s strong commitment to this and, importantly, how we plan to achieve this reduction. The strategy will tackle overall child poverty as well as going beyond that to focus on the children in the deepest poverty, lacking essentials and what is needed to give every child the best start in life.
I very strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bird, that this is a multifaceted problem. Several noble Lords have identified particular issues that are likely to benefit children. I agree that education, and particularly recognition of the need for education for disadvantaged children, which is also a key theme for this Government, is an important part of that, but there are in fact a complex and interrelated range of issues that lead to child poverty and that can help to alleviate it.
We have already started to take substantive action across major drivers of child poverty through the spending review 2025. This includes: an expansion of free school meals, which will lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of the Parliament; establishing a long-term crisis and resilience fund, supported by £1 billion a year; investing in local family support services; and extending the £3 bus fare cap. We have also announced the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation and £13.2 billion across the Parliament for the warm homes plan.
Our commitments at the 2025 spending review come on top of the existing action we are taking, which includes expanding free breakfast clubs, as we talked about today; capping the number of branded school uniform items that children are expected to wear, which I think we will talk about on Monday; increasing the national minimum wage for those on the lowest incomes; and supporting 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions. The Child Poverty Taskforce will continue to explore all available levers to drive forward short and long-term action across government to reduce child poverty. The strategy will look at levers across four key themes: increasing incomes, reducing essential costs, increasing financial resilience and better local support, especially in the early years. This will build on the reform plans under way across government and work under way in devolved Governments.
We agree that timely reporting is important in monitoring progress. The Government already have a statutory duty to publish poverty statistics annually. In addition, in the autumn we will set out the monitoring and evaluation arrangements we will put in place for our strategy for this year and future years, so that the progress we make is transparent for all. I very much take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made about accountability, both to this House and more broadly, for making progress on the strategy, but our view is that statutory targets for child poverty would not in themselves drive reductions in poverty. They can be reversed, and have been in the past, so do not serve as an effective means of binding government to a specific course of action. As my noble friend referenced—although only to say that she did not agree with it—they also risk adversely narrowing the focus of effort to moving the children closest to the poverty line over it, rather than the direct and comprehensive approach that we will take to helping children in relative and deep poverty across the United Kingdom.
I cannot help but add that noble Lords have come up with all sorts of reasons as to why things might have changed in 2010, but my view is that the defining issue in whether children get out of poverty is not whether targets are set but the nature of the Government at the time. The last Labour Government saw reductions in child poverty; this Labour Government are committed to achieving that as well. I hope that provides assurance to noble Lords.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I have a last point to make. I am obviously disappointed by my noble friend’s response on targets, but she talked about monitoring and accountability. One of the really good things about the way the Child Poverty Taskforce has gone about its work has been the way it has engaged with—and listened to—both parents and children with experience of poverty. One recommendation made by a lot of people in the sector is that this engagement with those who have experience of poverty should continue as part of the monitoring and accountability mechanism. I just wanted to throw that into the pot.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for recognising the enormously broad way in which the Child Poverty Taskforce has undertaken its work, under the leadership of my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It has been about looking at the whole breadth of actions that this Government can take, and engaging with those who have the most experience of what it means to be poor, as well as others who represent them. I hope and believe that broad approach and the commitment of this Labour Government will make the real impact to children that we all seek.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her assessment, but I do not agree. It is interesting that, when she outlined how she will tackle poverty, she mentioned school uniforms, breakfast clubs and social housing. I have an opinion, which I expressed earlier; I think that food clubs are a response to the fact that the horse has bolted and we are chasing it down the hill. The same goes for uniforms: they are not necessarily methodologies to dismantle poverty.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept that I was not making that argument? What I was actually arguing—in agreement with him—is that we need a multifaceted approach and that we need to look at the causes for people ending up in poverty. Taking action to reduce the costs for families around the country—the costs he has just referenced—is an important thing that the Government can do, alongside the more strategic, detailed and cross-cutting work that the child poverty task force is also doing.
Lord Bird (CB)
I agree with the Minister 100%. We should never, ever abandon people who are in an emergency. But, if that is what we are doing, and if that is what most of our efforts go into, we will never come to the day when we dismantle poverty.
My problem—I have talked about this on a number of occasions in the House—is around social housing. I had an argument with a leading Member of this House, who was in social housing for many decades. I made the point to him, “Isn’t it interesting and damning that, if you give somebody social housing in current times, there’s a distinct possibility that their children and their children’s children—and, probably, their children’s grandchildren—will live in poverty?” Because social housing produces only in the region of 2%, 3% or 4% of the social mobility of finishing your levels and getting into university or an apprenticeship. Social housing is not a route out of poverty; it is, in a way, a stumbling block.
We will not move forward until we revolutionise social housing and go back to the kind of social housing that I had when we moved from the slums of Notting Hill and into a Catholic orphanage. We then left that and went into social housing in Fulham, where we had sociable housing: the people there included police officers and a trainee teacher. I have talked about this on countless occasions. We had our first parking warden; we did know what to do with him, because most of us did not have a car. The point is that there was a social element, including the disabled and the old. The problem is that, because social housing has lost its sociability and has become a place of refuge and deep need—which we cannot turn against—we have people who remain for ever in an emergency.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, because they argued for targets far more eloquently than me—this is my first amendment, so I am getting used to it and learning on the job. The point is that targets will get us thinking about those kinds of levels. What do we have to do next to get people out of poverty? We have to go beyond the food, the uniforms and the social housing. We have to get to the enemies of the people who pass through poverty, because they are “mind-forg’d manacles”.
I am not decrying this, but I had an argument a few years ago when they were saying, “Why don’t we list all the ingredients that go into a Mars bar, a KitKat, a Twix or a bottle of Coca-Cola?”, so that people would read them and say, “I’m not going to eat that”. The “mind-forg’d manacles” of poverty mean that you will go for the Coca-Cola whether or not it is good for you. These are the things that we need to do to dismantle poverty. One of the simplest ways is to concentrate the Government by bringing in all the philosophical, intellectual, cultural and social reasons why people are caught in poverty.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, if the noble Lord brings his amendment back, will he consider adding a target on deep poverty? A lot of what he has said so eloquently has been about people who have been pushed, by a range of policies, into deep poverty.
Lord Bird (CB)
I have never heard of the concept of deep poverty. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said that poverty is different if you are in Weston-super-Mare or in Bristol. I was privileged to be banged up with people from the countryside, from the little cities and the big cities. I met all of them. We had a uniformity of thinking, which was so self-destructive. There is uniformity. There is a philosophy of poverty. Until we break through that, we are not going anywhere. The idea of relative poverty is ridiculous.
Unfortunately, we have increasing poverty because we have not attacked the inheritance of poverty. So many people break out of poverty because the parents choose not to simulate or duplicate what has happened before. My wife’s family come from poverty in India. They said goodbye to poverty. All the children have gone through college, done the levels and been to university. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.