Lords Chamber

Tuesday 20th May 2025

(began 3 weeks, 1 day ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest. A vast amount of a child's munication amount of a child's munication development takes place in the first two years of life. Without specific munication assistance, these children are already at a disadvantage. There are too many children who are not referred to a speech and language therapist until after the age of two. Having to prove competence to receive an AAC system is a barrier. How will the Minister assure assessment for the availability of AC mirrors that typical language development and is a priority for these early years?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lady raises quite a specific point. I think her broader point about the need for earlier assessment is one which the assessment is one which the government wholly recognises. It's government wholly recognises. It's quite, for example, we are providing further training for those in early years settings in order to be able to identify needs earlier. I think we do, as the noble Lady says, need to get better at the specifics to get better at the specifics around how we identify needs for assistive technology.

This is assistive technology. This is relevant to the training of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relevant to the training of The present system is time- consuming. Often, the people has to consuming. Often, the people has to wait quite a long time. It costly. Would it not be sensible to use the Would it not be sensible to use the expertise of qualified SENCOs to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speed up the process in schools? The noble Lord is right. This is why SENCOs receive specific training about how to use assistive technology. All teachers from the September were also, as part of the initial teacher training, receive training about the use of assistive technology and hopefully in that way, more teachers will understand the benefits for children and the equipment will be able to be more effectively used in schools.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if my noble friend can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if my noble friend can It was recently recommended for assistive technology to pull together innovation to the benefit of students with disabilities and of students with disabilities and those in employment. Could the noble Baroness the Minister update the Baroness the Minister update the house on the government's response?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house on the government's response? Yes, I am aware both of the important work that the all-party Parliamentary group does and also Parliamentary group does and also about the specific recommendation for the centre that he outlines. I for the centre that he outlines. I understand that my honourable friend Stephen Timms is working both on the short-term improvements to the
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My granddaughter some years ago had to move school in order to be identified as having dyslexia. She was treated as stupid at the first school she went to. She then went to a brilliant primary school. What sort of training teachers getting at least a identify that dyslexia is The noble Lady raises a really important point. We need to ensure that all teachers are able, first of all to be special needs teachers, that is the role. Secondly we need much earlier identification of those children with special needs and that needs to start in many cases before for all before children get to school.

We have improved the training for those in early years settings and it is why we are improving the support available to schools, to be able to identify children much earlier, including those with tough dyslexia, so that care can be taken. There is more we need to do in this area, which is why special educational needs reform is a key priority for this government and the Department of education.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would the Minister work with the Department of Health colleagues to ensure that there are sufficient, ensure that there are sufficient, not just teachers, sufficient speech and language therapy is to engage in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their education. Not only is there a need for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not only is there a need for multiagency work at a local level, there is also a need for work across government as a noble Lord is identified. I've also spoke about work for the Department of work and work for the Department of work and pensions. He is right for the ability for children to have the best start in life, particularly those with special needs, to have
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
14:59
14:59
15:01
15:01
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
The Minister will be aware of the recent developments in the Sudanese Armed Forces with a Prime Minister that has been welcomed by the African Union. Will the Minister reassure the House that the UK as pen holder will not legitimise pen holder will not legitimise either the RSF or the Sudanese Armed Forces with proxy civilians until there is a legitimate peace process that can allow this terrible war with the suffering of the civilians to come to an end, and there will be a genuine civilian authority at the end of it, which is representative of the people of Sudan?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lord knows that has been my clear ambition in terms of the contributions I made to this house and certainly with the contact we've and certainly with the contact we've made with all civilian groups, we have been planning for a Sudanese have been planning for a Sudanese country free from military rule and civilian led. He also knows that civilian led. He also knows that both warring parties have announced or attempted to set up governments. We are avoiding any effort to do We are avoiding any effort to do that.

We want a unified Sudan under a legitimate Sudanese government. In the meantime can we do need to focus on ensuring that we can establish a on ensuring that we can establish a process for ceasefire and peace, and of course, humanitarian access.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of course, humanitarian access. The UK you undertook to cooperate in regions, such as the Horn of in regions, such as the Horn of Africa? In the Minister confirm that this will include as a matter of this will include as a matter of priority acting together to counter the malign influence of Russia in the malign influence of Russia in
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
apparent that the chief executive To the House of Commons Committee. Has the time not right for the Secretary of State, and nobody places any blame on her or the noble Lord the Minister for the current state of the CCRC, but has the time not come on the decision of who should be the next Chair of the CCRC to not be made in the near future but today. Is an relaxing and it's unravelling quickly -- it is unravelling and it is unravelling quickly.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble and learned Lord did indeed raise these points a couple indeed raise these points a couple of weeks ago, and since then, we have had the letters in the Sunday have had the letters in the Sunday Times about the appearance of the chief executive in front of the chief executive in front of the Justice Select Committee. Are not going to comment on that because the CCRC is an independent body. But what I would say is that the CCRC what I would say is that the CCRC has already begun to apply several has already begun to apply several of the recommendations.

In relation to the appointment of the interim to the appointment of the interim chair, what I can say is that an chair, what I can say is that an individual has been identified and it's going through the approvals it's going through the approvals process so the announcement will be made imminently.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

made imminently. We have a case that has gone before the Criminal Cases Review Commission. With all the uncertainty that must be creating for families, particularly as they are also having to navigate at the moment a public enquiry, can the noble Lord the Minister satisfy this house that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moment? There has actually been an increase in the resource for the increase in the resource for the CCRC over the last five years or so. CCRC over the last five years or so. Partly to meet the forensics point,
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:21
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
safeguarding, where that goes. Because also it is important that the volunteers or staff do not hold them to themselves, the action is given. Yes, I can give the assurance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that the noble Lord seeks. The air ambulance service is a vital part of emergency care. It is a matter of concern and shame that a matter of concern and shame that in one of the richest countries, it has a primarily rely upon charitable donations, which cannot provide consistent and stable service. Can I consistent and stable service. Can I urge the Minister to ensure that air ambulance services are properly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

funded from the public purse. I do think there is a role for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do think there is a role for charitable organisations and, including, if I could just say one including, if I could just say one example of hospices. When many hospices as been told many times in the chamber, as well as outside of the chamber, as well as outside of it, hospices, for example and other charities, including the air ambulances welcome and relish the ambulances welcome and relish the freedom that they have as a charity and they actually don't want government funding and intervention.

I should say of course we very much respect and appreciate the role that respect and appreciate the role that air ambulance services make. My own brother was saved some 10 years ago, so I feel very connected on this I NHS. Data shows in this country that instances of volunteering are declining, so what measures does the Minister know about that will be put in place to ensure that all the volunteers that are currently under schemes that is going to be closed are supported into whatever the requirements are of the new scheme? Because things like having to go through checks again or reapply or anything like that might just put barriers in the way to people who are already valued in transferring them, supporting them into the new scheme?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand that point and it is important to retain people's important to retain people's interest. What I would say to the interest. What I would say to the noble Lady, it would be like a one- stop shop and better to achieve than what the noble Lady and I are seeking. Having heard about it already, the functionality that is
15:32
15:33
None Portrait Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - committee stage (day 1)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

everybody on the old functionality. My Lords, time for questions has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, time for questions has elapsed. The children's well being a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Schools Bill. Baroness Mone. I beg to move that the house do now resolve itself into a committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

upon the bill. The question is that the house
15:33
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the house resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The Children's well-being and Schools

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. Clause 1, amendment one. I rise to speak to amendment one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment one in my name which seeks to clarify the purposes of this bill and while the purposes of this bill and while the government's intention to improve children's safety, well- being and education have widespread support, I laid this amendment support, I laid this amendment because I believe there is currently an unbridgeable gap between these aims and several of the provisions aims and several of the provisions within the bill. I must express profound concerns regarding both parts of the bill.

There is a troubling pattern throughout its of troubling pattern throughout its of an unclear definition of the problem it seeks to solve, insufficient evidence for the proposed solutions, and lack of successful piloting to and lack of successful piloting to give us confidence these changes will achieve their intended outcomes, no clear implementation outcomes, no clear implementation plan, insufficient resources to implement and important gaps in implement and important gaps in areas including children's well- being, special educational needs and disabilities, smart phones, social disabilities, smart phones, social media and more.

Our job across this house as the scrutinising chamber is to do just that and to ensure that the bill leaves this house stronger and in a state where we can all feel confident that it will work in practice and not just on paper. My Lords, in recent weeks, I have spoken to a number of directors of children's services and practitioners, and they have all unprompted raised serious concerns about part one of the bill, particularly regarding reforms to family help, children in need and child protection.

But the most alarming concerns came yesterday from Professor Eileen Munro, author of the 2011 review into child protection, who stated in the Times in a letter, and I quote, the government's proposed reforms to children social care risk dismantling a system that has steadily improved without sufficient evidence that the replacement will work. Well the ambition to expand early help is welcome, indeed, my own review called for this, the plan racks -- lacks realism, rigour or real safety framework.

Professor Munroe continues: these reforms radically restructure the complex system of professionals in safeguarding arrangements, yet the Department for Education is altering or removing key processes without asking why they exist or how they interact with other checks and balances. What looks tidy on paper, neatly divided pillars of reform may create dangerous, unpredictable consequences in practice as they interact. These are concerns from one of the greatest experts on child detection in the country, and we should take them very seriously.

Her letter closes with the hope that as this bill passes through Your Lordships' House, the government will use this as an opportunity to listen, to pause and to revise its plan. And I hope that when the Minister response, she had -- she Minister response, she had -- she who has experience in much respect in this area will be able to offer some encouragement in contrast to the tone to the government's response in the Times yesterday. As Professor Munroe wrote yesterday, form should strengthen child protection, not weaken it.

-- Reform should strengthen. So why is Professor Munroe so tired -- so worried? These early clauses have not been properly tested. Indeed, there are reports that the initial Pathfinder sites are encountering significant augmentation problems implementation problems that need to be resolved before wider rollout. Shirley, the government must adapt its approach. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm when that evaluation will be published. Equally concerning is the inadequate funding to children social care.

The £290 million allocated for one year falls dramatically short, estimated by the Independent Review into Children's Child Independent Review into Children Social Care. More broadly, part one is quietly unambitious. Fails to offer a vision of how to expand the reach of well tested approaches like family group decision-making or present convincing approach to growth capacity to support looked after children in communities and avoid unnecessary placement in children's homes or worse, in unregistered provision.

I cannot overstate our collective responsibility as the House to address these issues thoroughly and carefully in the interests of those children. This is not a matter for party politics. We have a duty to get this right or children will be harmed. As was evident during Second Reading, and turning to the second part of the bill, there were also serious concerns here. The proposed changes to Academy freedoms are both puzzling and troubling. Among the most egregious are the delay in introducing effective interventions for schools to be charged in special measures are inadequate, described by the Children's Commissioner is something that will leave children spending longer in failing schools.

The bill removes trust discretion to use their professional judgement regarding curriculum and teacher pay and conditions. And the new power of the Secretary of State to intervene when the charge that trust is likely to breach its funding agreement and direct the remedy. The bill's own impact assessment says that the limitations on people admission numbers will limit the ability of popular schools to grow. For decades, parents have voted with their feet when it comes to schools. This will erode parental choice.

Regarding home education, the proposed register misses both ends of the spectrum. At one end, the scheme is drafted will not adequately help and is unnecessarily intrusive, requiring proportion detail from parents who pose minimal risk to the children. Most critically, it fails to address the needs of parents who never intended to home educate but feel they have no choice due to inadequate provision for their child with special educational needs. We will be putting forward amendments to address these shortcomings.

This bill presents a critical opportunity to shape the next decade of school improvement in England. On these benches, we would support an effort that builds on what has been learned from the academisation journey thus far. The first phase of academisation addressed entrenched underperformance in some schools. Academy trust use their autonomy to innovate and raise standards. Now, we need to scale the best practice of the most effective trust and the most effective local authority schools to deliver better outcomes
15:43
None Portrait Amendment:1 Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-

to pupils, more opportunities for staff, greater choice for parents staff, greater choice for parents and a more resilient school system. and a more resilient school system. We need a system where the lowest performing trusts and local authorities feel the same level of oversight that is currently felt by oversight that is currently felt by the head teacher of an underperforming school. This means underperforming school. This means evaluating not just results but the value that responsible bodies and. Thought needs to be given where Thought needs to be given where another body could improve outcomes for pupils, what the mechanisms might be that could facilitate that might be that could facilitate that change so that autonomy and change so that autonomy and accountability are aligned and the interests of children are kept paramount.

There is a tremendous paramount. There is a tremendous opportunity to bring forward measures in this bill that will deliver for children, for staff and deliver for children, for staff and for parents. I hope the Minister will consider concerns expressed across the house and indeed outside across the house and indeed outside of it in the spirit in which they are offered and the open to amending the bill to achieve much more. If we don't make these changes, or at least give them the chance for honest and detailed consideration, we face, in my opinion, full we face, in my opinion, full unacceptable risks.

-- four Unacceptable risks. The first is we end up with an effective, overly bureaucratic regime for residential care and independent fostering agencies. The second is we get a set of rules in relation to home education that neither keep the vulnerable few safe nor respect the rights of the majority. But it is the most serious risks that need spelling out. In relation to our schools, we face stagnation and at worst, a steady decline in standards. And in relation to children 's social care, we face an increase in the number of children suffering avoidable harm.

And I know that this is not what the government wants to see happen, and particularly neither the Minister sitting on the frontbench today. They don't want that any more than the coalition government didn't want to create some of the problems that we see today in relation to the SENSOR system we passed the Children and Families Act. -- SEND system. But introducing this without proper preparation, puts the heart -- put preparation, puts the heart -- put the cart before the course -- horse.

I absolutely commit to both noble Baronesses the ministers to both engage with the bill in the most constructive spirit possible and I hope that they feel the amendments in my name a practical and constructive. But I also oh both noble ladies my honesty in setting out the degree of concern, even though standing here right now, warm though standing here right now, warm words might feel easier to say. But the stakes, the safety, their well- being and the futures of our being and the futures of our
15:45
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
Insert the new clause on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled List. No one else seems to be rising to their feet, I declare an interest as their feet, I declare an interest as a member of an education trust, a multi-academy trust. I am deeply multi-academy trust. I am deeply moved by my noble friend. To confirm and clarify the objectives. To stop and clarify the objectives. To stop the government doing anything that is outside those objectives. I recall a similar amendment had been recall a similar amendment had been moved by my noble friend's bill, a moved by my noble friend's bill, a similar amendment tabled.

An similar amendment tabled. An identical bill, multiplies and identical bill, multiplies and private school. It does seem the so-called purpose and members are so-called purpose and members are becoming the future so when the becoming the future so when the purpose of the bill is so short. The only point I want to make, in a brief intervention is that these ambitions don't seem to take account of the many challenges facing the education sector. At the moment a vacuum of its own.

Detached from the real world. The provisions of the bill as my noble friend has just said will impose new responsibilities and local authority on adult services on schools and on teachers. This is at a time when there are already enormous pressures on the sector. Raising the question whether there will be capacity to deliver. However well-intentioned the measures. Finance, protected departments like the DfE have been told by the Treasury to make reductions of minus 11% in the expenditure.

We don't know the outcome of that round, designed to keep the government rooted. I expect the Department have to make some uncomfortable decisions that will affect the capacity to deliver reform and indeed of the Department to fund reform. These pressures are already available, present in many local authorities. Several local authorities, namely the education authorities have already issued section 104 measures. County councils are being monitored by the MHCLG as they are at risk of falling over this year.

If that happens they will have to cut back on existing services, before they think of introducing new ones. Add the pressure on children's services is already acute. Then, again my noble friend mentioned the government recently announced proposals, involving many local authorities are being reorganised as we move from 2 to. There may be good reasons for this but it will be a major distraction from doing their normal duties. As they worry about whether they will have a job, within the new structure.

Expecting these officers to take on more responsibilities on safeguarding and supporting children in need, children in care, care leavers and children being home educated is a big ask for those officials in a time of turbulence. Turning to schools, they are already confronted with underfunded pay increases for teachers, and funded already before any settlement above the Treasury estimates. For many schools there is an increase in employee contributions for pension funds, and funded. And again, the contribution introduced is not fully Schools face numerous challenges, many are struggling to find qualified teachers, particularly in certain subjects like physics, design and technology languages.

Some subjects experiencing a 60 to 83% drop in postgraduate teacher recruitment. As white mentioned rising mental health issues among children. A six-month wait for ADHD treatment as we read yesterday. Councils winning only 1% of these. There has been a significant increase in people absenteeism, since the pandemic. Particularly amongst disadvantaged children. The subject of recent questions. That is the context of the amendment and the bill. Ministers may fairly argue that some of the pressures are inherited, but many are not.

The proposals in the bill are essentially those of the government. The point I want to make is that Ministers are demanding a lot of the system and to the question I pose is whether there is the capacity in the system to deliver the reforms in the bill. I hope the Minister will be able to allay my concerns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause, particularly where it describes the purpose of the bill as being to improve standards and remove barriers to opportunity, in remove barriers to opportunity, in schools, in England and Wales. I will be very brief and I just want
15:51
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
will be very brief and I just want to focus on part two, dealing with schools. For me, part two should be first and foremost about promoting parental choice. Because only parents really know what sort of education is best for their Not the state, but parents. So there should be choice. As much as possible, since the children are all different and what could be better than an education which enhances the unique talents and personalities of each child. This also chimes with article 2 of protocol 1, to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Which states in terms, "In the exercise of many functions, which it assumes, in relation to education and teaching, the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching, in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. " So, choice should be enshrined in any bill, purporting to promote children's wellbeing. Is Two, I rather fear the opposite is the case. To take just two examples. Academies are important. Since at their heads have shown by their excellent records of achievement that they know how to run schools, better than government.

Part two would impose a one-size-fits-all approach, national curriculum, on academies. With the worst probably to follow in is sweeping Henry VIII powers. Then there are faith schools, what could be more important than a child being educated, in an environment rooted educated, in an environment rooted in discipline, dignity and duty, which are hallmarks of our faith schools, such as her ad schools and other faith schools. But part two would grant sweeping powers to local authorities to monitor, register and regulate faith -based settings.

It seems to be an agenda seeking uniformity, over choice. Threatening our diverse landscape, so much admired, across the world. As it stands therefore part two, of this bill does not, for me, enhanced children's wellbeing. Which is what the title bill says it is supposed to do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the opportunity...
15:53
15:53
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
committee stage. Here we have had our first second reading speech, from a colleague. So I will not make a second reading speech. I will address at this amendment, which I address at this amendment, which I think is not necessary. We have a perfectly sensible, compressive description about what this bill seeks to do. We do not need another seeks to do. We do not need another seeks to do. We do not need another I welcome the opportunity, actually, the Baroness Merron is perfect clause has given us, to arrange a far more Friedli than the tightly timed second reading allowed -- Baroness Barran.

-- Arrange a far more freely. Part one and therefore Are where my sites are set, in this bill. Improving the safety and well-being of children and improving the regulation of children's homes, fostering agencies in other settings. Well looked after children are accommodated. We heard, from my are accommodated. We heard, from my noble friend, Baroness Barran about the editor at The Times yesterday. She robustly supports the expansion of early help. It is, in the provision of this, where the bill needs strengthening and greater specificity for stop for example about the role of family hubs.

Which are not even mentioned. A complex system of professionals and safeguarding arrangements is being restructured. Their key process is changed, or removed, without being clear. As to the functions they are already performing, placed in the bigger picture. I was on the design group, or the Edinburgh independent review of -- independent review of children's social care. In my detailed off-line discussions with the review team. On restructuring, which I see might be perceived to be finicky and unnecessary.

I am hearing concerns from directors of children's services and are now Professor Monro that these reforms could weaken the child protection, at a time when we are trying to battle down the hatches, with for example the single unit, unique identifying. As I keep saying during committee, I am concerned, as I was, during the independent care review, we are trying to do, by process what we should be doing through relationships, between professionals. Does the noble Baroness the Minister agree with the Department of education spokeswoman, quoted in the Times, also saying Munro's criticisms demonstrate a lack of understanding of the proposed reforms, which have been widely supported and rebalance the system away from crisis intervention and towards earlier help.

In other words, does she think that this eminent professor hasn't grasped her government plans? And can she know the current directors of children's services who are enthusiastic about this restructure. Child protection is everyone's business, who is involved with families and children. Hence my amendments, later in the bill, for family hubs to be included in a safeguarding arrangements. Of course not all local authorities have a family hubs it. But an audit the family hubs network found out in Leicester, earlier this year, found that 973 family health networks, in 133 out of 151 upper tier councils.

The vast majority do now have family hubs. I and other members in this House, particularly the noble Lady's Baroness Armstrong and Baroness O'Loan view, whom I welcome somewhat belatedly. No less warmly. Have been urging all governments to commit wholesale to family rollout across the country. Their propagation is unfinished business, from both the founding of the welfare state and the full implementation of a schedule to, paragraph 9 of the children's act 1989. As I have said, many times before.

My supporting of the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett's new clause, requiring local authorities to provide family support. Health, education and social work. All of these and other arms of the state have to pick up the pieces when families falter. That concept of family support needs to have presence, in a community. So parents in danger of splitting up of someone to turn,. Ex-partners going through a separation that is beginning to look messy can get early intervention, in the form of mediation.

After careful triage. Parents are losing control of their teenagers get support, before they get drawn into gangs. The support families in need in a myriad of ways is coordinated and accessed, through family hubs and the network of buildings and organisations to stop through a respectful relational approach. Of course that there is variability and only 75 local authorities hard networks are funded. Also tightly managed by the Department for Education's family hubs and staff for life program. Hallmark of the family hubs a network model, I have been working with Dr Callum, to implement, since 2007, is its responsiveness to local needs.

Indeed many local authorities have a great track record, in opening successful family hubs and they are told the family hubs network that they have had to slow down the rollout of services, to older children, so they could. The eyes across the Tees required by the staff alike program. I am a firm believer that family support has to start at maternity and ideally, earlier than that. That early intervention is far more easily achieved, one local family support professionals have built relationships with parents, carers and children, from the earliest days.

I have amendments, later in the bill, that would ensure parents know where to get the help and support, in their local area, by requiring local authorities to publish a start for life offer. That support should continue, when a mother has tragically had a newborn and often also older children and often also older children removed from her care. Otherwise a cave fight case files from the family courts show that history repeats it sells and judges can take as many as 40 or 15 children away from the same mother.

Our care for the mother should not end when a child is simply safe, given the likelihood that the safety of future children would also have to be secured. I also understand why the start for life offer has to be tightly drawn local authorities, with far more patchy provision. However where local authorities have pioneered good practice and blatant innovative trail crutch blazed an innovative trail, they should not have to conform to a one-size-fits- all approach. I understand that the level of standardisation is essential in a timely scallop of new approaches.

Began in quite a clunky way. It attracted a lot of criticism. It would never have got off the ground without tight off the ground without tight A large part of its success... A large part of its success... The ability to earn gained authority gave a fleet of hubs. Developing a similar approach to councils whose hubs are being hampered could similarly help greatly with progress of the whole national programme, hence I will likely table amendments later on in this well that will give councils and the con -- autonomy and We've heard some highly respected voices this afternoon and I just want to put two or three things on the record.

Lord Young of Cookham rightly draws attention to the fact that this kind of close has now been commonplace in terms of the
16:03
Lord Blunkett Portrait Lord Blunkett (Labour)
-
-
beginning of the committee stage of bills. I understand why people might want to raise specific issues or want to raise specific issues or even flag the amendments they themselves want to move through committee, but if we prolong Committee Stage to the point where our debates lose their purpose or we go into the night were frankly it's impossible to have rational and impossible to have rational and sensible debate, we lose the purpose of the committee stage itself. I understand what Lord Young of Cookham said about Second Reading.

I was frustrated to only have four was frustrated to only have four minutes. I know that the noble Baroness was deeply frustrated because she was trying to get back because she was trying to get back and couldn't do so. But we cannot have this at the beginning of every have this at the beginning of every committee stage. I've got amendments down. I understand how we need to down. I understand how we need to listen and learn. My noble friend the Minister on Second Reading did just that in terms of what Lord Baker and I and others from outside this house were saying.

There is a willingness to listen, to reflect, to believe we don't get things right the first time. There is real wisdom and experience in this house and beyond that can be brought to bear and we can change the bill and have a better result at the end of it but we will only do so if we pick up on what has been said, which is that we respect each other, there is no calling out of goodwill. Ministers are committed to working with us.

This is the role of our house. Over the 10 years I've been here, I've understood in a very clear way how different it is to the House of Commons. So, if we are able to listen to each other, two-way remark listen to each other, two-way remark to take -- to take well meant amendments and provide a better outcome for all, so much the better for this House. The respect of this House is very important. I've never quite understood recently by those who are most committed to this kind of second chamber go about undermining it.

I didn't understand that on the Football Governance Bill. And I think other bills and this one are in danger of going the same way, where we prolong debate rather than concentrate and focus on improving. Visit Lord Palmer, you are quite right -- I said to Lord Palmer. We will be up to debate those on amendments that are being put down. I'd like to pick up the issue of what part two is about. I think it's about raising standards for all children and opportunity and life chances.

I mean all children, not just those who can jump through particular hoops. We did touch on this in the 80 people who spoke on Second Reading. Let's try to get the committee stage and report. In the end, let us all believe, whatever side we are on, whatever part of the house were on, that we have done a good job in making this better.
16:05
Lord Wigley Portrait Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
I deliberately did not intervene because I was trying to ascertain how much of the bill was to do with Wales and how much was not to do with Wales. In the context of this amendment, may I ask the noble Baroness who moved this amendment to clarify that in regard to subsection C of the new section 1 that she proposes, where it says, and I select the words deliberately: improve standards in schools in Wales. Now, education in Wales is a totally devolved subject.

I know that the Welsh government and the that the Welsh government and the -- Senedd... These are not a matter of the generality. In introducing this new proposed clause 1, there is a suggestion, as I did, that this is applying to the generality of standards in schools in Wales. The noble Lady spoke about autonomy and accountability. That goes to the accountability. That goes to the heart of the provision in Wales, which is a devolved matter.

We must be clear in our minds where we are choosing these words. Clearly, the term England and Wales can arise quite rightly when we are talking quite rightly when we are talking about the jurisdiction. When we are talking about the legal aspects of it. But here we are talking about it. But here we are talking about the administration of education specifically. We are talking about schools, we are talking about schools in Wales, and I believe the schools in Wales, and I believe the Senedd has a right to know to what extent amendments like this apply to them.

them.
16:07
Lord Nash Portrait Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
-
I draw attention to my interest in the register, particularly the fact that I'm chair of the Multi- Academy Trusts. Speaking to this, the preamble to the bill, states about the safeguarding of children. Nothing in my view that we could do to further this endeavour could be greater then to restrict access to social media to over 16-year-olds, and that is why I tabled an amendment number 1.77 to this amendment number 1.77 to this effect.

And despite what the noble Lawson -- and despite what the noble Lord says, I believe this is essential to this bill. I think we all know naturally that social media is very harmful to our children. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence to support this. I will recommend that anybody who has not read the excellent book by Jonathan Height... We want our children to grow up to be thoughtful, be able to concentrate, exercise judgement, see the other side's point of view, be compassionate, etc.

We also want them to get a good nights sleep. Smart phones and social media set up exactly the opposite behaviours. In the 2022 piece of assessment, children were in the bottom 10 of 31 countries in areas such as curiosity, perseverance, emotional control, stress resilience or great, empathy and cooperation. There is now a strong body of clinical evidence on the harm that excessive use of smart phones and social media is doing a -- doing to our children's brains. Adolescence is a period of life in which our sense of self undergoes a profound transition.

As teenagers become more conscious of how others see them, they often experience increased self-consciousness and self- criticism. Social media and the algorithms attached to it only serve to amplify this. We also know that the adolescent brain is particularly susceptible to addictive behaviour. Constant exposure to fast-paced, highly stimulating content can only contribute -- can only condition the brain to expect frequent rewards rather than concentrate. Studies have shown the cause links between screens and the use of social media and sleep and depression.

I recently was -- UCL study showed a link between social media and eating disorders. Young people with eating disorders are more likely to be sharing negative content. Research has shown that young people frequently self-harm. Almost three quarters of teenage girls think that social media creates pressure for them to look a certain way. Nearly one in five people arrested two terrorism -related offences in the last year were children under 18. Social media has significant -- significantly expanded drug networks, particularly among teenagers and young adults.

Numerous studies have shown that gangs view social media platforms as essential tools for drug trafficking and gang recruitment. Parentkind tells us that many parents find social media harmful and feel that the age of 13 is too low. Australia has related -- restricted social media access. Gates has explained what Australia -- described what Australia is doing as highly useful. Teaching unions have very strongly pointed out the dangers of social media. It leaves a trail of harm, safeguarding -- safeguarding concerns, bullying, anxiety and the spread of extremist ideologies.

It is increasingly being weaponised with disgruntled parents using it as a platform to target staff. The general secretary of the NEU has said that we have to view the world of social media and mobile phones in the same prism as we view the tobacco companies. These are harmful to young people and in regulating. The general secretary has described mobile phones as lethal weapons. Why should we let the consequences of this fall on our hard-working teachers? Movement in support of the thinking behind my amendment is growing rapidly.

We now have health professionals for safer screens, smartphone free childhood, the unplugged coalition and many other organisations. Speaking to part B of this clause, turning to improving the regulation in fostering agencies and other settings, I will just send one note of caution. I'm in favour of cutting out the cowboys but I think the government should exercise the powers to restrict profits and impose unlimited financial penalties with caution. Residential settings for children and other groups are very out of favour in the private equity space and further restrictions on their financial capacity can only reduce capacity and, of course, the public sector has no money so in order to increase capacity, the private sector, the professional operators must be encouraged.

Turning to other settings, I am an adviser to the World National Children's...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will the noble Lord except that charitable sector and social enterprises actually probably have quite an important role to play in the delivery of residential care for children, and that that flexibility children, and that that flexibility in that will indeed help with the finances of that, because they are not in the business making excess profits?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

profits? There are many others. Turning to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are many others. Turning to other settings, an adviser to the children's foundation which works with boarding schools across the with boarding schools across the country to support care experienced and vulnerable children into often fully funded school bursary places. A significant proportion of the A significant proportion of the almost 300 children supported since 2021 arrived there with foster carers or in kinship care carers or in kinship care arrangements. Those in kinship care arrangements have achieved a 100 % stability rate, which means they have not needed to change carers and those in foster care on 98% stability rate.

Research from the University of Nottingham shows they are four times more likely to achieve good GCSEs when compared to a matched control. 75% of them are going to university, versus just 30% of care experience and people nationally. -- Care experienced Removing barriers and opportunities in school I will only say that I believe the Academy Mandy is the best way to achieve this. The evidence is clear. The purpose of the structure in schools in such groups is far more likely to be effective, then temporary consultants.

They also provide considerable enhanced opportunities to staff and help support materials and the workload. Turning to the matter of home education. I have tabled an amendment, number 279, to allow local authorities...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry to interrupt, the noble Lord who I respect and enjoy debating. Does he accept that if all debating. Does he accept that if all 80 of us made a second reading speeches and I enjoyed his four minutes, spoke for nine minutes, as minutes, spoke for nine minutes, as he has done, ranging across the he has done, ranging across the whole of the bill. Then, it makes a nonsense of the work of this House.
16:17
16:18
16:19
Lord Balfe Portrait Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
I do not intend to make a second reading speech, but I'm probably fairly unique in this House that I was actually brought up in a children's home. Indeed, the noble Lord bird is not in his place and I have a joke that he ended up in prison, I ended up in a children's home. We both ended up somehow here. What I found lacking from the bill was I never really felt it was dealing with children. I felt it was dealing with administration, with very wordy things, but I did not feel that I as a child would have benefited from the feelings in the bill.

It didn't seem to take me anywhere. I think one of the problems that we have to face is the attitude of society to children. Now, I am not going to go in for a long sob story, but I was extremely badly treated by my parents. A lot of people tried to help. Teachers, social workers, neighbours. There was a lot of sort of embarrassed indifference. People wanted to help. They did not feel they could. They did not know how to help.

And one of the things we have to get away from is the idea that it is someone else's job. I was assigned, for a short time, about five years, chair of an outfit known as the Association of Labour social workers. When I was in the Labour party incidentally, deflected to the side. One of the things that struck me was how difficult their job is. One. Move and you are condemned. You often look at a child as a social worker and you think this child should be in care, I should be going to a magistrate.

As you work your way up the food chain, there is a caution comes in. It is not a cruelty, it is a caution. People say well are you sure. We don't want to go all over the daily mail, you know. We have to be careful, we have to respect the rights of the parents. This is legitimate. I do not think we should imagine that there is some golden secret easy way of dealing with this. And certainly I would say, I have said to this House before.

You cannot privatise compassion. What ever you do, however much you say well, let the private sector deal with this, you cannot deal with the human emotional cost. Now, I will mention the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. He was of course the leader of Sheffield City Council, some time after I was in the care of Sheffield City Council. If anyone wanted to see a local government machine, which works, it was the county borough of their Sheffield.

I was extremely well looked after. They probably put me in the wrong party before I found my natural home. The fact of the matter is that Sheffield and I think only probably David will remember this, under the formidable presence of Ald Grace Tebbit, ran the children's homes, in an extremely compassionate, direct way, because she knew what was going on there and she actually knew who quite a lot of the children. What I found, lest I took away from it was that you had to respect the children.

I was not an easy child, by any means. I'm not easy now. One thing I will give to John Freeman and his assistant Mary Armitage, the director of children's services in Sheffield was they listened. They were actually prepared to listen to a 13-year-old child. That helped enormously. Because I felt suddenly like I was valued, someone actually wanted to hear, even to explain why it couldn't happen, or to help it happen, or often frankly to half help it happen.

Because I hadn't understood it, they had understood it. They had also understood the need to listen to try to shape the outcome to the need. That is why I think intervening in this particular amendment is actually quite relevant. That doesn't come through in the bill. I'm sure I have the expertise to bring it through. Anyone who thinks they have. But I will say is the old children's department network was a success. Into this House, when I began my official career, as the research officer, committee on a modern parent families.

There was a member of this House, Baroness Lucy faithful, who knew an enormous amount about children. And Barbara Kahane, who never joined this House, but was the children's director for Oxford and a member of the committee, who helped inform us of what it felt like to be a child. That was missing. We had a lot of seminars with very little meaning, often men who told us what children wanted. We had a very little contact until Lucy faithful came along with actual children who were in care, to try and shake things for them.

So what I would say to the Minister and this is not a criticism, it is a help. We must try if we can to reshape this bill, just slightly, so that it brings the child to the four, rather than the administration. It is the children who in the end are going to be affected by this bill. It is the children who will, in the years to come either bless us or curse us for what is in it.

There is not going to be much from the officials. We will of all passed along the way. It is the children's, some of them who are not yet born who are going to be recipients of the policies that we end up with. All I ask is there are people of goodwill here, Lord Farmer behind me, Lord Blunkett over there, who I knew I repute when he was leader of Sheffield. I had long left. We try to do our best, we must now extend that to this bill, so now extend that to this bill, so that we have done ours.
16:28
16:29
16:30
Baroness Meyer Portrait Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-
from all noble Lords are welcome, whatever that contribution might be. There are noble Lords still, in your Lordships' House micro who wish to make a contribution, they will keep it as briefly as they can and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment is on the marshalled List. I too would like to speak to amendment one. I realise it is the amendment one. I realise it is the broad amendment, I will concentrate on clause 8, the safety and well- on clause 8, the safety and well- being of children. Last week, I being of children. Last week, I asked why his Majesty's government hasn't followed France in banning hasn't followed France in banning mobile phones in schools. The policy introduced seven years ago, handling introduced seven years ago, handling better academic results and reduced bullying.

The Minister rightly pointed out that France has a more directive education system. Something my party would surely not Something my party would surely not want to replicate. She is quite right, we propose excessive central control -- oppose, especially when it threatens autonomy of family life. This is about well-being, life. This is about well-being, safety and the health of children. Just as school meals and physical Just as school meals and physical activity. As Lord Nash pointed out schools disrupt learning, harm, mental health and hinder social development.

Especially for young This brings constant pressure on schools to manage destruction, cyber bullying, and emotional tool of social bullying. Schools that ban phones see stronger behaviour and better results. And this advantage, particularly children who are disadvantaged pupils. In primary schools the case is even stronger. Young children do not need phones during the day. Nearly 80% of parents agree. France, Spain, Italy and Greece have all acted. The Department for for education now advises schools to limit.

The day. The guidance is welcome but it is not enough, so as clause 1 calls for, we need more clarity about those specific points. Like healthy food in schools is also vital. A balanced diet supports learning, concentration and behaviour. Italy and France offer a powerful contrast. Pupils sit down for a proper meal. With vegetables, protein, cheese and yoghurt and fruits. Meals are unhurried and part of the school day, free from sugary snacks and drinks. The results speak for themselves.

Childhood obesity in France is significantly lower. In England, over one in five children are overweight or obese by the time they start primary school. By the time they leave, it is nearly one in three. These are not statistics, there were children growing up at risk of preventable diseases and poor mental health. In France, food education is part of the curriculum. From a young age, children learn about nutrition in science and civil lessons. Some schools offer classes of meal planning and basic cooking.

Most importantly, children learn by example. Structured healthy meals. In England, food education is fragmented and school meals are often rich, unbalanced, and of poor quality, so, with regards to clause 1, I would like to point out that while we are talking about the well-being and safety of children, why is this Government wanting to centralise and concentrate decisions on some areas that do affect family live sport not on areas that really are the core well-being of children, nutrition, mobile phones, cyber attacks.

So, whereby I think this clause is actually necessary because it needs to clarify quite a few things.
16:34
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
Hello? sat through the second reading and it was long. Some speeches already have had it again and I do not put it the same way but the phrase is going in that direction and about clause 1, all I will say is the mover of this particular clause actually was very good in making sure that she is using active verbs. I do not like passive ones, I go for the active one, and what are they? Improve, improve, improve, and make provision.

And I actually think that if you are dealing with children, the act itself needs to tell you there are some things you want to do and of course it was them that are not alone, so for that reason I want to support the bill and for my dear friend I love your way of speaking, but I do not understand why you think that clause C is simply applied. The improvement is in England and Wales because this act applies to England and Wales, and of course there will be questions.

I request and talking about it actually in this bill, as it stands, is for schools in England and Wales, so I am about to sit down, so do not worry, I will tell you when I am about to sit down so that you can speak, so I do love the clause and I would like support in the clause, but Lord Blunkett naturally warned us of his experience not only in Sheffield but also when he was Secretary of Education.

The things that we could do throughout this particular bill without laboriously going through a 200 page amendment, do you know this thing is as big as the bill itself? For football, I nearly lost the will to live, because there were so many amendments and all I needed was that this woman was going to actually do the work and had massive sympathy for my little club because I supported man United as I told you before in the second reading why I no longer support Manchester United.

Friends, can't we do better than laboriously going through every amendment proposed? There are some that are good and we would like to support, I would like to support Baroness Morrissey because in their there are things I can take away, and there are some I am not so sure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

where they are going, so I give way. I am grateful to the point that they are making with the regard to the application of this act in a subject that is devolved and we need clarity in the Senate in Cardiff which nominally has responsibility and factually has responsibility up until now for education in schools until now for education in schools in Wales. If an introductory clause like this brings in the whole gamut like this brings in the whole gamut for following it in the application of being governed for Westminster, of being governed for Westminster, then there is a lack of clarity then there is a lack of clarity which must undermine devolution.

All I am looking for is clarity, and I think the Noble Lord will understand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. I do not doubt it at all, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not doubt it at all, but when you are going through certainly it's of it are devolved, but just it's of it are devolved, but just look at the education in Wales and the education here. You have got to the education here. You have got to say there are bits of improvement already happening and it's that they want to cut up. Of course, people are going to be very careful that they do not. I am in favour of this, so do not misunderstand me.

I am absolutely in favour of devolution, but what is happening to England? You wanted to happen in Wales if the matter is devolved and we talk about improving would you want to know? The good thing is that dance had no man is an island entirely of itself man is an island entirely of itself

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and no is Wales entirely free of itself. We will see if this first amendment touches on the bill's purpose in removing barriers for opportunity and it raises a concern
16:40
Lord Johnson of Marylebone Portrait Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Conservative)
-
-
opportunity and it raises a concern I have about the bill in general which is as my Noble Friend Lord Young said in his excellent remarks that I think we are being encouraged to consider this legislation somewhat blind, flying in the dark. That is because we have not had the full final report of the Becky Francis review into qualifications, nor the government's response to it. This is essential for a fair and considerable consideration of this review. This review is not just another consultation, it is the Governments own flagship review of qualifications exactly this matter how we are going to remove barriers to opportunity in our system.

We already know that the relentless narrowing of options is that this is not helping learners in this transition. To level III study. 5% of 16 to 17-year-olds are neat, and that is up from 3.9% in 2015. This is an exceptionally worrying trend. Just like the bloodless quest to further narrow options for defunding of Applied General qualification such as pre-tax is not going to help matters at all. And the latter are not proving possible for learners, just 2% of the cohort are enrolled on T levels compared to almost 20% pursuing Applied General qualification such as pre-tax.

By pressing ahead with the further defunding the Government will, I am afraid, increase the number of young people who feel there is no place for them in our system. To conclude, for us to do our job properly, this bill and the curriculum review that runs alongside it must be seen together. We need to ensure that their working concert so that all young people, not just the most academic, have an ambitious and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

achievable path forward at 16. As we have discussed at length,
16:42
Baroness Cass Portrait Baroness Cass (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

As we have discussed at length, this is a very multifaceted bill, so I really welcome the fact that we I really welcome the fact that we achieved greater clarity on purpose, because without purpose there is no focus, and we can get very lost in complexity, so as we progress through the committee, I would ask the noble Lords to really consider the opportunities offered in this bill to improve well-being to healthier young lives. Notice not Lucite of health.

Because without good healthy young people there is no opportunity for learning or well-being and I talking both physical health and mental health. Now, when I was president of the Royal and child health between 2012 and 2015, at that time we had slipped over the preceding 15 years to being one of the worst performing countries in Europe for infant and child mortality. And the reason I mention this is because mortality in particular infant mortality is used globally also it is a sensitive indicator of the health of a nation.

It is the canary in the coal mine of how we are looking after children and young people, and it signals alarm if that is not going well. And in fact since that time we have actually seen infant mortality rising amongst infants born to poor families while it is continuing to fall amongst the wealthy. And we are looking at a variety of public health issues that should give us cause for thought, including for a school nurses, and other parts of the public health workforce and give really careful consideration to the multiple polls on their time that this careful impact consideration of how different parts of the bill differentially pollen those resources, and equally how significant system change is going to impact on designated doctors and nurses whose carefully worked out roles, but which are stretched, that those do not become further stretched by the changes in those systems.

Noble Lords, we should look very carefully and consider very carefully exactly what is going to happen to that precious workforce and that we use it to maximum effect during the passage of the bill, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us her thoughts on healthcare will be given to that aspect.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arise briefly, I hope, to support
16:46
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arise briefly, I hope, to support this amendment. And I hope to illustrate to the Government that this proposed purpose clause will this proposed purpose clause will indeed help them and will be able for to the debate in this bill. For Like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I have not got a second reading speech here, I am only focusing on this amendment. The noble Baroness, and the government backbencher, and the noble logbook it, for whom I have the greatest respect, seemed to be saying earlier, as did other noble Lords, we do not need no education bill purpose clause.

But I suggest many bills, including this one would indeed benefit from a purpose clause. A purpose clause provides clarity, as I think the noble Baroness just said. And the ability to check each other clause against the purpose, to ensure it would meet the purpose of the bill. It also provides needed clarity to the debate itself, the principle can in fact be seen in any organisation that is trying to think through a new change in direction, in how to implement it. They start with the strategy.

The strategy is the strategy. The strategy is the purpose. And having decided the strategy, they move onto the tactics. The other clauses of the tactics. That fulfil the purpose. Otherwise, you get a whole range of clauses, where you are not quite sure why they are there. You cannot fit them into the overall plan. There is no strategy, there are only tactics, with the ability to cram all sorts of things into a bill that don't actually meet whatever that strategy was.

The purpose clause itself, as written, my Lords, is not controversial. A further clause in the bill doesn't meet purposes A, B, C and D in this purpose clause, then it can be more swift disposed of or it can be more swift disposed of or amended, so as to meet whatever the purpose of this bill is. Which is of course for the government to sign course for the government to sign and accept. But the purpose clause goes beyond that, purpose clause on the front of the bill, for that regrettably small part of the electorate who will actually read this bill, it will provide clarity as to what on earth those hunters of pages erupted.

As we all -- Hundreds of pages are up to, as we all know, my Lords, any bill is quite difficult to read. As the noble Baroness Cass pointed out, the clarity becomes much clearer with a purpose clause. For those tasked with the unfortunate duty of implemented the -- Implementing the bill, it is the horrors of compliance as to what they're trying to accomplish. I am winding up, my Lords. The noble Lord spoke approvingly of purpose. I am sorry, approvingly of purpose.

I am sorry, I cannot read my own writing. He was basically talking about outcomes. He was saying active verbs in the purpose clause. Active verbs lead to purpose clause. Active verbs lead to outcomes. My noble friend, pleaded for outcomes to be the purpose of this bill, not process. My Lords, in this House, we very often seem to focus on process, how something is going to be done, rather than outcomes, what on earth it is we are trying to achieve.

And by the way, I should just intervene. I meant to say, when I was addressing the good remarks of the noble Lord Blunkett. He should be comforted by the fact that I think around half the amendments that he complained were taken up so much time in the football bill came from his side of the House. And therefore, reprimanding the length of time, which I also had to sit warily through, can the finger point, when one point the finger forward, their three fingers pointing backwards.

But the noble Lord Balfe pleading for outcomes, put his finger on what is wrong with a bill without a purpose clause. Whatever outcomes the government wishes to achieve, the government wishes to achieve, let us know what they are, letters be able to test this bill against be able to test this bill against those proposed outcomes. Let us have those proposed outcomes. Let us have this purpose clause, as my noble friend, the baroness, has been advocating. Thank you.
16:51
Lord Agnew of Oulton Portrait Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I speak in support of the purpose clause and in particular parts one parts 1A and C, the well- being of children and improving standards and removing barriers to opportunity. The baroness, the Minister will have gathered by some 180 pages the purpose of this bill full-time shoe issue will dismiss many of these as the structures but I want to wish you were the Minister that having sent -- Spent nearly 15 years in education, and improving opportunities for young people, mostly in areas of deprivation, that is not my purpose.

I will start the kinship care, I want to give credit to the government for tackling this. The educational outcomes for children in care are shockingly bad. If there is any cohort of children in our society that are being dealt a cruel hand, it is these children. Kinship care is often an obvious and decent solution. However, many of these children have been traumatised by several years in severely dysfunctional families, and the tasks facing the new carer is formidable. This is why I have always been a strong advocate for offering boarding school places for these children.

Not only does it provide a safe and stable environment, but shows a dramatic improvement in their outcomes when the data has been analysed. In December 2017, when I was the Minister responsible for this, we launch the boarding schools partnership service, the aim was to link local authorities with the relevant children's charities command boarding schools themselves. I will not repeat Lord Nash's data on the Royal Springboard experience and vulnerable children program, or indeed the comments from the Nottingham University board, but Nottingham University board, but there is one statistic you mention.

Not only is this the outcomes for these children in boarding care, compared to a similar cohort not extraordinary higher, but the costs are a magnitude lower. So in that example that Lord Nash talked about, the cost of the cohort going into boarding schools was 3.6 million, versus £8 million, when they were retained in foster care, or residential care. And then the additional, or perhaps even more important advantage, was that it takes pressure off the kinship carers, as the intensity of their role is reduced. Common sense would suggest this route would make it much less daunting task.

And indeed, my Lords, how many times in politics to be get a chance to use an innovative measure that is both much cheaper and far more effective than the opportunities being pursued at the moment? The National Curriculum, this seems to be a wholly unnecessary position on the sector that has spent more than 10 years developing curricula that work for that their schools and communities they serve. It is extreme important to clarify to everyone in this chamber that every school in England has an obligation to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum.

It is not a free for all. This is a fundamental tenet of any Ofsted inspection. In all phases of education. Having experienced it firsthand, almost dozens of inspections over the years, enormous every instance Ofsted required to see the materials used, and require teachers to give feedback on the effectiveness of a adhesion point of view. In the cases of the Academy trust I found, we have painstakingly built and all through curriculum for all phases, it has been colossally expensive and time-consuming but is working.

Children are riding from primary schools into secondary, making remarkably fast progress and are going far. We developed a 70 block building stack, which goes from year two, up to year 11. It was a summary of an OFSTED report. On recent expression of one of our schools in the curriculum. " The schools curriculum is ambitious, the knowledge people need to know to succeed in the future is set out clearly and in a logical order. As people, including those with special educational needs, progress through the curriculum they use, what they have already learned is to In most cases, sorry.

I also pointed out weaknesses, most schools got an overall good for personal development but do not get an outstanding judgement across-the- board and we had to address those perfectly fair criticisms. Last year, that school had one of the biggest improvements in progress in the country, when we took it over, it was in such a mess that a campus capable of educating over 1,800 children was down to 400, such was its abandonment by the local community. As I speak today, the confidence has returned, to the extent that a whole new school buildings under construction, and I thank the Minister and Department for that.

My point is why here this up? A far more sensible approach would be to require any school failing an OFSTED inspection on its curriculum, for the curriculum imposed by the DFE. So the ones at the bottom of the system do not drag the good ones down pointlessly. Moving on to admissions with local authorities, firstly, I completely accept that there needs to be proper joined up thinking, between local authorities and schools, and including course academies. But it must be for the right reasons, not for the administrative convenience of the local authorities.

By this, I mean forcing outstanding schools to reduce their people admission numbers, just a local failing local authority school doesn't have to bite the bullet and addressing its own failures. This is what happened recently in one of my Trust schools in Norwich. Norwich is a zombie zone for primary education. 19 of its 24 primaries, last year, failed to achieve national standards at key stage 2. We run two of the five that did. One of these is an outstanding school but we were asks to have the pupil admission numbers, the only way a school can do that is by merging year groups, with a drop in standards, as teachers try to teach across an excessively wide age range.

We were able to decline this request but under this new legislation, it will be a different school. One law act of self elation in the battle to raise standards. We moved to qualified teachers, this technology appears to me to be a complete misnomer. Apparently, someone with a subject specific degree in, say, maths or science is less qualified than someone with a degree in a subject they are teaching, but that is fine because they completed a nine-month course that is almost impossible to fail.

In 2023, only 8% of applicants failed to gain qualified teaching status. That is mostly because they dropped out. So how can this make any sense? We keep hearing from the Minister, how she trusts " Great Head Teachers" And " Brilliant schools", so if that is the case, why can't you trust these people to hire the people they consider will have the best chances of success for their children? This is before we get into the variety on the ground, which is becoming more increasingly harder to recruit teachers.

The rate of exodus from the profession it seems to be accelerating, particularly among younger teachers. The government has even admitted that in the last few weeks, their much vaunted additional 6,500 teachers paying tax on private schools is basically impossible to achieve. This is another example of what sounds like a cheap political slogan, bearing no relation to what is going on in the real world. And it is this point that I would like to end. We continually hear from the government, but all the wonderful things they're going to do.

But their words are in complete contrast to what they are actually doing. It is the cruellest of ironies that I simply cannot reconcile in my own mind. Because the people who will suffer other children in the poorest communities. Whereas it is extraordinarily difficult to hire good teachers. I thought that a Labour government sought to represent these communities. But I see nothing in this cheap political manoeuvre that will, in any way, help those disadvantaged children. To end, my Lords, I understand that ministers are surprised by the level and range of pushback on this field.

They should not be, it was named, it was rammed into the Commons, without a Green Paper, without a white paper, without any consultation, over Christmas, into a chamber with literally hundreds of new and inexperienced MPs, who were not equipped to give a proper suite. -- Proper scrutiny. That scrutiny. Was, the government should not play fast and use with the futures of millions of children who were given one chance to their education. I urge ministers to give some humility over the next few weeks and the passage of this bill command urge the government to adopt the amendment, many practical and useful suggestions being tabled, if we are to be ignored, are Scituate, the avalanche of amendments will continue, as I, for one, will not go down without a fight.
17:00
17:01
Baroness Fleet Portrait Baroness Fleet (Conservative)
-
-
and removing barriers to opportunity. I declare my interest governor of Shoreditch Park Academy, former Chair of the national plan music education, and co-founder and music education, and co-founder and Chair of London music fund. We are today debating the future of our schools, the future of our children, the well-being of our children, what could be more important than that. This Government was elected on a mandate of change, but on so many issues Ministers cannot explain in this bill particularly the reason for the change.

What we ask is the problem the Government is trying to solve, on this bill the bewilderment about the reason for change is now greater than ever. As my Noble Friend Lord Johnson said we will be voting on a bill that appears a curriculum that all schools will be obliged to follow a curriculum which neither we, nor it seems the Government, have any idea about its content. This is absurd. This has not changed to benefit children and to improve their well-being, but simply ideological change to satisfy trade union leaders and their followers.

If they get their way, children's education will certainly be damaged, not just for the sake. And at second reading I focused on the importance of Academies Trust independence. Today, I narrow my focus to follow the procedure to one subject which I believe is missing from this bill. I believe it could have a hugely positive effect on the well-being and the academic outcomes of every child. That subject is music. Do my Lords recall that on the day of the magnificent VE Day celebration concert in Westminster Hall the composer and conductor said of music, "It unites, it consoles, it galvanises.

" The evidence is there. Music helps listening, concentration, reading and memory, music self-esteem, it helps young people understand the benefits of discipline. You cannot learn a musical instrument without self- discipline, and that, in turn, helps develop self-reliance, determination, and grit. The very word the Government evoked, music is not just about learning notes and techniques, it helps emotional and social development as well as bringing young people together, enriching their lives. The Prime Minister recently warned of the danger of Britain becoming a nation of strangers and he has acknowledged in the past it unites children of all backgrounds would benefit from the common enjoyment of music in their schools, and our survey showed 85% of children wanted to learn a musical instrument.

Music makes children happy and particularly benefits children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Every school should have a flourishing department. Music should champion an unhappy failing school in the Academy, primary Academy, one of the most disadvantaged areas of the city is an intensive music program for every pupil transforming the school from failing to outstanding. I have visited a great many schools with wonderful music wires, ensembles, and most are Academy trusts, such as Academy learning and of course the City of London Academy trust the school including Shoreditch Park where the governor has the ethos and the music of their hugely successful the music of their hugely successful independent schools and the City of London girls schools, as co-founder and Chair of the music charity the London music fund I have seen how music has changed lives in our four-year scholarships for children from disadvantaged backgrounds are transformative.

Many of our students from the first cohorts are now at university. Some at conservator, among hundreds of examples I think one girl sitting in a Highbury rise in West London her mother seldom left the flat, the 10-year-old girl had only once visited central London. She had shown an aptitude for music, so we awarded her a four-year scholarship, give her a clarinet, paid for her music lessons, give her a mentor and helped her join an orchestra, alongside music, she excelled at maths, with thanks, in part, to the London music fund she is now studying maths Imperial College.

Talk about opportunity. Even those children who are not musically talented, the benefits of the program are wide-ranging, improving well-being. Research from countless countries, Finland, hungry, Turkey, China, show the value of music education and the positive impact it has on young people. Why is it that after all these years of evidence politicians seem to still have a blindspot about music? What don't they understand about the benefits of music education? I live in hope that with the prime Ministers early enthusiasm for the flute and the imminent curriculum review there will be a significant change of heart.

But more teachers are needed to teach music. Schools must have the freedom to hire the best music teachers, not just the ones who have qualified teacher status. Taking away that freedom is change for change sake, which is simply pandering to the unions, not benefiting the children. A serious long-term funding commitment to music that puts music at the heart of every school would improve the well-being and the academic outcomes of the next generation. Support for these disadvantaged children whose well-being would undoubtedly be improved if music became a central part of their school lives is so important.

To add put the child to the four in this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As you know from my register of interest I currently the leader of the London Borough which means I the London Borough which means I have an involvement both in Local Government Association and the funding councils. What my entry does
17:07
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
funding councils. What my entry does not say is that I am not the longest serving leader and that before I was leader I was the first Cabinet member for children's services in our borough. I might ask why that is important and over that period, during which the first authority in London and only the second to Leeds which Baroness Blake will attest in the country to achieve two outstanding Ofsted inspections, we also have a very good reputation for our local schools, which includes four grammar schools and we are taking many young people from neighbouring labourers whose parents aspire to a better education for young people.

In this contribution I will focus my comments on the children's social care aspects of the bill. Over the years, I have had the absolute pleasure to work with some fantastic local authority officers, including some superb directors of children's services or deputy directors who have gone on to become directors. I will not name them, but they know who they are. These are the people we all trust to make the right decisions on a daily basis to keep our young people safe.

Help keep families together, if possible, but if that is not possible, to ensure that the children are coming to our care and are prepared for the future. They are statutorily responsible, and if anything goes wrong, they are often held to account with decisions. Over the last few weeks, I have had exchanges with a number of senior practitioners that I respect, and they are really concerned about the consequences of some aspects of this bill. I know my Noble Friend had similar conversations, so my contribution to this debate will probably be very different to many of us, so I have first-hand experience of seeing for myself the passion these professionals had for England in our borough.

To keep them safe as well as having aspirations that they become successful, independent young people. They also have to forecast and take ownership of budgets, often with little control of implications I am sure some members will be interested to know that you can have a young person moving to the borough but whom you need to find care for which can cost as much as a room in the Savoy for a week. The conversations we have had suggest there are some good aspects to this bill.

Some of which will reinforce the good practice already taking place in some areas, or plugging some of the gaps in current legislation, but fundamentally support the principle of meeting children's and families needs as they emerge at the earliest possible time. But there are some major concerns of other aspects of these proposals. We will get to the detail when we get further in to the amendments, but some of the main concerns are some of the proposals are unfunded.

The Josh McCulloch review said that £2 billion was required to implement the reforms in his care review. There are currently 290 million and that has only been agreed for one year. This shows just how far apart we are from what is required, and what has been given to local authorities. Most of this will have to be funded from already tight London authority budgets that have become even tighter as a result of the government's national insurance budget. Mandating that all child protection functions be held within multiagency teams marks a major shift from the current practice.

While the intent is to foster stronger collaboration and clear accountability, professional bodies and academics have wanted the number of potential unintended consequences if the model is implemented without careful safeguards. One of those consequences is budgets and, of course, in addition to actually determining what the future funding Association is, both adults and children should be, there is a real concern about this, especially given there are already suggestions of cuts to safeguarding budgets by local police in the health communities.

There have been 10 members, but it has been said before the key findings from those pilots have not been published, and as you would expect the word on the street is that there has been issues with those pathfinders. Surely the sensible thing is to share that information and consider findings before agreeing this bill. The intention might be to have clearer decision making, improved information sharing, and unifying thresholds. But the unintended consequences could be a dilution of professional expertise, confusion over legal accountability, weekend local authority leadership, loss of focus on early health and prevention.

Operational bottlenecks, undermining universal services safeguarding role, implementation disruption, and inconsistent models and legal and human rights risks. I know I come at this from a different perspective than many, but not all in this chamber Ulster but I know that none of us want to see young people being put at risk from ill thought out legislation. I am sure many of you, and it has been referred to before, saw the N The Times, a very respected person in the field.

When such people say that they are concerned about some aspects of the bill, I think they deserve to be listened to, and we need to respect what they have to say and I hope the Minister will do so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to close one to support in particular once the as support in particular once the as the Noble Lord has pointed out it has the keyword, improved. And one has the keyword, improved. And one of the purposes of a purpose clause is to set out very clearly for the courts about how legislation should courts about how legislation should be applied and to what that is achieved. It will be a matter of debate and I unsure the debate already happened in second reading already happened in second reading about whether or not measures in here will approve, that is a matter for debate.

But if have this, hope for debate. But if have this, hope that my Noble Friend Baroness Barran puts this to a vote at report stage,
17:14
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
so that all of the House in its conscience when it is determining what parts of the legislation we retain or that we change that would drop entirely comes back to the central purpose. What is this doing to improve the outcomes for the outcomes for the children? And to my Noble Friend the title of the bill should really be some children's wellbeing because clearly it does address for some children but I suppose I am sharing my frustration not that I am challenging the guidance of the clerks, although we can have a debate about it, but the scope of the bill is actually pretty narrow for considering how to improve the well-being of children and what I would hope is that they would allow us to consider further matters which are not addressed in this bill about the well-being of all children that we are here to consider.

I could use this, turning to second reading speech, far from it, but, undoubtedly, there are omissions here. About things like child maintenance. That is certainly contributing to powers that are already passed by Parliament that have not been commenced by Governments. I say Governments deliberately because I am conscious it is not just this Government. They could be commenced by pulling a clause in this bill, but at the clause in this bill, but at the There are other issues where I have been advised to bring aspects of children and well-being into the crime policing bill, because at the moment does not reach the scope of this bill.

That is why I had hoped, if we do manage to pass this purpose, we might actually be able to use one and 1C, doing the things holding us back, and improving the holding us back, and improving the safety and well-being of all children, not just the ones the government has decided to tackle in this bill today. this bill today.
17:16
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Balfe, made a good case for a purpose clause on the front of this bill. I want to make a rather more restrictive case for a purpose clause used to support the home education clauses in this bill. The virtue of a purpose clause in it comes to home education is that firstly we are trying to give local authorities guidance as to how they conduct themselves towards the home education community.

And to have something clear at the beginning of the bill makes that much easier for them. Secondly, we are dealing with a very diverse community. In home education. And for them to be able to see clearly, in a really complicated bill, when it comes to the effect on them, for them to be able to see clearly what the underlying purpose of the government is would be a great help in moderating and staring their from steering their interaction with the bill when it comes to that.

So I urge the government to consider a purpose clause when it comes to home education. I do not think it needs to be much longer than supporting children not in school and their parents. Something like that would make a substantial difference in the way this bill was read. If I can pick up on three particular difficulties I have with the bill the way it is drafted. And understanding what the purposes are. Firstly, in English law, parents are responsible for their children's education.

In this bill, as the noble Lord has said, the government makes substantial moves towards transferring that responsibility to the state. Clause 30, 430, B1, strikes at the heart of a relationship between parents and the government, and will have enormous ramifications for the whole of the education system, if this is the track that we go down. The way the personal data collection and use personal data collection and use systems in this built or expressed. -- Bill are expressed and the control of providers really leaves me at a loss as to whether government is in terms of their intended purpose for the relationship between home education parents and the state.

And understanding that better, having that clearly set out would, I think, inform our whole consideration on this bill. Secondly, what is the government's purpose in seeking to be, as I read the bill, so intrusive and punitive towards elective home education? Personally, I think the state should be respectful and humble when dealing with parents who educate their own children. Respectful because it is a huge commitment and lifts a great burden from the state. Humble because look at all the children we fail in the state system.

Yes, we have some reasonable and long established requirements, that education should be satisfactory, that children should be safe and fully functioning members of society. The best way to achieve that is to be supportive. That way, the state gets to see children and help children and their parents and all that's left is the few cases where things are going wrong and that is where the local authority can focus their effort on. Home educators are a complex and diverse community, people with a different philosophy of education and the time and dedication to naked work.

If they are doing well, why should the state not applaud that. Partly people who the state have failed, who benefits the state usually, by removing difficult cases from underperforming schools. Do they not deserve our wholehearted support? Sometimes, parents might have more than they can cheat. Local authorities like Coventry who react supportively, can crowding the support of successful home educators to turn that around. Sometimes, parents are ill intentioned or neglectful, their children need rescuing, and local authority like Coventry finds that much easier because their time is not taken up with persecuting the well- intentioned.

But some local authorities, I am sure the noble Baroness, the Minister, knows are at Baroness, the Minister, knows are at the other end of the scale and the treatment of elective home educators is truly maniacal and damaging. My Lords, a purpose clause would really help set the intentions of the beginning of the bill, so that it became obvious both to local authorities and home educators what the government's intentions were towards looking after their children. One particular case that children.

One particular case that needs careful examination is one particular aspect of home education, where so much of that is religiously based. And the community needs the government to be clear and open in declaring its purpose towards them. Mr Morgan says educational settings which operate full-time, and as a result, are expected to bear a great responsibility for children's education and well-being should be regulated to ensure children in those settings are safe and are receiving a suitable education. My Lords, that is being read as a direct thread.

To education. Ministers I am sure know what this education is, in intense education in the Torah, plus home education, they know, I am sure, the educational system has good outcomes, fully functioning people, albeit very much in the tradition. Does the government agree that these families are not neglecting their children's learning, but providing learning and keeping with their own long established ethnic background. With secular subjects taught during evenings and weekends. As the government agrees. That yeshiva are not schools and should not be assessed as such.

The schooling of these children takes place outside these children takes place outside the yeshivas and not considered home education what is the government's purpose in this built towards this community? At the moment, it's obscure. Something at the beginning of the bill that makes it clear how the government respects the different traditions and religions of this country, and the way they wish to bring up their children would be a really helpful addition to this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I also speak in support of purpose clause tabled by my noble friend, Baroness Barran. And I
17:24
Baroness Eaton Portrait Baroness Eaton (Conservative)
-
-
friend, Baroness Barran. And I declare my interest as a member of Beckford military Academy trust and also the dioceses learning trust. It surprises me greatly, my Lords, that adoption does not form part of this bill. Despite improvements in the adoption system, evidence highlights significant gaps in support. Last year's adoption barometer showed that the proportion of adopted families facing severe challenges increased from 30% in 2022 to 38% in 2033. The highest over the six years of reporting. Also, the number of prospective adopters have declined.

There are particular issues with the report, for contact with adoptees and members of their birth family, and with transition to adulthood. 4,000 children per annum are adopted. And of these children, 80% have suffered abuse, neglect, or violence and 11% come from dysfunctional families. Many spend up to 15 months in care with several foster families, before being adopted. Adopted children are more than twice as likely than other children to have special educational needs. The virtual school has different remits for different cohorts.

Adoption UK evidence shows that when virtual schools go above Is limited to previously looking after children, there are positive results. This bill potentially reduces inequality in the wording, around the remit of virtual schools, for different cohorts of looked after children. One in 10 adopters, home educate their children in 2023. In the majority of cases, this is because the school system is not set up to support their child's needs. Adopted children have lower attainment, high rates of SEND, higher levels of autism and ADHD.

The bill presents the opportunity to The bill presents the opportunity to consider the barriers that lead parents to home educate in the first place. And also, to review the support that local authorities offer to adopters. Parents of adopted children are not the only group that feels state education is adequate for their children. The bill demonstrates a shift of power from families to the state. And as my noble friend, Baroness Fraser, said at second reading, the powers -- Paras in clause 30 override the family to decide what is best for their children.

Coming back to the addition in the purpose clause tabled by Baroness Barran on improving safety and standards in the education system, I welcome the efforts of my noble friend's to ban the use of smartphones in schools. The Policy Exchange has done incredible research on the impact smartphones have on children in school. It is striking that where smartphone bands exist, students in their schools are achieving GCSE results, one-two grades higher than those in schools with a more laissez-faire policy.

I hope the government will accept the amendments tabled by my noble friends which seek to implement a universal ban on smartphones in schools. My Lords, the purpose clause tabled by my noble friend is key to defining the objectives of the bill. It is the duty of all of us to bring about positive change in the bill if there is to be any possibility of improving the well- being of children.
17:29
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I will speak very briefly and I will save most of what I wanted to say for the specific amendments. I did listen to the entire second reading debate, below the bar, but at that point, I was not able to speak in this House. I want to support my noble friend, Baroness Barran, who has rightly drawn attention to the need to have expressed purposes, linking through the improvement of provision for children, and I support all. Clause is.

-- All four subclauses. And I share the concerns expressed by my noble friend, Lord Balfe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, for example about conceiving this from the starting point of children, and thinking about them in their experience in the round. I was struck when I read this bill that the preamble didn't mention the word well-being, despite the title, and I could find no thread through to explain what it meant. For me, it is the likely outcome of loving a child, caring for them, looking after their health, educating them, making sure they have peers commission should good relations with the adults around them.

Having the opportunity to discover whether strengths lie, many such things contribute ultimately to well-being. So, we need this test around improvement because there are, and I will not go into this now, a number of clauses in this bill. Where it seems to me there is a clear, direct, and sometimes quite recent experience, to make us believe that the clauses will do more harm than good. So I hope there is enough space in the amendments we can property consider the true likely impact and that that will be impact and that that will be recognised and taken into account by the Minister.

Thank you. the Minister. Thank you.
17:31
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Portrait Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am going to rise very briefly in support of the noble Lady's purpose clause, and the reason I rise is this is a very big bill. An enormous bill for children's wellbeing and schools, it could be two enormous bills. What we have seen in this House with many other builders when we have these enormous bills, all sorts of people and all sorts of organisations want to hang things on it like Christmas tree baubles. It becomes unworkable.

I welcome this purpose close. To give us some sort of sustainable impactful legislation hopefully at the end but nobody has mentioned children with special educational needs, which, as the noble Lady The reason I want to support the purpose clause is because it brings us back to the interest of all children, including those with profound needs and disabilities who are very difficult to accommodate in the usual school system. And we are not alone in that. I can point to studies from Sweden, Denmark, from all across the world, about the difficulty of grappling with this challenge.

Profound disability remain strongly associated with poor educational outcomes, and we know this from experience though sadly not from data collected and these children achieve lower overall grades than those without profound disabilities. Since this can't just be put down to people having a learning disability, for example only one in two children with CT have a learning disability, and I know there are children with high functioning cognitive abilities who have been accommodated in mainstream schools throughout their entire lives and when it comes to choosing GCSE subjects they are only offered a very restrictive choice.

Why is this deemed acceptable? Parents, studies have shown that parents of children with profound disabilities lack confidence in their local authorities ability to make suitable arrangements for their children. Many view their local authorities possibly not, two sides looking at possibly not, two sides looking at possibly not, two sides looking at . They view the system as being obstructive, inconsistent, and unaccountable. Provision often tends to reflect what local authorities are able to provide. And as the noble Baroness lady pass mentioned it is vital that health and health professionals and education professionals come together in this space.

And form and expertise around what the child concerned requires to have the best possible life chances. As families wait for EHCPs to be agreed and also as children develop a needs chain this is a fluctuating and ever-changing system, so if this bill can do one thing to remove these barriers, which are often not understood by the providers alone with the educational providers, it will then improve the safety and well-being of the children, but we need to remember, which is why I want to support this purpose clause, that this bill covers all children, with all abilities.

Whether they are in school or not in school and whether the local authority can provide the services that they need or not.
17:34
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
So, nobody has spoken from these benches at all because we did not expect to be talking in generalities. We welcome this bill. We think it is a very important bill. As I listened to some very important contributions, I have found those people who spoke about a particular issue short in their comments, stuck to the point they made incredibly valuable contributions. And the more I listen, the more I thought purpose clause I thought maybe there is a case for having a purpose clause where you set out where you were going and I thought to myself this is an important bill, it is a large bill, the bill, the amendment is bigger than the bill itself.

That does not happen often. But the more I feel about this last bill we had was from the previous Conservative Government which was the famous schools will. And had they had a purpose clause may be that would not have been abandoned the way it was. Maybe they would have thought through they were going to be hijacked by the Academy lobby with a few minor changes that were suggested in that bill and the purpose would have been thought through, and had it not been abandoned any of the issues we have grappled with over the last couple years, whether it be unregistered schools, whether it be the hundreds of thousands of children missing, or the issues of home education et cetera, we have already sorted and carried through.

I was particularly taken with Baroness Fleet's comments about music and I would remind her, of course, that by having a National Curriculum, and we thank the Conservative Government, under Secretary of State in Lord Baker who introduced the National Curriculum as before the National Curriculum schools could do whatever they liked. The only subject they had to teach, of course, was religious education. I having a National Curriculum we said, nationally, we want our children to learn these subjects. My view now is that yes, we should have a National Curriculum, but that National Curriculum must leave space to do other things as well, and I think that is a common thing, but going back to Baroness fleets contribution, when she talked about music, it is not only about a National Curriculum, of course it is about the trade you back that has seen the number of people studying music in schools absolutely plummet as a result of their attack on creative education.

I want to congratulate the baroness on her speech. I thought it was absolutely spot-on and it made me think quite clearly. I think that these, in part one, it is going to make a huge difference to children and. And, you know, some of the amendments, whether it be on kinship or carers or whatever it is, will be life changing, if they are agreed. Part two, we are going to be divided. The Academy lobby. And I have got nothing particularly against academies, I am involved in academies.

I think we want to take the best of what academies do and make it available for all schools in perhaps eight reformed way. I also want to do away with the excesses that academies see. Academies should not be deciding on I am doing a general debate now, to look at particular issues. The Baroness started, quite rightly, look, often Governments of all political persuasions when there is a problem, which they do not have to know how to solve, they drug an expert in and say we want you to look at this problem and nine times out of 10 they do not follow through the recommendations or just take part in initiatives and with safeguarding the Baroness Barran is absolutely right that Eileen Munro, an expert in her field put forward some important recommendations.

And they were quite rightly being piloted. And we should learn from those that piloting, whether that is the way we should go, and Government must make, must show what the evaluations of those pilots have shown. And this is not assertive shameful thing. It is a sensible thing to do. If the evaluations show this is great, let's do it. If they show that there are problems then we need to modify, perhaps, what we are doing, so I hope Government will actually think to all of those lines.

I remember to all of those lines. I remember being very proud of serving the committee and families and I think we all felt on that committee that we had done a good job. And I remember at the end of that period, it was one of those bills that you actually enjoyed being involved in the bill. The end of the bill, Lord Nash organised a sort of celebration where we all got certificates for various contributions we made to the bill. And on reflection I actually wish we had piloted some of the key recommendations.

Education healthcare plans are quite frankly an appalling mess and maybe we should have piloted those relevant proposals to see whether the words given the valuation and then we could have known the correct way to go. We should never have gotten rid of, it just happened, school action plus. We should have kept general special needs in schools, and that, at the expense of the healthcare plans, has gone, so I just want to end by assuring Government that we will be constructive in everything we do and we will support amendments wherever they come across the House if we think they're actually going to enhance the opportunities for families and young people.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank those not only who have contributed today but who have already contributed to the
17:42
17:42
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
today. The Noble Lord accused me of wanting to dismiss any amendments. That is wrong. What I want to do is to discuss the detail of those amendments in this Committee stage, as is the function of a Committee stage. On this occasion, I fear that amendment one is not only unnecessary, but I am afraid has been tabled to delay our detailed consideration of this significant legislation that is before us today. Firstly, from a legal perspective, the measure would not have been having a practical effect.

Secondly, on the point that many noble Lords have referred to about being clear about the purpose of the intent and the outcomes of this bill, Ministers in The Other Place, and at the Bill's second reading in this place, I have been clear about the purpose of this critical legislation. But I will use this as an opportunity to remind the House of what the bill will achieve. My noble Lords, this is a landlocked bill -- landmark bill that rural reform social care to ensure that all of our children, background does not mean destiny, and ensuring that at every stage of life young people are supported to achieve and thrive.

As already outlined in the Bill's policy summary notes, the bill has seven key ambitions. The Bill's Explanatory Notes set out what each measuring the bill aims to achieve and how to do so. And there will, rightly, be ample time during committee to discuss these in the detail that they deserve, to listen to concerns and issues that have been raised by noble Lords and others and I hope to provide assurance where necessary to change them. And an ambition running through the whole bill is to make up for lost time.

14 years, in fact, when action could have been taken to strengthen child safeguarding. To ensure that no young person slips out of sight of the agencies designed to advance their education and opportunities and to set a minimum, a floor, but no ceiling on the standards we expect in every school across our country to enable every child to achieve and thrive. In part one of the bill, the Government aims to keep families together and children safe, to support children with care experience to achieve and thrive and to fix and support the care placement market.

Importantly, this bill will help more families to thrive together while keeping children safe from harm and supporting them to succeed, through the introduced Sean of a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making which we will, I hope, come on to discuss shortly, we are prioritising helping families and tackling problems before they become crises. This bill builds on what we know works well. Keeping children safe is a key purpose of this bill, that is why after years of inaction under the previous Government we are legislating to stop children from falling through the cracks and to ensure they are not out of sight of those who can keep them safe.

As we will come on to discuss today in later committee sessions, this is why we are legislating to introduce a single unique identifier, registers of children not in school, and new children not in school, and new It will also allow intervention when children are at the greatest risk of harm. I just want to respond to the points made by the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, and others, on the evidence for the proposals being put forward in this bill.

Much of it, of course, builds on the family first program, started in Trailblazers and pilots under the previous government. Seeking to ensure all ways in which children and their families need help and protection are responded to by a multiagency or multidisciplinary team regardless of where they are in the system. And the reforms, which of course were also laid out in the paper published by the government last year, based on evidence from the supporting families program, from the strengthening families protecting children program and the response to recommendations made by Josh MacAlister in the independent care review.

And by the National Child safeguarding review panel. I look forward to the detailed discussion we were having committee, responding to some of the issues raised by noble Lords in this House, and in fact, by Professor Eileen Munro who has a history in children's social care and I hope and believe that we will be able to provide assurance around both the evidence, the process, and the outcomes that we seek to achieve, and have in fact begun to already see in the proposals we are putting forward.

On those pathfinders, several noble Lords have asked about the evaluation. The fee Families First for Children Pathfinder program is being evaluated by the National Children's Bureau, alongside Variant and All My Economics, they will produce the final implementation process evaluation report, in spring, 2095. Early findings from the 10 local area pathfinders, who are embedding, for example, the multiagency child protection teams that will come in to talk in more detail about later, evidence better management of complex issues, reducing crisis points for families, enabling quicker effective interventions and improving outcomes for children, and just to respond quickly, for one other point raised by the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, to be completely clear, multiagency child protection teams are based on...

Sorry, qualified and experienced social workers, where I know there has been concern there will somehow be an undermining of their role, will always act as lead child protection practitioners. Yes, working alongside family help, but whether a child needs a protection plan, the family help need practitioners themselves should always be a social worker. I just want to respond as well to points made by noble Lords about funding. I will resist the temptation to comment on how noble Lords opposite have come to the significance of funding only, at this point.

Notwithstanding the very difficult funding position that children and social care has found itself in over the last 14 years. But to be clear about the commitment this government is making, the Local Government Finance Act settlement for 2025-26 has granted councils in England access to over six £9 billion in funding, 6.98% customs increase on 24-25, including in that, local authorities are receiving £5.9 billion, through the social care grant, supporting adult and children's social care, that is an increase of £880 million, compared to 2024, 25.

We have made £500 million available in 25-26 specifically to support national rollout of family help child protection and family network reforms and that nearly doubles direct investment in preventative children's social care services. And that funding will lay the groundwork for children's social care reform. The Autumn Budget provided £44 million for 25-26 to support children in kinship and foster care, and £90 million worth of capital funding to provide safe and suitable funding to provide safe and suitable homes. And the budget is government committed to phase 2 of the Spending Review, to go further, to inform the children's social care system, by helping children to stay with their families where possible, fixing the broken care market and investing in key enablers which underpin the system and that is what this bill is intending to enable us and support us to deliver.

The school's provision in part two of the bill, to which the noble lady's amendment makes notably little reference, are just as important and form a crucial part of the bill's purpose. Securing high and rising standards for all our children in all our schools is essential, to breaking the link between background and success. Not only does this government celebrate the progress being made in many of our schools stuff we stand proudly by the school leaders, teachers and support staff whose tireless endeavours have enabled that success.

Yet, we cannot be complacent. There is much still to do connection with the school system supports every child in every school to succeed. So, part two sets out a series of commonsense measures, including a number which are manifesto commitments, all designed to build on the current system, to guarantee minimum standards in which all parents have the confidence that they and their children deserve. That is why we want you -- New teachers to work towards qualified teacher status and I was a bit surprised to hear noble Lords opposite qualifying the teacher status that I am proud to have, and thousands of other teachers are also proud to have.

Teaching as a profession is not something I believe that we would want to undermine. And of course, as polling over the weekend revealed to us all, the public know well that they are entitled to expect that. And it is why we are extending the National Curriculum, once it is reformed, to cover academies. So that a rich cutting-edge curriculum is available to all our children in all our schools. It is why we are reforming the national teachers pay system, to give school and trust leaders the tools they need to recruit and retain leaders regardless of how their schools are governed.

And we are trusting schools to enact uniform policy, uniforms are there to make children's smart, not family is poor, that is the intent and purpose of this government. Children's thriving bring agencies together in a way that put children and parents first, so will put schools, trusts and local authorities to collaborate on additions and new schools, but we will put school quality and parental choice at the heart of these considerations. These are all measures which build on the successes of our school system and the proud innovation of the last Of standards wherever their child goes to school, and in so doing, they are supported by key representative bodies from the sector, including the Association of School and College Leaders, the leaders of successful Academy chains, such as Delta Academy trust, and others that I have no doubt we will talk about as we go through the committee stage.

I hope that in outlining the purposes of the bill, I have satisfied noble Lords that amendment one is neither required nor in fact would achieve anything. The bill does not need an amendment to clarify this legislation's purpose. That is clear from the content of the legislation, it is clear from the accompanying bill documents, is clear from the ambition and the action of this government. And I invite noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment so we can progress to considering the detail of the bill and important amendments tabled by noble Lords.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Regarding this contributions. Regarding this amendment. I have to say that it feels curious that the Minister feels curious that the Minister started her remarks by questioning my integrity in putting this my integrity in putting this amendment down and suggesting it as a delaying tactic. I think I raised extremely serious concerns that are being put forward. She doesn't need being put forward.

She doesn't need to believe me, but she should, I would prospectively suggest, listen would prospectively suggest, listen to those with the greatest expertise in this area. I said, and I will commit to again, I will approach commit to again, I will approach this bill in absolute good faith and particularly, part one, there should be nothing political in it, and I be nothing political in it, and I hope that maybe we can build a bridge to make positive change bridge to make positive change within the bill.

I would also just like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that we did not, in any sense, intend to overturn any of the
17:56
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
powers held by the Senate. And I am sure, if the purpose clause has intended to remove the devolution of education powers in Wales, but it education powers in Wales, but it would have deserved at least one bullet point. In the amendment. I bullet point. In the amendment. I think this debate was also a reminder of the expertise in this reminder of the expertise in this House, and I would just like to House, and I would just like to mention a few points that were raised by your Lordships.

And perhaps invite the government to perhaps invite the government to want to think whether they could want to think whether they could draft their own purpose clause if they don't like my drafting. So I they don't like my drafting. So I think that Lord Moynihan made a very important point about the need for focus on outcomes. Did the noble Lady want...? Sorry, I thought she Lady want...? Sorry, I thought she was saying something. Made a very important point about the need for focusing on outcomes.

If we do not know where we are going, we definitely will not get there. I know the noble Baroness, the minister, set out the aims, but I think they were very valid concerns raised, so my noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham, echoed my concerns around capacity, to implement these changes at a time of significant other restructuring across local authorities, health, and others. There were practical solutions with a real call for focus from the noble Lady, Baroness Cass, and the important inclusion of public health in a children's well-being.

There were also calls on when not to focus, including from my noble friend, Lord Agnew. And my noble friend, Lord Lucas and others, made the point about the helpfulness of some sort of public facing a language at the beginning of the bill. Again, there are experts on both parts of the bill. Who are flagging serious concerns. I do not question, for one second, the governments good intent on what it is trying to do in this bill.

I question the ability to achieve that. Without some reflection. I was interested in the evaluation of the pathfinders, due to be published in spring 2025, I guess we are on special government time. In May. So, as I close my remarks, I do hope that the government will adopt a constructive tone they have suggested that they will, as we get into individual amendments. And perhaps, look again at Hansard and see some of the very valid point that I think would help us all achieve the goals of this bill.

But with that, I beg leave to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the amendment, number one. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. In clause 1, amendment two, Baroness Barran. Barran.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Barran. My Lords, I rise to speak again on... To speak to my amendment to, 15, and 16 in the bill. Which 15, and 16 in the bill. Which concern the mandatory implementation of family group decision-making of family group decision-making processes. And while I broadly support the intention behind these provisions I do think there are several important issues which need several important issues which need to be considered carefully, if we are to achieve the best outcomes for are to achieve the best outcomes for vulnerable children.

First, I would just like to place this proposal in context. As the noble Baroness, the minister, knows most local authorities already implemented some form of family group conferencing in old language or decision-making processes in the bill. And that is set out in the guidance, the statutory guidance in the Children Act 1989, which says that whether a Act 1989, which says that whether a court orders and in pre-proceedings, children's services should consider making a referral for family group conference, if " They believe there is a possibility that the child may not be able to remain with their parents unless this would place the child at risk." So, I suppose I would just like to understand why the government thinks that this needs to be mandatory, perhaps rather than other approaches.

And if there is a specific problem the government wants to solve by doing that. I think concerns have also been expressed that this could been expressed that this could For example, when a carer applies for parental responsibility, that risks becoming contested in the private law proceedings by the birth parents, and I wondered what assessment Government had made of this, or indeed that there could be pressure from inappropriate family members to attend, so, as I think will be a theme in my remarks, we just need to think everything through to make sure that it works in practice.

I assume that the evidence from the families first pathfinders is positive, otherwise the Government would not be pressing ahead, but again the Noble Lady just said it would be published in the spring. Maybe that sounds like possibly today, but maybe she could confirm that. The foundations, what works, censoring their evaluation estimated that just over 2,000 fewer children would be going into care over 12 months as a result of this kind of approach and I wondered whether the Government agrees with that estimate, or indeed has its own.

Returning to my amendments they focus on critical issues of timing, focus on critical issues of timing, of when this process is introduced, and the basic premise is that decision-making process should be implemented as early as possible when it starts to become clear that the child is at risk, so my amendment to put family group decision making at the start of the child protection seedings and the Noble Lady will know this was a point raised by the CEO of Cafcass in her oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee in The Other Place.

I think it is also supported by the family rights group. And the point of this is it would allow the wider family to understand the concerns the local authority has 10 earlier point. It would allow the wider family to demonstrate or not without not they can protect the child as early as possible and perhaps most importantly it would increase the likelihood of success in the arrangements because that going into child protection proceedings is not an un-stressful moment in a families life, but it is less stressful than when you go into care proceedings and a child might be removed from your care, so the ability to create a more consensual atmosphere feels like the earlier we do this, the more likely that is to happen, and as parents I think it is hard to imagine anything more stressful than imagine anything more stressful than care proceedings.

I think it is also crucial that care and the option of care is not being tested during proceedings. That is too late. It would delay things. In court proceedings are not there to test this, they are there to make decisions and to make an order, so the family group decision-making process needs to be as early as possible when there are concerns about the continuing child protection plan, the kinship carers can become part of. And I just wondered if the Noble Lady in her response could comment on those points.

My amendment 15 focuses on the need to ensure that for a child under two, family group decision- making must not delay care proceedings. Of course, this is most acute when a very young child is concerned because of the risk to them, but it does link to my amendment 16 which aims to highlight the need to avoid delays and proceedings more broadly, but returning to amendment 15, we know that meetings can be difficult to set up. We know that people do not always turn up, and they have to be rescheduled.

And, indeed, you could have family members who are actively obstructive, and because that to happen, but with very young children, every week and month matters, and we need to get permanent's decisions as quickly as possible, and I would go as far as to out the Minister to consider a timetable in these cases like we have the public law outlined in public law cases, perhaps we could have a kinship in these use cases. I know that my amendment 16 raised some eyebrows in The Other Place when it was donated, but however despite the existing delays which we are all too aware of it is an important principle that nothing, including a family group decision- making process should delay the 26 week limit for care proceedings, so I just wondered whether the Noble Lady could set out when she responds to this group what protections are there against a family member accepting the offer of a family group decision making process? And then repeatedly delaying the meeting to avoid care proceedings.

The noble Baroness the Minister can be reassured we absolutely support the family group decision-making approach, but we would urge her to be as rigorous as possible in thinking through how it could be used earlier in the child protection

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process. I baked it move the amendments to, 15, and 16 standing in my name. Amendment proposed in clause 1,
18:07
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Portrait Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in clause 1, page 1, leave outline 78 and insert the words as printed on the Marshall list. I should advise your lordships that if amendment to is agreed to, I that if amendment to is agreed to, I would be unable to call amendment 34

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regions of pre-emption. I rise to support amendment to in this group in the name of my Noble this group in the name of my Noble Friend Baroness Barran. And as we have just heard it has a simple purpose. To allow families access to a family group decision making meeting at the earliest possible meeting at the earliest possible opportunity in the child protection process. As I am sure noble Lords have seen, the family rights group for instance in their briefing noted when a local authority issues when a local authority issues parents with a pre-proceedings letter, concerns around the child's welfare were already serious and welfare were already serious and could mean that an intervention at this stage to a family group decision-making meeting is, unfortunately, already too late.

The British Association of Social Workers have expressed similar worries that waiting could mean opportunities to bring families together are lost with difficulties together are lost with difficulties having escalated to far to be addressed. I believe that research on the ground does show that family group conferences can be affected group conferences can be affected whenever the time is right for the family, and in most cases that may well be the sooner the better and indeed some local authorities are already, successfully, offering family group conferences earlier on in the child protection process.

As my Noble Friend outlined in her opening remarks, having a family approved decision meeting earlier on would allow the wider family to lawfully understand the local authorities initial concerns and could, nothing it would, allow them to demonstrate that they are able to protect the child concerned, so I do hope the Noble Lady the Minister will look favourably on this proposal which simply aims to ensure families have the best possible chance of staying together if, and I stress if, issues around a child's welfare can be properly addressed.

And at the earliest opportunity, or at the very least, to ensure that the measures were put into the build that you not create awful stuff that that this option is totally closed off.
18:09
18:10
18:10
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
three points that I want to make. First of all, and I entirely agree with the previous speakers, as soon as possible to hold the meeting because it is unlikely that the decision could make an application for a care order or interim care order comes at a very early stage and one hopes that the social workers would have been working with workers would have been working with the family before this becomes the inevitable. Consequently, the sooner the discussions can be made, and other members of the family are possible to be identified, the better it would be and it may not be necessary to have the care necessary to have the care application of the management court in any case.

Secondly, not only is in any case. Secondly, not only is it important to have it early but there must be a degree of ability there must be a degree of ability for the local authority to deal with members of the family, because not in every case, but in some cases, as has already been said by the Noble Lady Baroness Barran, there will be very, very unhappy divorce proceedings pending were parties proceedings pending were parties will be using their children as for their attacks on each other.

That is the typical sort of unhappy and divorced case. Fortunately, not frequent. But it comes in care proceedings. Consequently, you may find that well either or both of the parents really should not at some stage be at that meeting, I just think it is crucial that local authorities are not only warned if they do not know already but given at least other statutory guidance, some help as to how to deal with that particular issue, not in this bill, of course, but certainly in statutory guidance.

And the third absolutely crucial point that the Baroness Barran made was due not let a particular parent or someone with parental responsibility have the opportunity to use the meeting in order to delay the proceedings that are necessary, so, again, it is absolutely crucial that if a member of the family is trying to delay proceedings, the local authority can go ahead without having the meeting, and that is the one point that worries me about this. And though I think probably a veritable part of think probably a veritable part of clause 1 it is possible not to have it, but, again, the statutory guidance, it is crucial that they are warned that the family meeting must not take place, if, in fact, the delays are there for that particular reason.
18:12
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
I to have laboured long in the family courts and I think we are all, basically, aiming in the same direction, but the detail is important. Family group conferences or meetings as described in this bill and in the amendments are a valuable process, often best used as part of the pre-proceedings stage, not after a formal application has been issued, and I can't help but wondering there is not some lack of clarity in the drafting at least in the amendment of the bill, as I read it, is clear enough.

The local authority must include the offer of such a meeting in that letter before proceedings. And that is entirely desirable, in my view, whereas the amendment says when a local authority starts for child protection proceedings which, in my mind, reads as if it means once they have actually issued the formal application which, in some cases, may be too late and I think a mistake, possibly unintended, in the drafting of the amendment, but the general thrust of what the noble Baroness said, that they should be initiated as soon as possible, is clearly right.

These meetings are, to my mind, valuable for three main reasons. First, it enables family members to be informed that what has happened and why the local authority have intervened and to learn what is planned. Maybe planned, for the child or children concerned. Quite often one finds in practice that the parents are not the wider family of what is happening to them. Sometimes out of shame or pride, so that firstly the wider family learn of the proceedings comes from the social worker, and that can come as a surprise, or indeed a shock.

Even if the family due know what is happening, a formal meeting enables the family to get an accurate first hand account. An account which is not filtered by the parents. Secondly, conferences enabled the social Booker and Guardian that has been appointed to form an initial assessment of the strengths and weaknesses and attitudes of the wider family, and of the possible realistic options for the support of the parents and for any alternative arrangements for the children.

Either in the short-term or in the long-term, because in the long-term, if in reality adoption is going to be the outcome, the court will have to consider the ability and of the relatives to provide a secure environment under the statute that governs adoption decisions. Thirdly, the meeting enables the family members to feel they are valued. And can participate in making earlier These meetings are now already part of good practice but they could be reinforced by becoming part of primary legislation as proposed in the bill.

I have two reservations. In public law cases, they should not, in anyway, hold up urgent applications for interim orders, particularly when the local authority may have not had time or opportunity to learn more about the family structure or family dynamics. Secondly, and I am afraid here I am anticipating, I do not consider these meetings to be necessary in private law cases. Disputes between parents, some of which are relatively minor, and short lived and easy to resolve. That can lead in my view, to Cafcass, left of the court, in a preliminary hearing which always takes place in a primary law case.

I'm afraid, all too often, I find myself conducting a dispute resolution hearing and making inquiries about what help can be provided about the wider family, and usually, but not invariably,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

source the thing out. I rise to speak in support of this amendment, and do wish the government to explore whether or not government to explore whether or not it is possible at an earlier stage for these meetings to be considered. But I also wish to take the
18:17
18:18
18:18
Baroness Berridge Portrait Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-
meeting. As I read the amendment at the moment, it includes parents and any other person with parental responsibility, a child must be responsibility, a child must be offered this meeting. I assume there are circumstances in which the court has previously made a special guardianship order. And that leaves the parents with only the aspect of the parents with only the aspect of parental responsibility, which are to be told of a name change or to be told that a child will be leaving the jurisdiction for it is a very limited amount of parental responsibility.

If, for whatever reason, often potentially there has reason, often potentially there has then been illness of a special guardianship, the risks re- materialise, and so you are back in care proceedings. Is it envisaged care proceedings. Is it envisaged from this that those parents who from this that those parents who make a number of years, not heard anything because the child has obviously not left the jurisdiction obviously not left the jurisdiction and not had their name changed, are going to be part of a mandatory duty to be offered to be part of this decision-making process? Because, I think, if that is the case, if the logic is correct, then you are stacking the cards for the situation my noble friend has mentioned of parents suddenly being back involved and then delaying the meeting.

I was wondering if the noble Lady, the Minister, could clarify how this provision sits within existing special guardianship order, which has that effect on parental responsibility.
18:19
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Good. Good that we are now into the detail of what it is we are here to consider. Can I say, first of all, I am very pleased at the support and welcome of the process of family group decision-making, that I know is behind all of the amendments and contributions that have been made today. This is a measure which places a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting to the child's parents or any other person with parental responsibility, for the child, before an application for a care or supervision order.

It is a care or supervision order. It is made. This government wants to help more families stay together by mandating the offer of a family group decision-making meeting, for every family at the point before it is necessary to initiate care proceedings for a child and I very much appreciate the intentions of the amendments that have been tabled which tally with the government's aim to maximise the impact of family group decision-making. But I hope that I can reassure therefore that these amendments aren't necessary to achieve that.

Firstly, on the amendments, I know that the amendments are seeking to balance the provision of family group decision-making, with the need to avoid delay to child arrangements, proceedings, or permanent arrangements. And I think we have been supported in this consideration today by the considerable expertise And learned loads. This balance, we believe, is already provided by the existing statutory frameworks and guidance. What can I say, first of all, that I do agree very much with the noble Baroness, that all family networks should have the chance to benefit from the transformative family group decision-making process at multiple points in their journeys, with children's services.

And I think that's the argument being used. If this is as effective as it is, shouldn't families have the opportunity to benefit at different stages? The government are wholeheartedly agreeing with that. Indeed, with relation to amendment to, the working together statutory safeguarding guidance makes it clear and sets out the activities of local authority and their partners should take, where there are child take, where there are child protection concerns, under the act 1989, and this includes the use of family decision-making as part of child protection planning.

And I understand the points made by noble Lords using this as early as possible in the child's journey and repeating it as necessary is important. That is what, in fact, local authorities are encouraged to do. Once again, the point about evidence, the £45 million families first Pathfinder, family network pilot, doing to make greater use of family networks, involving them in decision-making at an earlier stage in providing practical and financial support via family networks support packages, to help keep children safe at home.

And there is, as of the noble Lords have mentioned, robust evidence from research, which shows that children can be diverted from care when family group decision- making is offered at the pre- proceedings stage. The new duty, to come onto the reason why the legislation focuses the duty at the point that it does. The new duty for family group decision-making to be made a pre-proceedings stage shows that every parent has given the offer at this critical stage, before care proceedings initiated.

It is a voluntary process that enables the family network to come together, and make a family lead plan, in response to concerns around the child's safety and well-being. We are confident the new duty, alongside the existing framework for chart protection, is sufficient to support children to stay at home safely, where this is possible. I think the noble Lord, the noble and learned Lord, identified that there is a very clear message set by making the statutory duty here in this piece of legislation, that there is an expectation at that point of the use of a family group decision-making meeting process.

But that is in order to emphasise the point at which it will most certainly, we believe from the evidence, be able to prevent more children from having to go through the process of being taken into care. That is not to say that it is not beneficial that other stages, and I hope and believe that through the statutory guidance and guidance that already exists, we will be able to make a very clear to local authorities. There is robust evidence from research which shows that children can be diverted from care, when family group decision- making is offered from the pre- proceedings.

Stage. Turning to amendment 15 which seeks to ensure that providing for family group decision-making, there is a child centric approach that accounts for the best interests of children under two. I can wholly understand the noble Lady, Baroness Barran's point about the need to issue the best interests of the child, particularly those at that very young age. They do already of course have a duty to act in the best interests of the child, and that includes consideration of their age.

Equally, it is not as much as best interest for family decision-making to take place, the offer should not be made to the family, and I think this is an important point that it does need to be, we do need to be clear, that the offer is in the child's best interests for it to be effective. Local authorities may also withdraw the offer of a meeting if it is no longer in the best interests of the child, for the meeting to take place.

And I hope that that responds to the points made about, firstly about... Partially in response to the points made about the delay, and also relates to the points made about not using, others not being able to use the meeting process as a way of delaying or of bringing pressure to bear on the family pressure to bear on the family environment. Regarding amendment 16, the government is committed to reducing unnecessary delay in the family courts, and securing timely outcomes for children.

But as I have already identified, close one relates to a specific from a close one relates to a specific point before court proceedings initiated were robust evidence shows that family decision-making will reduce applications prevent children from entering the care system. On some of the particular questions, about the delay, I can, as was suggested, she will noble Lords that these points about delay will be covered in statutory guidance, I think I have already made clear that a local authority will be in a position, where they could withdraw the offer of the meeting or the process, if they believe that it was being used for delay which would clearly not be in the best interests of the child on the point about whether not it will delay interim and emergency orders, I am pretty confident that it doesn't.

But I would be prepared, because it is an important point to come back in writing to noble Lords, about that particular point I think therefore we are confident that there are provisions in clause 1 that would result in the extension to the 26 week limit, for care proceedings, which starts of course when an application for a care order is made, in other words, after the point in which the family group decision making process is used. And I hope that I have managed to reassure noble Lords about what would happen if there were other things that were likely to cause delay in the proceedings.

And also to reassure noble Lords that we believe and have evidence for the efficacy of this process. And that is why, although this is a statutory duty, at one point in the process, we are very clear and will continue to encourage and develop through the family first program the use of family group decision-making at all stages of the process, because of the effectiveness of it. I hope they have reassured noble Lords, and the noble Lady Baroness Barran will feel able to withdraw her amendments at this point.
18:29
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
Before the noble Lady sits down, I would be grateful if you could outline the response, maybe that she needs to write to me, about the specific situation about special guardianship orders, recognise there is a special interest test. But as it was a moment, the main clause of the bill, those parents were that limited parental responsibility are covered by the duty, and I think it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be good to have some clarification. I certainly cannot answer that today but I will certainly undertake to write to noble Lords about that to write to noble Lords about that important point and that just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position and relationship, yes. My Lords, Robert like to thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, Robert like to thank the Minister for her -- I would like the Minister for her -- I would like to thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and it is a privilege to have the experience a privilege to have the experience of the noble and learned Lady, Baroness Butler-Sloss, and others around the House to contribute to around the House to contribute to around the House to contribute to In the response to the Lord Meston's comments on our drafting.

I feel comments on our drafting. I feel like I need to make a sort of general statement, please listen to the intent from which I do, rather the intent from which I do, rather than the specific wording. We than the specific wording. We weren't intending to change the spirit of the bill, in terms of pre- spirit of the bill, in terms of pre- proceedings. I'm not completely comfortable and in child protection are never completely comfortable with the noble Lady's response about young children and how we protect against delay in obstructive family members.

These are such finely balanced decisions and the ideas of next week could delay. When she writes following this debate, perhaps you could set out what data is either already collected, or planned to be collected once this is mandatory. It would be interesting to understand the average length of the process. Whether there is a difference in outcomes between those children, or those families that are offered the processes much earlier, at the time, set up, rather that an at the pre-proceedings stage.

Just because obviously we need to stay agile and make sure we are protecting children as well as possible. Listening to her remarks, I just wondered whether that was a way through. Obviously she needs a moment to think about that. Knowledge this is about the best assumption. Achieving permanence quickly is in the best interest of the child. The push for speedy permanence, rather than a wider test. I beg leave to withdraw my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moments. It is Bekaa Valley withdrawn. In

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is Bekaa Valley withdrawn. In I rise to speak to a member three in my name and co-signed by my noble in my name and co-signed by my noble friend the Earl of Effingham. The authority must offer or any other person with parental responsibility for the child. In laying this for the child. In laying this amendment I am seeking to extend the amendment I am seeking to extend the right to family group conferences, to children, young people, young
18:33
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
to children, young people, young adults, so that most importantly they're able to contribute to and ultimately agree their own care plan. It is as simple as that. Why should they not be able to do this. I would like to thank all the organisations who work tirelessly to support family Children and Young Persons Act every day and for their briefings on the important subject. I cannot refer to them all. Research commissioned by county council stated that there would be nearly 100,000 children in care, representing a 36% rise.

By including 16 and 17-year-olds, in a family conferencing, we may be able to reduce the number where it is safe to do so, going into care and staying in, with support, with their family or those with responsibility, into care and reducing the trauma they now face. And ensuring their futures are not impaired. A laudable aim, I hope of all of those rules will support. I'm grateful to the Family Rights Group for their briefing on the bill. Particularly on on this issue.

The bill gives the local authority the discretion to decide if the child is invited to be involved in the F GBN process, or not. This is unsatisfactory. It is a not make for a child-centred process. This approach differs at elsewhere, in the child welfare system. For example, looked after children views that where the presumption in favour of the child taking part. The bill should ensure children are invited to take part in their family group decision-making, meeting the processes, if a safe and consistent with their welfare.

The British Association of Social Workers state that BASW welcomes and To extend the family group conferencing to include the voices of 16 to 17-year-olds. This approach is rooted in social work values of participation. Ensuring that young people are not passive subjects of decision, but active partners in shaping their own futures. It also shaping their own futures. It also The caring 18 campaign, recognising that young people need to be heard, supported and cared for consistently, as they transition into adulthood.

I could not have put it better myself. I received this from action for children, the children's charity coalition believe that real positive changes to the lives of young people cannot be achieved, without listening to their wishes and feelings, when making decisions affecting them. They go on to say urge parliamentarians to ensure the bill strengthens requirements, local authorities, to ascertain the wishes and feelings of children and give their views, during the decisions of that affect them. If amendment six should strengthen this request, by extending the right to family groups for children aged 16 and 17, so they're able to agree their own care plan.

Cannot help but reflect on my noble friend, Lord Balfe's contribution and how he wished somebody had listened to him. For 32 years I have been involved in young people. They are an admirable bunch and different characteristics, they get lots of trouble and they succeed, on many occasions. Let me tell you about one young lad, all he wanted to do was work in a television shop. He wanted to repair them and we found a job. He was excellent of the work, the employer loved him, one day said you have got to get about, would draw him.

I went along to do the deed. I actually said to the employer, what is wrong with him? He said his personal hygiene is disastrous. I sat the lad down, with the employer and I asked him how things at home? How is it all going? What challenges have you all going? What challenges have you got to. He said my mum died and my dad does the washing by chucking it in the bath. When the employer heard in the bath.

When the employer heard it he had obviously listened, he had obviously had his heart touched and the long and short is the boy moved in with him and his wife and had his washing done. He had a terrific career. This is a wee one for young people. My amendment is as simple as, we must listen and we must take their views into account. I beg to move.
18:39
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top Portrait Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Labour)
-
-
Amendment proposed, clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out to the end of line 10 and insert the words as printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in this group and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in this group and I have five amendments, in this group. All of the amendments come from my knowledge and understanding from my knowledge and understanding of evidence based work. In saying of evidence based work. In saying that, I declare my interest as a trustee of foundations, the Centre trustee of foundations, the Centre for children and families. I have for children and families. I have been involved in this even longer than the noble Lady opposite.

My first job, in this country was in first job, in this country was in first job, in this country was in 1970, in Newcastle, what was then the first of the children's departments, after the SeaWorld report. I just qualified as a social worker, specialising in family casework. You don't get anything casework. You don't get anything What I was clearly aware of and what was, as happened, I have seen the rest of my life, as it were. This country responds to tragedies, in its legislation, on children.

We do not start from what is it we need to give children the very best? We start from this child died in dire circumstances and we have got to make sure it never happens again. Now of course we have to do that, but we really do need legislation that starts from what are going to be the best ways that we can support families, to enable their children to have the very best, in life. And I think that we get things the wrong way round.

I'm really pleased that the Government is trying to start from what do we mean by the well- being, the best interests of children and how do we start there? Rather than just how do we protect them. Protection is very important, but if we actually think about the other first, many of them will then not need that level of protection. My amendment, my amendments all come from the work that foundations have done, in terms of family group conferencing. And, I am delighted that the government talks about family group decision-making, on the face of the bill, but I want them to be brave and go to the next stage, which is the family group conference, which is now a well- Report.

In 2023, foundations completed a randomised controlled trial of family group conferences. The first in the UK and the largest ever, in the world. Which involved Children and families, across a 21 local authorities, in England. And at the evaluation found that children whose families were referred, for an F G C and pre- proceeding stage were less likely to go into care, they found 12 months after the three proceedings a letter was issued. Just over one third of those, 6% of children whose families were referred were taken into care, compared to nearly half of 45% of children who were not.

They also found that children who have been part of this process were less likely to go to court, for the decisions. About their care. Only three in five, 59% of children referred to FG sees had care proceedings issued, compared to 72% of children who were not referred. They also spent less time in care, six months after the proceedings letter, children and families had been referred, spent an average of 87 days, in care, compared to 150 for those who had not been through that process.

Foundations estimated that 2293 fewer children who go into care, within a 12 month period, if FG sees were rolled out, nationally. This in turn could save taxpayers over £150 million within two years, from a reduction in both court proceedings and the number of children entering the care system. My perspective is that when I was doing all of this in the government and responsible for social exclusion it was so clear that when you used evidence-based, yes you did stop a bit of what we love in this country which is every letter every flower bloom, but what we did was get much better outcomes for children, whether that was by particular parent classes in Sure Start and I have to say, though I could say a lot more now, I'm not going to.

We need to look and we need to use them. We didn't have time to let these kids suffer, while we think that might be a good idea. Why don't we try that instead. Until we have evidence-based something, we should be giving them the strength of what we know and what works. So, the amendments seven and nine. Amendment two seven in assures that the expectation is asserting legislation, for family group decision-making, to be a process, including, it is not just a metre, it is the process which includes rigorous preparation and not just that one of meeting.

Amendment nine it seeks to ensure the family network's involvement, throughout the process, particularly in implementing the proposed plan. Foundations tested this and as a process. Involving referral, preparation, meeting, discussion, consensus about a plan, implementation and review of that This was the approach that was found to be effective, with the aim to implement a plan to keep children safe, featuring a family led approach throughout including ongoing joint working. My experience as a social worker was it did not matter how dysfunctional or awful the family was, the children wanted to know what was going on and what the relationship might be.

Every other country in Europe thinks we are mad not to involve parents more in the proceedings even if the decision is not to place the child with the family and it is a serious issue in our system. So Amendment eight puts into legislation the requirement for a meeting to be facilitated by an independent trade coordinator. For the process to include family time for private network members. It means you get someone who is not the local authority the family might be worried or afraid of, who are not the court who may also have the same view about, but someone who is able to understand first and foremost the needs of the child, where the child is coming from, and then work out with everybody else what will happen, how it will happen and how they will conduct the process.

This highlights features that are part of the seven UK family group conferencing quality standards. This is the benchmark of high quality FG C delivery which is already in use by many local authorities in England. The FTC model that foundations evaluated in 2023 provides the strongest available evidence that this model is effective, and it was underpinned, it is effective because it is underpinned by the standards. Facilitated by an independent coordinator that invites immediate and extended family friends together with those working professionally and directly with the family into a planning session at a neutral location.

It is important that the independent coordinator is someone who does not have any other professional role with the family. So will not be involved in any professional decision-making or allocation of resources for that child, but in a sense is the person who just makes sure it all happens and professionals are part of the process and then they are the ones that make the decision about the outcome of family group conference. Amendment 10 and 11 allow family to take the lead on who takes part in their process, removing the ability for local authorities alone to decide who is appropriate to attend while still allowing practitioners to determine if this is in line with the child's welfare.

These amendments uphold the standards of the FGC meeting as evaluated including the attendance of those most important to the child and parents and that they have a say in making sure that they are there. Amendment 13 establishes a presumption in favour of inviting the child to take part in the FG VM process including the meetings if it is safe and consistent with their welfare to do so. All of these decisions will be taken within the context of what is safe and in the interest of the welfare of the child.

Again, I commend that to you. There is lots of other information. I am over my limit already. It is important that this is not a silver bullet and cannot be taken on its own, but family group conferences are an important part of a process and they should be provided alongside ongoing high quality support which meets the need of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

child and the family. I rise as one of the many
18:51
Baroness Walmsley Portrait Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise as one of the many qualified teachers in the House to qualified teachers in the House to speak about Amendment 14 in the name of Baroness Tyler who cannot be with us today, and myself and others. Before I do so, I would like to warmly welcome Baroness Longfield to this Committee because I know that as the children's commissioner she was so very committed to all of these issues and I know she supports the amendments of Baroness Armstrong this afternoon.

I was involved with the legislation that set up the UK children's commissioner in the first place and was involved in making sure the commissioner must have regard to the UN can of the rights of the child -- UN Convention on the rights of the child. That is what I said on amendment 14. The intention is to ensure that those making decisions affecting children and young people seek and take into account their wishes and feelings if they wish to give them and to support them to do so.

I welcome the government ambition to be a child- centred government and strengthen systems intended to keep children safe, but there is more the bill could do to track child centre the bill, specifically it currently fails to embed meaningful consideration of the child's wishes, and feelings, and I would like to strengthen it. As noble Lords will be aware, more than 30 years ago in 1991, the UN ratified the UN Convention on the rights of the child, and we recognised children had a distinct set of rights that uniquely value all that it means to be a child.

Article 12 of the Convention sets out the rights of every child to express views freely and have those views given weight in all matters affecting them, including family conferences we are talking about. They must be afforded that chance to express their views, wishes and feelings, and I think the word should in amendment 13 is not quite good enough in that respect. In short, it recognises children are experts in their own lives and I believe children under 16 are perfectly capable of doing this, so I do not support amendment 12 that limits this to over 16's.

As long as they have appropriate support and understanding, many young children are very articulate about what they think. The amendment seeks to ensure the systems designed to protect and support children and those that work with them are founded on the basis that we can only hope to truly understand what is in a child's best interest by hearing and giving heed to their experiences for their need and perspective, the voice of the child as we often call it.

In cases of abuse and neglect, giving children the opportunity to express their views is a critical factor in goading trust and keeping children safe. Children themselves tell us they are not routinely heard when decisions are made that affect them. Research taken with children and young people for the children's charity Coalition 2024, children at the table campaign, found that 62% of UK children think politicians don't understand the issues that affect them and almost 3/4 feel children are not listened to by politicians, so let's listen and hear them today.

That is why I consider amendment 14 to be so important. It ensures local authorities in offering family group decision-making are required to ascertain children's wishes and feelings and give them due weight when making decisions. It can provide for a clear entitlement for the child to be supported, to participate in family group decision-making meetings. But where this is not in the child's best interest for the local authority to ensure that the child's wishes and feelings are appropriately represented, for example by an independent advocate, and effort will have to be made by someone who really understands these things to ascertain those wishes.

The bill currently requires local authority to seek the child's view. I welcome the government recognition of the importance of listening to children in context of family group decision-making including by the Minister in response to a similar amendment in the other place, but this falls short of the gold standard of the Children Act to seek and give due weight to the wishes and feelings of the child in different contexts, including Children in Need assessments, child protection, and any decisions relating to a child in care, or possibly going in to care.

We know from serious case reviews and enquiries that where children are not listened to, it can have devastating consequences. Wishes and feelings are broader than views. Amending the bill in this way means that those children would choose not to express their views who are perhaps younger, shyer or maybe non-verbal or lack capacity, who will still have their feelings taken into account when decisions are being made about their safety and being made about their safety and where they might live.

Passing amendment 14 would do all of this.
18:57
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 18 in my name and to amendment seven and 14 which are just being spoken to ably by Baroness Armstrong and Baroness Walmsley and also supported by Baroness Longfield, Baroness Drake, seven, amendment seven, and Baroness Bennett Manor Castle, 14, with Baroness Tyler of Enfield who is not in her place. This is primarily about family group decision-making so I will speak to amendment seven and 14. The government avoided to referring to family group conferencing, presumably because they want to allow for evolution of good practice of family group decision-making models, but as I said at second reading, the evidence based on how they are defined for legislation assumes faithful in ferment faithful implementation of one key aspect, including that it is not a one-off meeting.

If it were, it would be a token effort to bring together all of those with family or other close relationship to the child. Currently, the bill only makes provision for the offer of a family group decision-making meeting. Rather, family group decision-making involves a process with careful preparation which typically goes beyond a single meeting as amendment seven requires, where a child is supported to be involved in an initial meeting as amendment 14 specifies they might flag key people are missing or input might throw up previously unforeseen issues that need attending to before important decisions are made concerning their future.

Support is required because many children will be haunted by being involved in a family group decision-making meeting, and they may even say they don't want to be there, but regret not being involved later on. Where there have been long-standing difficulties of the family, they might be concerned about revealing secrets, getting into trouble, making things worse. Safety planning, a key aspect of any process involved in rehoming a child can also be delicate and difficult and should certainly not be rushed.

The pressure on local authority are unlikely to ease any time soon and the legislation should not be written in such a way that shortcuts are taken and the family involvement is marginalised to speed things up. It cuts across the spirit of the approach which is the coming together and strengthening and developing of a relational network for the good of the child and the sector. This is a good time to move Come on to the amount 18. Subject to a family decision-making, the corporate parent has to consider, and regular intervals, if it would benefit them to have relationships with their, "Family network.

" Particularly if they become a looked after child. The tragedy of losing a daily contact with their parents would be grossly compounded, by losing relationships with all those who've worked with them and for them, if they were very young. Throughout the family group decision-making process. As a child matures and develops, their relational needs will change. My explanatory statement refers to enabling any necessary support to facilitate these relationships. Another evidence-based process, that is the other side of the coin to family group decision-making, is a lifelong links and an approach based on family finding that began in Orange County California.

A child removed from their home, perhaps because of neglect, or abuse and place with strangers, ideally, if a well executed family group decision-making process has revealed there is no one in the extended family they can live with. Intensification of what has already been a traumatic experience. Separation from everyone and everything will undermine much of To them, the network coming together in their interest. A growing body of research shows that children do better, when they remain safely connected to their own families and communities.

Even if they cannot live with them. The Family Rights Group has cocreated a family finding, with children in the care system. So they have a lasting support network of relatives, and others who care about them. I trained a lifelong links coordinator works with the child, or young person, to find and safely bring together all those who are important in their life. They might be relatives, they may have lost contact with, or never met, or others, like a favourite teacher, or youth worker, who care about them.

So when they leave care there is someone to spend Sunday afternoon with, or Christmas Day lunch with. Someone to give them advice about a job, or a college course and support them. Substantial UK evidence shows a lifelong links increases children in care's positive connections, mental health, sense of identity, stability, and where they are living and it reduces risk of homelessness. Lifelong links is now available in over 40 councils, across the UK, 22 of which have Department of Education funding to run the program.

My amendment would lay the foundation for sitting out in regulations and guidance, that all children in care and care leavers should have access to the lifelong links approach, obviously relationships should not be severed in the first place, so contact details of all those who come together for family group decision- making and other key relationships which emerge, through the Lifelong Links process should be kept on file by local authorities. Social workers, personal advisers, others can then support children in the care system, to maintain or build positive relationships, with those who are important to them.

Again, over time, what is possible and he will be beneficial, will change. Bradley, a young person who has taken part in a Lifelong Links said, "I had no contact for 16 years with my dad's family, at all. Now I can ring up and go round for a cup of tea, dislike of always known them. " If you have no one, discuss discovering you have someone and possibly even a whole undiscovered side of your family makes a transformational difference. A social worker in Glasgow, who was working with a young girl who had been in care and she discovered that she was a second cousin to the girl and it completely transformed their relationship.

No longer was it a social worker and a girl in care, it was a member of the family and their relationship blossomed after that. Another young person, in Islington, where Lifelong Links has been well child is now in regular contact with his father. The effect of this is that he has not gone missing in the past year and has been able to benefit from support from his college, where he is doing a mechanics apprenticeship. This relationship has made a major difference to his personal safety.

I meet many people in prison, who have no visits from family, or friends, so they don't benefit from the strong rehabilitative effect of a positive relationships, particularly with people on the outside. A quarter of all prisoners are care leavers. Emerging evidence, like this from Lifelong Links, strongly suggest that family and other significant relationships are major protective factors, against risky behaviours that could land many, with experience of local authority care in prison. For many, if no one is there, they make the fairly rational decision that they have nothing to lose.

Having somebody means that they have something to lose. If a family group decision- making is it going into Statuette, we need to build on it, with a commitment to make approaches, like Lifelong Links, available.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendment, put forward by my noble friend, Baroness Armstrong and really appreciate this opportunity to talk appreciate this opportunity to talk in more detail about that improvement of decision-making. And improvement of decision-making. And also welcome the measures, in this also welcome the measures, in this bill, who seek to offer families the chances to build solutions, together. That can secure their children's welfare and also give children's welfare and also give them agency. Really pleased that we are seeing support, across the House for family group decision-making.

for family group decision-making. That, I think is a very positive start. And my interest in supporting these amendments is about ensuring these amendments is about ensuring that we have the strength of the process, and that strong enough to process, and that strong enough to be able to drive and deliver the outcomes that we all want to see. The children had better outcomes and that more are able to stay safely that more are able to stay safely with families. And that is something that you have heard about, at that you have heard about, at length, in terms of the evidence we know is there.

I should declare an
19:08
19:08
19:08
Baroness Longfield Portrait Baroness Longfield (Labour)
-
-
Armstrong, a trustee of. My experience in this and relationship to those organisations goes back to those organisations goes back decades and it is over that time that I've been convinced of the benefits of family group compass benefits of family group compass thing, having worked with both professionals, with families and with children who have gone through with children who have gone through that process. When I first found out that process. When I first found out about it, I didn't come to it as a professional, who knew about that area of practice.

I spoke to family members who had found themselves in a situation, spiralling out of control, that they did not feel that control, that they did not feel that they had any agency over, in terms of being able to provide support for of being able to provide support for family members. They had come across this as something for their local authority, it had already been authority, it had already been testing and through that they found themselves at the centre of shaping an outcome that actually was a much more favourable to them.

And their siblings, as it was, in that case. What we are looking at here, in the amendments, is of course moving from a decision-making meeting, that might fall foul to tick boxing tendencies, to one that really has that strength around the process, with an understanding of the need for experienced leadership, train coordinators, a wider network beyond the family. That may be something that people think may be a strange thing, but we define our networks, our support networks all very differently.

And our wider networks can have that very strong impact, in our life. And of course, as has been said, child centric approach which puts children and have a deep role that children should be part of that. What I have experienced, with families that have been through this and indeed with others in the families, it has been a transformational, at a time when families often find themselves without any agency, in a process, they feel is going on only one way. If you have this part of the recognise system of the local authority, it is something that can be understood by families and by professionals.

It is not just something that is the whim of the director of children's services at the time. It is something that can be baked into that wider process of the family support. Of course, it is so important, in terms of being able to link this very closely in with early intervention. There are two things I just wanted to say, in addition, one is that this will really strengthen that protection for children and really speaks to the point Baroness Armstrong talked about, in terms of most families whose children end up in care are actually in a position of adversity to.

The lead relational practice centre estimate 90% of children in care, because of family adversity. This is speaks to supporting those families and is right to do so. And the other is it is not a soft option. Really this is challenging work, for everyone involved and in the bar so high. I just wanted to make one final point here. I too have been speaking to directors of children's services and many and most are very, very enthusiastic about, but enthusiastic about the ambitions and intent of the bill.

I do have a list, a list of those directors of children's services, but also the 80% of local authorities who now have family conferencing as part what they do, sometimes in a small way, can be
19:12
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
built upon, there is a long list of authorities with huge track records authorities with huge track records of making this work and also the results, in terms of evidence for stop of how it impacts a better outcomes for children and families. outcomes for children and families. , having attach my name to amendment 14, already a very ably introduced by Baroness Walmsley and supported by Lord Farmer. Also, to just say that to further broaden the support for the family group decision-making process, broaden the political process, broaden the political breadth of support, by very strongly offering the Green party support for offering the Green party support for that.

Amendment 14, just set out, it differs from the amendment of the differs from the amendment of the noble Baroness that refers to 16 and 17-year-olds. I think it is more expansive than the amendment from expansive than the amendment from Baroness Armstrong. It really stresses the need to make all efforts to ascertain the child's efforts to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings and to give due consideration to them. I think it is worth noting that all of the amendments in this group and other amendments around this reflect, as others have noted, briefings from the children's charity coalition and the Family Rights Group.

Which, are saying as other nibblers have said, that the Government is going absolutely the right direction, but it does need to be strengthened and they clearer, which is what this amendment and others do. In backing this particular amendment, I am reflecting the statements that have been making in your Lordship's House. I've been tabling and signing, going back a considerable difference. The Mental Health Bill. About listening to children and Amongst our young people. One of the things that psychologists will tell us, from a common sense perspective, not having a sense of agency, not feeling like you have control, not feeling like you are being listened to is actually damaging your mental health.

And if we go to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, reporting 2023. It raised- significant concerns about the significant barriers to meaningful engagement of children in decision- making, in the UK. Particularly for the seldom heard a marginalised group of children, which is of course the children we are very much in speaking about, here, who are likely to be involved in family group decision-making processes. We have got to really ensure that people are listened to, that they feel that they have agency.

And this is an amendment that takes us in the right direction and a constructive way and I hope we are going to hear from the noble Lady the Minister, at least heading in this direction.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Longfield, to have the Children's Commissioner in this House. This is a good bill. Like all
19:14
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
House. This is a good bill. Like all bills that could be better. I support amendments three, 13, 14 and 18. In 1988, I wrote a report, having been chairman of the children of the Cleveland child abuse inquiry. In my report, I said that children should be listened to. I also said that children were people and not objects of concern. And I have to say, as recently as last year, I remember talking to a young person who nobody had told what was happening to him.

He had no idea, until he was moved. This really is very serious. It is not just what I said, anybody took any notice. Everybody else has been saying it, talking as at the noble Lady, the Baroness Walmsley have said, the voice of the child. The voice of the child is crucial. At all stages of child is crucial. At all stages of I was interested in what Lord Balfe said at the age of 13 he was able to say what he thought.

The one thing that is wrong with amendment three is it talked about 16 and 17-year- olds. As a family judge, I had children coming in in private law cases and in care cases and children as young as seven and eight who gave me extraordinary, careful, sensible views about what should happen to them. I am sure the children's commissioner had the same experience. Consequently, Gillick experience. Consequently, Gillick talks about children being teenagers. Unless it is obvious the child shouldn't be doing it and it will be the children that is asked, at any age, I remember one case where a five year old was telling the welfare officer exactly what had happened to her.

Do not think young children can't be extremely helpful in what has happened but at what they actually think they want. They won't necessarily get it. But can I move to amendment 18, the continuing relationship? Last year or two or three years ago, I was on a Select Committee honoured adoption, and we actually met a number of children who had been adopted and we met a number of children in foster care. I have never forgotten and I nearly cried when a 15 year old boy with three younger siblings was talking about having them moved into care and they didn't know what was happening to the other children.

No one was telling him, but he had been the carer because the parents were quite impossible and he had basically brought them up. He knew nothing about what was happening. The point about continuing relationships, I think the most important of the continuing relationships is with the other children of the family. That I think is often overlooked, even by well- meaning people looking after the children. I would say please listen to children, give them the opportunity.

Not if they don't want it, but almost all of them will want it and will want to know what is happening and will want to give you your $0.10. Please make arrangements somehow or other in statutory guidance to put a real plus that all children taken into care should have a chance to know what is happening.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will be very brief. I would like to remind noble Lords the first like to remind noble Lords the first amendment that went on for rather a long time, Baroness Finlay who is long time, Baroness Finlay who is not in her place talked about children's rights, I think there was
19:19
19:20
Lord Hampton Portrait Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-
Speaking about amendment 82 which I had in my name and I declare I am one of the school of qualified teachers in the chamber and the kitchen carer of twin 13-year-olds. This is a small but important amendment. It sets great importance by family decision-making as we have heard, and I recently had a cup of tea with Lord Lamy to ask his advice about the bill. Sadly he is unable to take part. If there is one person in the House whose absolute expert in this field, it is him.

His concern which I share has been that in decision meetings that I have been in have gone wrong is that a badly handled meeting can do more harm than good. The wrong timing of a meeting, the participants not realising the aims, bad sharing, can lead to breakdown of trust and irreparable harm to a child's future. -- Bad chair. The importance is that it can only be facilitated by an independent, suitably trained person and I urge the government to present it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment three in the name of Baroness three in the name of Baroness Stedman-Scott who I have co-signed. Family group conferencing was born out of the 1918 nine children and out of the 1918 nine children and young persons families act in New Zealand where families became keeper discipline is in a process of discipline is in a process of decision-making. Family group conferences are used in approximately 30 countries worldwide and at least 22 countries in Europe.

Research has shown children whose families referred to a family group families referred to a family group conferencing at the preceding stage was less likely to be in care 12 was less likely to be in care 12 months later than those whose families were not so referred. This should not be a surprise to the House as such and discussion offers House as such and discussion offers a compelling opportunity for families to come together and unite families to come together and unite around important decisions for their child which has the benefit of making that child feel loved and wanted as well as the ability to address the professionals in any glaring gaps in their well-being.

Amendment three is a simple amendment that seeks to extend the right to family group decision- making meetings to children aged 16 and 17. It is important to allow children who on the brink of adulthood take part in decisions that could materially affect their lives, that would appear to be eminently sensible. At the -- end age of 16, a child can agree to their own care plan. It is fair and reasonable they are involved in
19:24
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
family group decision-making. This is a family led process and is absolutely essential, keeping children with their families where children with their families where possible. We should be avoiding at all costs children going into care. That should be the absolute last That should be the absolute last resort. So by allowing 16 and 17- year-olds to share their voice and year-olds to share their voice and opinion, it would ensure this process is as child centric and process is as child centric and effective as it can be.

It is essential family group decision- essential family group decision- making is done right in ensuring older children are able to contribute would be an extremely contribute would be an extremely positive step in that direction. I'm pleased to see that I believe this sentiment is shared by Baroness Armstrong, Baroness Laing field, and Armstrong, Baroness Laing field, and Baroness Drake with the amendment tabled in their names. -- Baroness tabled in their names. -- Baroness Laing field. Part C6 to achieve what Baroness Stedman-Scott and I are aiming for and we very much hope there will be cross-party support from other noble Lords on this important foundation stone.

Turning to amendments seven, eight, nine, 10 to amendments seven, eight, nine, 10 and 11 which seeks to set out key principles when implementing family group decision-making process. Amendment 76 to ensure the process that accompanies these meetings. It is important they are not isolated events, but instead that the process is child led and includes the family throughout. Amendment eight is similar in spirit to amendment five in the name of Baroness Barran which will be debated later, so I will only briefly touch on the issues, but we absolutely agree with Baroness Lady Armstrong that the trained coordinator would provide an excellent addition to the family group decision-making team.

Amendment nine rightly notes the essential part of the proposal regarding concerns about child welfare is the implementation of the proposal so that the best outcomes for that child can be put in place. Baroness -- amendment 10 and 11, those that have parental responsibility for the child agree who may attend the family group decision-making meeting rather than the local authority and it is important that those who know the child ensure the relevant voices are heard. Turning to new clause after clause 1, amendment 19 in the name of Baroness Barran, this amendment aims to ensure that there is proper oversight of the child protection plan if a child under the age of five is subject to care proceedings.

It is of critical importance that the matter of the child being harmed or at the risk of the same is kept in view given the general length of preceding and the risk of harm during them. Many local authorities discharge the child protection plan and associated processes when the proceedings are issued. The childcare moves to the social work team. Many of these children are listening to the parents where the harm of risk of it is happening and this is why they must be protected during proceeding that can run on average for 52 weeks.

Protection and arrangement for full monitoring must be maintained at all costs. Indeed, the risk to the child might actually be raised during proceedings given the pressure on their parent or parents. We acknowledge that this amendment has a potentially arbitrary cut-off, but it does cover preschool age children who all too often have been the subject of serious case incidents where the tragedy of a child losing their life or being seriously harmed has occurred. This amendment aims to be the great in the system that ensures a senior, fresh pair of eyes looks at such cases to ensure the child protection plan is not ceased without their approval.

Regarding specific amendments concerning child attendance at these meetings set out in amendment 13 and 14, we regret we do not support proposals that permit children to attend these meetings. Of course, as we have heard from Baroness Baroness Butler-Sloss and Baroness Longfield, the rights of the child are important, but attendance by the child could be traumatising, create a sense of rejection and constrain necessary conversation. This must be child centric. The child must heard, but possibly not in these meetings.

Amendment 18 in the name of Lord Farmer seeks to ensure the changing needs of the child are considered throughout the childhood. It is important to recognise the change in family landscape and as such this amendment is an eminently sensible one as the family network may be able to support the child and if that is possible then the local authority should take action so that child can benefit from such support as and when it becomes possible. In as and when it becomes possible.

In conclusion, family group decision- conclusion, family group decision- making has tremendous potential to transform positive action for transform positive action for vulnerable children but only if we achieve the scope and impairment achieve the scope and impairment Asian Cup. We have -- implementation Asian Cup. We have -- implementation correctly. We must ensure that this delivers on all of its full potential. potential.
19:30
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Can I just say how both interesting and informative I found the contributions in this particular group of amendments? It is something to be in this House and be able to hear the experiences of those like mine, Baroness Armstrong, who has experience as a social worker and a long history of campaigning and policy-making in this area. Baroness Longfield was an important and impactful children's commissioner. To hear from Baroness Butler-Sloss, who gave us a small exposition of the enormous experience she has in this area, and many others as well who have made important points.

I strongly appreciate the intention of amendments tabled in this group amendments tabled in this group which I know children and families benefit of the transformational impact of high quality family group decision-making processes when it is most useful to them. I know the intention is to ensure these processes are as effective as possible and I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that we recognise those intentions and indeed will take action to ensure Firstly I tend to amendment three in amendment 12, by Baroness Stedman- Scott and Lady Armstrong of hilltop.

This particularly relates to the point about, this is a specific element of the theme there has been through this group about the views of young people. I will come back to that again, later. I wholeheartedly agree that the views of the young people concerned should be taken very seriously on the family group decision-making. And where they wish to initiate a family group decision-making process, in order to see the support of their wider family there should be taken seriously and supported, whenever possible.

Children, parents or family members can ask the local authority to be referred for family group decision-making, at any point in their journey for children's services, as we discussed previously. However, with respect to the ability for a young person, over the ability for a young person, over the age of 16, alone, to be able to request a family group decision- making process. Our position, with respect to this is that any outcome of a family group decision-making process would need to be agreed, by those with parental responsibility and as such, it is clearly preferable for them to be engaged, from the outset, wherever possible.

Because of course, even young people over the age of 16 and 17 will have those people who have parental responsibility, over them. We will set out in a statutory guidance how local authorities should approach such situations. We don't believe it would be appropriate to legislate for a formal process, that doesn't have the consent of those with parental responsibility, which this will do. I also wholeheartedly agree that family networks should be offered and had the chance to benefit from the transformative family group decision-making process, at multiple points in the journeys was children's services, including from the earliest point of And And want And want to And want to reiterate, And want to reiterate, current statutory guidance makes this clear and we will continue to encourage this.

However, as we have also discussed there is robust evidence, from research that shows that children can be diverted, from care, when family decision-making is offered at the pre-proceedings stage, which is why we are legislating that an offer must be made, at this important stage. Secondly, I tend to amendment a 789, 10 and 11, tabled by my noble friend, Baroness Armstrong -- seven, eight, nine, 10, and 11. I wholeheartedly agree we should seek to make sure that family making decision-makers follows an evidence-based approach, with high quality principles.

Baroness Longfield is absolutely right, there is no place for tick box activities, in a children's care and in their lives. We must ensure that this family group decision-making is taking place on the basis of the best possible evidence. I recognise the points made by my noble friends about the breadth and the significance of the foundations of research. The principles and the processes the best practice outlined, in that research is very, very important. Regarding amendment seven eight and nine, we will therefore use statutory guidance to set out clear principles in practice, reiterating that family making decision-making should rightly be recognised as a process, not just a simple meeting and building on the evidence, from successful models, such as the family group conference approach.

On the point about the independence coordinator, I agree, that in most circumstances, it would certainly be the case that independent coordinators would be the right approach to take. It is possible and I think there are some examples of times when perhaps a social worker has worked extremely closely with a family. It's very trusted by that family and knows them well and they themselves might request that that person led the family group approach. I think, in those circumstances we would not want, in legislation, to prevent that from happening, where it was the right thing for the family.

The use of a statutory guidance will allow us to keep up to date with best practice and ensure strong evidence-based approach, while allowing local authorities to have the flexibility necessary, based on their knowledge of the families they serve and the child's best interests. I agree that where a family group decision-making meeting has agreed a plan with the local authority, that effectively safely addresses the concerns, the local authority and the family network should work together to implement that plan.

I'm happy to commit that the statutory guidance will set our expectations around the implementation and the monitoring of those plans. Regarding amendment 10 and 11, I completely agree that parents and children are central in deciding who, from the family network should be involved in the family group decision-making. They know their family network best and a statutory guidance will set this out, very clearly, as well. I do think that we need to retain the safeguard that professionals may make decisions, contrary to those views, if, in their professional judgement this is in the child's best interest.

You can imagine a situation, for example where domestic abuse is a factor. Aware that might be a suitable reason for certain that members of the family, notwithstanding the child's views, to be included in that particular process, or meeting. Next, I turned to amendment 13, 14, 18 and 19, in the name of the noble Baroness is, Baroness Armstrong, Baroness Tyler, Baroness Barran and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Regarding amendment 13 and 14, there have been a strong, there has been a strong case, rightly, made, by nearly all the contributors to, to this group of amendments, the child's voice and views must be an integral part of the family group decision-making process.

The fact that they must be a thread that runs throughout the whole of this legislation. I know we will return to this at a later stage. The family group decision- making process is rightly already child centric and the views, the desires, needs in the best interests of the child should be assessed throughout the process, by professionals. And in relation to the point made by the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley about whether or not the word should, is good enough, not the word should, is good enough, in this context.

Can I just say that we do agree that the child's voice must be central to a family decision-making process, which is exactly why, in subsection 9, in this clause, we have been clear that the local authority must seek the views of the child and I also agree with the noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss, that children should be and have been effectively included in, had their views are taken and been included in decision-making and in the age, potentially, it is important that we continue to centre that in the work they were doing.

So we're meeting facilitator will talk to the child about how they might best be involved in the meeting stop this will depend on several factors, including their age and understanding and as is being suggested an independent advocate may also be used to help the child to express their views. At this point I do say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Effingham that it may not always be appropriate for the child to attend the meeting. For example where there are safeguarding concerns, or domestic violence.

What I think we are clear about is that they should always be given the opportunity to voice their experiences, in the dedicated preparation time and where it is appropriate they should attend the meeting, but making it necessary, always, I think would risk, as I suggested in circumstances where it wouldn't be appropriate for that to happen. With respect to amendment 18, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, he made a strong case, clear and demonstrating would be very effective cases I think he identified, on the need for family network and connection.

As did the noble and learned Baroness Butler- Sloss, with respect to the significance of the family. The government agrees that maintaining a family contact is vital. This is a general principle that applies to all children in care, regardless of whether or not their placement followed the family group decision- making process, or not. The children at already places a duty on local authorities to promote contact, between in care and the parents, relatives and others connected with them, that they must keep these arrangements under regular review.

This amendment would not affect the strength of that duty, nor change the existing rights of children in care, to make contact, with their families. I think we have heard the views of noble Lords, that we must be completely clear, in the guidance that we provide around this and in all the messages that we send out, to the system about the importance of maintaining a family contact. Regarding amendment 19, it would be inappropriate to assume that every child, going to live with a family member needs a child protection plan.

It is right that we protect all children who are at risk of harm and local authorities retain the duty to safeguard and protect the welfare of children, including those in kinship arrangements. It is important that we don't intervene in family life, where children are safe and often supported. Where a child protection plan is in place, it should only be discharged where deemed appropriate at child protection conference, with multi agency representation. Local authorities must put in place a care plan, when I care order is granted and take necessary steps to enforce supervision orders, to ensure children are protected from significant harm.

Plans must be reviewed, at least every six months, we are confident that the current system and the strength and focus of a multiagency child protection is robust and that there is sufficient accountability, about discharging child protection plans, so that this amendment won't be necessary. Of all of the reasons I have outlined, with the assurances that I have provided, particularly around the content of statutory guidance, I hope that noble Lords, the amendments will be able to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I ask, I very much welcome

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I ask, I very much welcome the importance of the voice of the child, but from around the House, the point was made that the the point was made that the principal really that that derives from is in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. She didn't mention children's rights, the UN-, it would just be reassuring if she put on the record that she does acknowledge that this is an important thread that runs in three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many of the provisions in this bill. I think I can say that we recognise the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is an important thread, that doesn't necessarily thread, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm giving a complete, that that could be used as a trump card on every future occasion, which I'm sure my noble friend will choose I'm sure my noble friend will choose to do. But it is, I think I did say, very clearly that the rights of the very clearly that the rights of the child, the voice of the child have to be absolutely at the heart, not only of this bill but also of the way in which it is implemented, throughout children social care.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wonder where there her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wonder where there her response was referring to my amendment 17, rather than 19. She amendment 17, rather than 19. She talked about not making an assumption that a child would need a child protection plan, if they were child protection plan, if they were going into kinship care, which is to my amendment 17. My amendment 19 is my amendment 17. My amendment 19 is where children are already in a child protection plan and go into child protection plan and go into care, that plan for a child under five.

I'm very happy that she picked

**** Possible New Speaker ****

five. I'm very happy that she picked up another group, if we are allowed. I wondered if there had been confusion. It may be that I have pre-empted. It may be I pre-empted in part of It may be I pre-empted in part of that response, the point that she's making an amendment 17. I did say, I did recognise the point about amendment 19, which I think the amendment 19, which I think the noble Baroness was making, which is the process in place for the discharge of that particular child discharge of that particular child protection plan.

That was where I outlined the local authorities needed to put, sorry that we were confident that the current system and the strength and focus on a multiagency child protection is robust and that there is sufficient accountability, about discharging child protection plans. If I have not sufficiently reassured her, not sufficiently reassured her, about that, I am willing to write, just to clarify the point that I was trying to make in respect of that trying to make in respect of that
19:47
19:49
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The legal aid agency.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The legal aid agency. While the government may criticise the role of successive criticise the role of successive government in presenting cyber government in presenting cyber attacks, we will not place blame at where the problem lies. This deeply troubling incident rests with the malicious individuals that malicious individuals that orchestrated it. It was not just a digital intrusion, but a direct digital intrusion, but a direct assault on some of the most honourable members of our society. The data accessed is in many cases highly sensitive, including medical highly sensitive, including medical records and personal records, and the scale and nature of the information compromised over a information compromised over a period from 2010 and they marked period from 2010 and they marked this as one of the more serious data breaches the government has suffered in recent years.

Given the gravity in recent years. Given the gravity of the situation, I ask the Minister to confirm how many individuals have been affected. How has the government supported individuals whose data has been exposed and is he able to concern it wasn't on motive and identity of the attackers. Has there been any form of ransom demand from those perpetrated this act? We welcome the involvement of the national crime agency and national centre. Their expertise will be essential and clearly it is imperative that those responsible for this breach are held to account and brought to justice.

There remain significant concerns regarding the government's handling of this matter and I seek clarity from the Minister on a number of from the Minister on a number of issues. Firstly, I was -- why was the Parliament not informed on the 23rd of April when it was breached? We understand data accessed may be included data dating back to 2010 and that over 2 million records may be compromised. The delay of almost a month before this was made public may have presented individuals from taking timely steps from attacking themselves from potential risks.

I ask the Minister was there a failure to properly appreciate the seriousness of this breach? Further, can the Minister update the House on the status of the operating systems that are vital for processing legal aid and payments to legal professionals? For if these systems are not fully restored, how can we expect to return to full functionality? It may seem odd to talk about payment of legal aid to lawyers, but those working in the field of criminal and family law which are severely underfunded in many respects will find the cash flow from the legal fund vital to their continuing activities and it is therefore important that that issue should be addressed.

We heard in the other place that the government believed that the incident has been contained. Can I ask the Minister how did the government arrive at that conclusion and could he explain to the House what is meant by contained? And will the Minister confirm if the Ministry of Justice has conducted or intends to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of this wider digital infrastructure? Will similar assessments be made in other departments to safeguard against future vulnerabilities? I would also ask the Minister to ensure that Parliament receives regular, transparent updates as the investigation progresses? It is critical that we to members of the public are informed promptly about the consequences of this breach and how it is being addressed.

The breach itself represents a significant failure in the protection of our justice system is digital infrastructure -- justice system's digital infrastructure. It raises concerns about digital transparency. I asked the government to respond with urgency and openness to this issue. Finally, could I raise a question about the devolved administrations? For example, Scotland has its own legal aid structure and I believe Northern Ireland also. But those structures depend on data from the United Kingdom, for example access to Social Security data, so how have they been impacted by this event and if so what liaison has there been with the devolved administrations in order to try and minimise the difficulties they may have been caused by this particular data

**** Possible New Speaker ****

breach? This cyber attack and its result

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This cyber attack and its result has exposed the lamentable has exposed the lamentable insecurity of the legal aid agency system. The ramification is immense. It is held by legal aid providers includes much highly confidential material that can be used by criminals, not just to embarrass applicants for legal aid, but also applicants for legal aid, but also to fraud and harass them. We are told the attackers accessed told the attackers accessed residential addresses, contact residential addresses, contact details, date of birth, employment, financial data, and much material financial data, and much material that identity checkers seek and that criminals could profit from as Lord Keen of Elie said it appears to have affected 2 million items of data going back as far as 2010.

In addition as became clear in the House of Commons, that information includes sensitive medical information as well and it must be right because many applicants for legal aid includes such information with their applications. Can the Minister say whether there are plans to establish a dedicated helpline or other support systems, and if so what support systems, for individuals who may be seeking advice or protection in the light of this attack? Of course, our first condemnation is for the callous criminality of the attackers whose actions exposed so many vulnerable individuals to risk.

These cyber attacks appear according to the Ministry to have come from organised crime. It would be helpful for the Minister as far as possible and without jeopardising security to give an account of the House of what steps the Ministry of Justice takes routinely and has taken in the light of this to protect the data of those seeking to access legal aid. A question similar to the one asked by Lord Keen of Elie, will the MoJ be carrying out a full, independent inquiry into this attack, and what can be done to restore public confidence in its future cybersecurity arrangement? We understand the need for the legal aid agency system to go offline in the short-term as they have, but can the government say how long the shutdown of online services is likely to last? And how far the legal aid system will be impacted, both in terms of delays, and in reduced ability to deal with its workload? We should not underestimate the degree to which the MoD IT systems are antiquated, outdated, insecure and unfit for purpose and on these ventures we agree that that results from a neglect of the system over years under the preceding administration.

As the statement rightly points out, the Law Society has been complaining for years about the updated -- outdated nurse of our IT systems. £20 million promised for updating agency systems will help, however regrettably I worry that there is some complacency about the sentence in the statement that reads at this stage we believe the breach is contained within the legal aid agency system. There are no indications that other parts of the justice system can be impacted? Can they be instituting a survey of its current IT systems across the department to consider their security? Will the department institute a system of regular cyber security audits for the future to ensure the robust defence of its digital systems and prevent re- occurrence of this breach? More widely, this event should act as a wake-up call for government as a whole to investigate how far its IT systems are able to provide the public with a high standard of data security.

The promised cybersecurity and resilience bill will hopefully bring some improvement. We will not keep systems data secure without investment of the necessary resources. The reality is we are working with old and inefficient systems, that grow creaky and creaky just as the ingenuity and criminality of a potential attacker becomes ever more sophisticated. Not least as the value of personal data rises and the potential for its The statement rightly reminds us that every organisation is at risk from this kind of criminal behaviour.

The government is not exempt. As a vital part of the exempt. As a vital part of the social contract it is the responsibility of government to keep the personal data it holds on individual secure. If government individual secure. If government fails to live up to that responsibility, it rightly forfeits responsibility, it rightly forfeits public trust and we are concerned to know, from the government, how it intends to retain that trust.
20:01
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
I thank both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord for their questions. I will endeavour to answer them as fully as I can. Just to say at the outset I share their sense of concern about this breach. It is undoubtedly very serious. One of the more serious ones that have happened to governments, in recent years. And of course, I agree with the point that the noble and laundered made, the primary response from the criminals themselves, who undertake this hacking of the LF undertake this hacking of the LF earth systems.

-- ill LF systems. He spoke about medical records. As far as we are aware there are no medical records contained within this system however there is other information that is available which is of course a great cause for concern that there is no medical records which we are aware of. The noble and learned Lord asked about when Ministers were first made aware of this breach. I can say that the departments staff can say that the departments staff stood up in the media operational response.

The ministerial colleagues and I have been updated throughout. There is a cross departmental response underway. It is fair to say that the seriousness of the breach only became aware, became evidenced some time after we were made aware of the initial breach. It made the situation worsened, it was decided to put information in the public domain and to report the incident to Parliament. Noble Lords have asked how many have been affected. We haven't put forward a number, as such, however noble Lords a right to say we are talking about all of the data going back to 2010.

That is many, many thousands of people and the nature of the data is indeed personal and people need to take remedial action, if they have had interactions with the Legal Aid Agency, to make sure that their data Agency, to make sure that their data is not compromised. If people try and contact them on numbers they don't recognise aren't so on and so forth, they need to be suspicious and careful. Another question, a central question which was asked is what is the government doing and advising people to do, if they think they may be victims of this theft of data.

The primary board of contact will be the providers themselves, their lawyers and the barristers, who have been using the Legal Aid Agency. They will be in a better position to advise the people who have apparently been made victims. If we are made aware of individual people who are particularly vulnerable, then the MoJ and the Legal Aid Agency will also endeavour to contact them directly. Really the primary source of information will be from the providers themselves. The noble and learned Lord asked me to comment on the nature of the attack, cannot do that because there is a criminal investigation underway.

I won't comment on and speculate on the motive either. Both noble Lords asked about the current operational system, the current system is off-line. And we hope to get it in line, as soon as possible, get it in line, as soon as possible, but I'm not in a position to give any commitment, on that front. However what I can say is that there are systems in place to ensure that the providers, themselves, will get paid, so that they can continue to work, but it will be a reduced method of payment.

I do not mean the amount of money is less, but there will be less systematisation, within the payment, if I can put it like that. Nevertheless the payments will be made, in the immediate future. I can reassure noble Lords that all various government agencies have been informed about this. There is an ongoing risk assessment. There will be an update to Parliament, when appropriate. I can also say to the noble and learned Lord, the devolved demonstrations in Northern Ireland and Scotland have been informed and are well aware of this.

As he rightly observed they do have stand-alone systems. There is overlap between the two systems. While their own systems won't be affected by this, it may be that people have a more restricted access to data from the Legal Aid Agency to data from the Legal Aid Agency which covers England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Marks asked about a full independent inquiry. I don't think I can actually make that commitment, but I can actually say that this is taken extremely serious across government.

There has been a review of systems in other parts of government and as far as we know there are no similar hacking attacks, in other parts of government, although one should not be complacent about these things and I am absolutely sure that these reviews of the other systems will be ongoing, just to check that no future hacks become apparent. I do not think it is fair actually for the noble Lord to say there was a degree of complacency in the statement that we believe the breaches content.

That is an honestly held beliefs. Of course the many professionals involved in containing this particular breach but also looking across government. They are very acutely aware how, how systems need to be updated and kept under review and noble Lords did mention the sum of money which the government is going to invest. I think it is worth repeating the request which my honourable friend Sarah sacrament made, that this particular breach only came into light because of the extra money we are currently putting into the system.

It wouldn't have come to light, without that additional investment. Of course we do want to go further and we do need to go further to make sure that the systems are updated, as far as possible. I do not want to make the obvious political points, about the legacy systems. I think we all understand the position we're in. Nevertheless, this is a serious matter, we are not at the end of the road yet and I absolutely undertake that we will keep Parliament As As we As we are As we are not As we are not due As we are not due to As we are not due to return As we are not due to return to As we are not due to return to the As we are not due to return to the bill until 2027, I bow to me that House do adjourn, during pleasure, until that point.

until that point.
20:09
20:28
None Portrait Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - committee stage (day 1)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

House to House to begin House to begin Committee House to begin Committee on children's wellbeing and Schools

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. I beg to move that the House to now resolve itself into a Committee
20:28
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the bill. The question is that the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House resolve it felt into a Committee on the bill. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contrary, "not content". The contents have it. In clause 1, Amendment four, Baroness Merron.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to Amendment four, six and 17 in my name that present a more ambitious use of present a more ambitious use of family group decision-making processes and I'm keen to understand if the government has considered if the government has considered these at all and if so why on balance they were excluded from the balance they were excluded from the bill, and if they have not considered them, perhaps there is room to reconsider. So many children room to reconsider.

So many children living with another family member if living with another family member if they require support is a better outcome than going into stranger foster care or a children's home. This tests to test government appetite to expand the scope of appetite to expand the scope of family group decision-making further. Amendment four would extend family group decision-making family group decision-making processes to private law cases, something that the noble Lord questioned in his earlier remarks, questioned in his earlier remarks, but I would say and I think the Minister will be aware that this was raised as a recommendation in evidence at the Public Bill Committee in the other place by the Committee in the other place by the Chief Executive of CAFCAS.

To thirds of cases are private law proceedings and the noble Lord knows how acrimonious these can be and we heard some of that from Baroness Butler-Sloss and that includes cases such as domestic violence and abuse. My amendment would move these cases at scope and I understand that this extends the scope of family group decision-making significantly and there are resourcing implications, but I would understand the logic in use of this approach with some cases with their own material safeguarding concerns, but not others which share many of the same characteristics about the risk posed to children and we know tragically the number of child deaths have happened after family proceedings rather than in If I may, I haven't put down a specific amendment on this point but a similar spirit, wonderful consideration the government has given to a situation where a section 7 welfare report as requested by the Baroness, Baroness, the Baroness, the Minister, Baroness, the Minister, will Baroness, the Minister, will know, it is a court order document under section 7 of the Children Act 1989, and is ordered when parents cannot agree on arrangements for their children's care, usually only if there are many aspects of the children's welfare, which require further investigation.

My question is whether this is also an area where family group decision-making might apply. And I wondered whether as a minimum, the Minister could come if the government hasn't considered these options, commit to considering them and working out the practical implications, because I think this is exactly the type of situation where the wider family could help, but where the involvement of child protection professionals is needed. I am optimistic, well, my optimism might be waning, that the Minister might look favourably on my amendment six, because I think it makes so much sense for children.

Amendment six addresses another gap, currently, which is when a child is reunited with their parents after a period of being in care. Reunification is the most common way for children to leave care. With 27% of those leaving care returning home in 2022-23. However, the number of children who then re-enter the care system is far too high, with 12% of those children re-entering within three months and more than one third within six years. And of course, we all want reunification to have the best chances of success and the statistics on those breakdowns are pretty stark.

But the human cost for those children is vast darker. Finally, amendment 17 in my name which I think the noble Lady were starting to talk about in an earlier group, but maybe not, seeks to give a continuing role to the local authority in safeguarding a child in kinship care. And with this amendment, I am seeking to probe what safeguards are in place around kinship care. So, if have understood correctly, if the public law outline for care proceedings are started, or the child has been made subject to a child protection plan, both of which I think would be the case when a family group decision-making process starts as per this legislation, then the significant harm threshold has the significant harm threshold has been met.

And new carers may not be able to address all the risks that a child faces. They may well be the right place for their child to be, but they might need additional support. For example, and I know this from my work prior to coming into your Lordships house, a number of cases where a child's parents coerced the kinship carer in allowing them to have unsupervised contact with their children. Which we can all understand on a human level may be very hard to resist.

So, this amendment, and I appreciate it is a very delicate balance that needs to be struck but aims to give the local authority the ability where it is needed to create something like a kinship protection plan, rather than a child protection plan. Until their confidence the arrangements are safe, and in the arrangements are safe, and in the child's best interests, or until a child arrangement order or special guardianship order is made by the family Court. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister's reflections on these amendments, which I think would significantly improve the bill.

My Lords, I beg to move.
20:36
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment proposed, clause 1, page 1, line 10, insert the words as Britain on the Marshalled list. -- Insert the words on the Marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. Unusually, I entirely disagree with what the noble Lady, Baroness with what the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, has put forward by way of amendment. It is not just overambitious, in my view, it is overambitious, in my view, it is plainly wrong. And it is basically plainly wrong. And it is basically for two reasons. One is that although there is a minority, thank goodness, a minority of almost goodness, a minority of almost insoluble family cases. There are other ways of dealing with other ways of dealing with mediation.

And some of them work, not all of them do, I do not think not all of them do, I do not think that a local authority should be interfering in private law cases. interfering in private law cases. But perhaps more important, there is But perhaps more important, there is a brilliant system starting by the a brilliant system starting by the then Lord Chancellor, Alex Clark, and the present president of the family division, I think it is family division, I think it is called Pathfinder, but not entirely sure.

And this has been rolled out in four places, where the family, when they have started divorce proceedings which are contentious, all those involved with the family, including the local authority, specifically including the local authority, Cafcass, the police, and anybody else, the local health people and anybody else who may be involved in the family meet to decide is a domestic abuse case, in which case it goes through a longer channel, or is it the case for the parties behaving properly but cannot agree.

And they get to a point in the majority of cases, which the president of the family division has told me, and also he gave evidence, the Select Committee at the House of Commons on this, in the majority of cases, he or other family judges, get rid of the case within two hours and it is completed. It is absolutely unnecessary and indeed unsuitable to have a family meeting of this sort. I also think of the other cases. There are real dangers to it, particularly since there are to it, particularly since there are other systems.

Particularly, since I almost always agree with Baroness Barran, on this occasion, I believe she is wrong and I very much hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government takes no notice of it. My Lords, I instead would like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I instead would like to speak in support of amendment six in this group of amendments. As we have heard, reunification is the most heard, reunification is the most common way for children to leave care but sadly the number of children who re-entered the system children who re-entered the system remains far too high, as many reunifications breakdown due to lack
20:39
20:40
20:40
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I have already expressed my views on amendment four. But I really do think I need to emphasise, particularly as my noble and learned Earl friend has already made the same points, really I do think amendment for as unrealistic and unnecessary for private law cases. Many of the disputes resolved in private law disputes resolved in private law cases a -- Are minor. Manageable problems over contact arrangements and so forth. I cannot justify a family group meeting.

And in any event, the existing mechanisms, as my noble friend has said, already a my noble friend has said, already a well tuned to dealing with them. CAFCASS get involved at an early stage, there is a safeguarding report, and if the dispute doesn't go away, CAFCASS produce a section 7 report. Along the way, there is a dispute resolution hearing in front of the judge and the judge, you can take it from me, applies a fair amount of pressure to resolve the matter, and to explore the reality of settling the case.

Which very often does involve, quite often does involve exploring what can be done with the wider family. And of course, the wider family may have the time and resources the parents lack and help sort it out. But it doesn't really need a meeting. It just needs someone getting the parties in a room in the court, with the CAFCASS officer, to sort out the practical realities of where things are going. And so, I really do wish to emphasise that I do not think this amendment, amendment four, will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assist. So, in speaking to amendments in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So, in speaking to amendments in group 4, in the name of the noble lady Baroness Barran, I do recognise lady Baroness Barran, I do recognise that the intention here is to test the extent to which family group decision-making can be used in other decision-making can be used in other circumstances. I have to say, I circumstances. I have to say, I think it is a tribute to the significance and efficacy of family group decision-making that people are so keen to test where else it are so keen to test where else it can be used in the process.

But I will respond to the two specific
20:43
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
will respond to the two specific examples that the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, has identified. And then also to amendment 17. On amendment four, which as we have heard would extend family group decision-making, and which has been ably opposed, I have to say, by the noble England Baroness Butler-Sloss -- Noble and learned Lord Baroness Butler-Sloss, and the noble and learned Baroness Mattinson. I do appreciate the noble Baroness's intention in seeking to ensure that as many families as possible are given the opportunity of family group decision-making, including those outside of public law proceedings.

The government recognises the importance of supporting families in private law proceedings, we want to help families resolve their issues quickly and without coming to court. That is why there are already requirements and processes, one of requirements and processes, one of which at least the noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss talked about that support families at this point. There is already acquired for example that anyone wishing to make a private law application must attend a mediation information and assessment meeting, to discuss options to resolve their issue outside of court, through mediation or other means.

The government also funds the family mediation scheme, providing families with £500 towards the cost of mediation, this scheme has helped nearly 40,000 separated parents. But I think the noble and learned Baroness but the slots talked about some other alternatives as well. -- Baroness Butler-Sloss. Talking about section 7 welfare reports, I think actually, the case for explanation there as well was ably expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Meston, but my understanding on this was, as a welfare report, it can be requested by the court, any family proceedings, where there are concerns about the welfare of a child.

It's mostly in private court proceedings, done by the local authority if they are involved, or by Cafcass, if not. I am not convinced, for many of the reasons we have already talked about. That this would be an appropriate point to mandate a family group decision- making meeting. I hope the noble Baroness's reassured about the route of supporting families in these As we heard, at the point of unification, here I have sympathy with the objective and I can see the point of family group decision- making at this point, not least because of the points made by noble ladies opposite about the challenge of reunification and the need to ensure that it is supported, but just because it is not mandated in this legislation, and I think in group 2, I did talk about the reason why the government has identified the particular time at which we think there should be a legislative duty.

To offer a family group decision making process. Just because it isn't mandated, it does not mean, in this case, it is not potentially a good idea, regulations are clear, where a child is returning home to family, from care, local authorities should consider what help and support will make reunification a success, which could include family group decision- making, and our families first partnership program will strengthen this through the family help offer, I hope that gives the noble Lady a suitable reassurance about us having thought about it, thinking it is appropriate, but not thinking it should be mandated in legislation.

Finally, with respect to amendment 17, I did, in the first part of my expose on member 17, start with a preamble, very late into amendment 17, but I did, nevertheless, answer the point about amendment 19 in that part of my response to the last group. Amendment 17 does have the aim to ensure that children are safe. But to reiterate, I think it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to assume that every child going to live with a family member needs a child protection plan, I heard what the noble Lady said about whether or not there would be some other type of protection plan related to kinship care, I'm not sure that needs a legislative response but it is right that we protect all children who are at risk of harm, to be clear, local authorities, even when a child has gone through this process and is living with...

Living with family members in a kinship situation, the local authorities routinely duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of Children In Need, including those in kinship arrangements, there is a duty that continues in those duty that continues in those particular circumstances. But in relation to this amendment, it does not seem right to turn that into a not seem right to turn that into a child protection plan, because the child protection plan, because the point I made previously, it is important we do not intervene where children are safe, loved and children are safe, loved and supported.

But the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need continues in those who are in need continues in those circumstances. I hope, given the explanations and assurances, the explanations and assurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw.
20:50
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
Like to thank all noble Lords for the comments on this group, obviously, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have got day-to-day experience of this, but this amendment was raised in the committee in the other place and I will just read briefly from the oral evidence which the Chief Executive gave. She said, we see 140,000 children through proceedings every year, the bill tends to focus on those in public law proceedings, 2000 of the children we work with are in private proceedings.

Where there are family disputes about who children spend time with and where they live. Often those children are in families where conflict is very intense, there are risks to them, domestic abuse, Bill is silent on private bill proceedings and I think there is an opportunity for that to be different. I think this is a real concern, maybe there are different ways of approaching it but I think the concern about harm children, a minority of children, in a private proceedings, is a valid one.

In proceedings, is a valid one. In relation to amendment, I feel, and my noble friend put it extremely well, this is a relatively small and discreet group, the work has been done on what it would cost to offer this, I hear the noble Lady, and I have often said similar things when I was on the other side of the House, the fact that it is not mandated in a world where resources are understandably tight risks it not happening for a group where, actually, if we're going to focus on this Bill, this is a small group where this could potentially make a real difference to the stability of their return home, so hope that she might think on it in a little bit more.

Just to be clear about amendment 17, we were not assuming that the Local Authority would need to have a child protection plan for a child in kinship care, but, again, in real life, what we fear is that it is difficult for the Local Authority to get the balance right of keeping eyes on the child to make sure that everything is, supporting the family without being overly intrusive and feeling like the heavy intrusive and feeling like the heavy hand of state.

I think it is a real issue that practitioners are worried issue that practitioners are worried about. I do hope that maybe, together with colleagues in the together with colleagues in the department, she will consider that. But for the now I beg leave to withdraw. withdraw.
20:53
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment is withdrawn. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

number five, clause 1. My Lords, I am delighted to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to amendment five in the name of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. noble Baroness and the noble Lord. Who has considerable experience in this subject. It is similar, in purpose, to amendment seven, eight, nine and 11 and we need to follow key principles to make sure that family group decision-making model family group decision-making model is implemented effectively. The LGA said, in written evidence to the Bill Committee, and I quote, it Bill Committee, and I quote, it would be helpful to make clear in guidance the elements of the model guidance the elements of the model that make it effective so that these that make it effective so that these can be built on locally.

As we have heard from other noble Lords, the Family Rights Group are so Family Rights Group are so experienced in this area and there is considerable valuation and evidence which needs to be followed evidence which needs to be followed so that the meetings are trusted by families. They do not adversely become seen as heavy-handed, state intervention but rather a safe and trusted by families. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could reassure your Lordships House about how cases involving domestic abuse will be handled.

Since there is clearly the potential for coercion of the adult victim and other family members. The other areas have been picked up by the noble Baroness and Lady Bloomfield in relation to the importance of having an independent coordinator who receives proper training. We should not underestimate how skilful a job this is. The Family Rights Group have been clear, there needs to be private family time. And the meetings must avoid introducing any ambiguity into the Local Authority role.

They need clarity to help families make decisions to provide care and support. We look forward to the contributions from all noble the contributions from all noble Lords. I beg to move. Lords. I beg to move.
20:55
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
Question proposed, clause 1, page 1, line 10. Insert the words as on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshalled list. I rise to speak to this amendment in the name of my noble friend. To in the name of my noble friend. To which I added my name because I am deeply concerned that children deeply concerned that children benefit from the right level of expertise in the family group decision-making process. I already mentioned the commentary on the governance reforms in The Times yesterday, where they want against the shifting of child protection the shifting of child protection responsibilities to less qualified family help workers.

Although the family help workers. Although the offer support, many are not trained offer support, many are not trained to detect hidden abuse such as psychological harm or coercive control. Supervision by overstretched social workers is no overstretched social workers is no substitute for expertise. Especially with workforce shortages and rising with workforce shortages and rising caseloads. These comments, although focused on a different part of a child safeguarding system, also seem child safeguarding system, also seem highly relevant here. Bringing together family members and others who are important in the life of a child means engaging with the family system which can be highly complex.

Many here will remember the case of Shannon Matthews, from West Yorkshire. A few months after the huge publicity following the tragic disappearance of Magna McCann, in February 2008, nine-year-old Shannon was reported missing. She was eventually found in a House belonging to an uncle of the boyfriend of the kidnapped girls mother. The kidnapping was planned by Shannon's mother and her boyfriend to generate modern make money from the publicity and the size of the reward, which her mother plan to split with the uncle, when he found Shannon and took her to a police station.

Perhaps noble Lords are confused about these family arrangements and there is no doubt that the protagonist at the centre of this case was highly unusual. I'm not sure if Shannon's mother would have been offered a family group conference, not least because of the involvement of other family members in the crime. When the police initially investigated Shannon's disappearance, they had to look at the extended family. What they found was such a complex web of interrelationships, such as children of different fathers in the same family, and the same farmers make fathers in different families, they describe the extended family tree as a bramble genealogy.

To reiterate, this was a highly unusual case, but it does illustrate that kin altruism cannot be assumed. Those with a biological relationship to a child may not be committed to a child best placed to discuss sensitive issues inherent in family group decision- making. The Bill already and rightly gives the Local Authority discretion not to offer family group decision- making in extreme cases. But even in dark family situations, often there will be responsible, kind, dedicated family members who do want out in the child's best interest.

However, there will also, surely, been many times when it is not clear where family dysfunction begins and inns. So, those involved as family group decision-making coordinators must, as my noble friend$$JOIN 's amendment says, be independent, trained and experienced, they need to be able to spot signs of potential psychological harm or coercive control. They are Reiki, last line of defence against future last line of defence against future harm coming to vulnerable and traumatised children. traumatised children.
20:59
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Portrait Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to MI5, I hope the Minister will agree that this is a sensible amendment, aimed at ensuring all families who need it have access to a family group decision-making meeting which is underpinned by strong evidence that it works without being overly prescriptive. Family group decision-making is a broad, generic term without clear principles or standards. There is concern amongst charities and organisations supporting venerable children on the ground that approaches, unsupported ground that approaches, unsupported by evidence, might proliferate at a local level because the current drafting of the bill.

In the briefing on the bill, Family Rights Group say they already see evidence of local authorities claiming to use such approaches, including reference to family led decision-making, to describe meetings led by professionals but where family involvement is minimal. They point the experience of Scotland, where a failure to be more specific in legislation about what FG DM should be offered has resulted, 10 years after it was enacted, of one third of Local Authority's having no offer. None of us want to see that, it is clearly not the intention of As we heard in an earlier group from Baroness Armstrong, there is an approach based on internationally recognised evidence, and strongly supported by those working on the ground.

One family group conferences are model that have a strong evidence-based, both in the UK and internationally, help children by diverting care and having them safely with their families, and in New Zealand, and is now used in more than 30 countries, with 80% of local authorities having an FG service, albeit, often at a small scale. Critically, there is also recent evidence of the success of this approach, as the noble Baroness talked about, in the 2023 foundation's groundbreaking evaluation. The key findings were that children were less likely to go into care, spend less time in care, and families were less likely to go to court for care proceedings.

So, while I entirely understand the Minister might be reluctant to be over prescriptive on the face of the bill about one specific model being followed, I hope she might be able to look favourably on this amendment, which were put on the face of the bill, and she talked about statutory guidance, but actually put on the face of the bill that local authorities must use evidence-based approaches, rather than just potentially having principles and things and guidance. So that we can all have the confidence we want, that taking a confidence we want, that taking a confidence we want, that taking a local level, it is based on best practice to ensure all the families we have been talking about this evening require family group decision-making are properly decision-making are properly supported, and have the best chance of a good outcome for the situation they are in.
21:02
21:03
21:04
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
So, group 5 comprises only of one amendment, but I think we have had some useful contributions on this. But I do have to say that I think quite a few of the arguments that I would make with those that I was able to make earlier in relation to the amendments put forward by my noble friend, Baroness Armstrong. Around the need for evidence-based practice here and for particularly the use of proven approaches, such as that of family group conferencing.

What I will repeat some of the points that I made in response to some of the particular issues that have arisen. On that point, on the last point first, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, I don't know the extent to which we have reviewed the experience in Scotland. I do know as we discussed earlier that we have looked extremely carefully at the research carried out by a foundation that we talked about earlier, on the recommendations and the approach they took forward.

And I do agree with the intention behind this amendment that we should ensure family group decision-making follows family group decision-making follows an evidence-based approach and is coordinated by trained facilitators. I do think that is very important, and I like the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on this point about qualification in this particular context. I think he has identified a discrepancy in the position of some noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, not Effingham, refers to the -- Lord Effingham, refers to the LGA, to make clearing guidance what that evidence-based approach is, I wholly agree with him, and I wholly agree with the LGA, that is why we will use statutory guidance, to set out clear principles of practice, building on the evidence from successful models, such as the family group conference approach.

To ensure that all families are offered quality family group decision- making. That does include people being trained to do it. On the point about independent coordination, I did make the point earlier about that, that whilst I think in the vast majority of cases, it is right there is independent facilitation, there might be circumstances in which the family themselves wanted the process to be run by a social worker, but somebody had a strong ongoing relationship with.

On the point about private family time, it is obviously important that there is the opportunity, and this is an important potential part of the process, that the family have the opportunity to together with the appropriate appropriation to figure out what is best for them. But here, there could be circumstances, for example, not Effingham referred to abuse for example, they could be circumstances in which it wouldn't be appropriate to leave the family only to make, to leave that decision-making.

If there were fears that there was a dynamic within the family that perhaps made important for there to be perhaps somebody else, as part of that process. I think people could envisage a situation in which that happened. This is not to say, and I think this charge was made earlier, this is not to say that the government takes a laissez-faire approach, to the way in which family group decision- making is developed. We do not want to see a thousand flowers blooming, as was suggested I think by my noble friend, Baroness Armstrong, earlier on.

We want to see the right evidence based flowers blooming, and in order to make sure that is the case, we will be very clear in the guidance, statutory guidance, statutory guidance, about the approach that needs to be taken when organising family group decision- making. And I hope I was clear about that earlier on. There is also, of course, as noble Lords have said, I need to ensure that suitable people are there and suitable resource is there, that is why the government is committed to uplifting £30 million committed to uplifting £30 million for the children's social care prevention Grant, a 25-26, which will be used to support the rollout of family group decision-making across the country, for all families across the country, for all families on the edge of care, including for on the edge of care, including for recruiting or training extra staff to facilitate that process.

I hope to facilitate that process. I hope on the basis of those assurances, the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
21:10
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, please let me thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It is important for all of these children that we do everything we can to make sure these processes can be implemented successfully and ensure an evidence-based approach is followed, is a key part of this. I would particularly like to flag briefly the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, when he said this is a key last line of defence. And it is extremely regrettable that we cannot fix all of the problems.

They will be issues that get through the net. That is exactly why we need a key last line of defence to help with those problems. I would also very briefly like to flag the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, Rafah noble Lord, Lord Agnew. -- And the noble Lord. They quite rightly pointed out evidence from Scotland is that the execution of the plan is critical, and an evidence-based approach is crucial. And we would be well advised to learn from the experience of what is taking place over the last few years, and take from the positives and learn from the negatives.

At that, my Lords, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the name withdraw the amendment in the name

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the noble Baroness, Baroness Barran. Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment six, Baroness Barran, not Amendment six, Baroness Barran, not move? Not move, thank you. For the convenience of the House, I hope to convenience of the House, I hope to take amendment seven-13 as a group. take amendment seven-13 as a group. Baroness Longfield, not move? Not moved? I think you have got them moved? I think you have got them with Baroness Armstrong.

Who is not in her place. Thank you. We can then in her place. Thank you. We can then move to amendment 14, Baroness Tyler, not moved? Not moved. Thank Tyler, not moved? Not moved. Thank you. Then, amendment 15, 16 and 17, you. Then, amendment 15, 16 and 17, in the name of Baroness Barran. Not moved. Amendment 18, Lord Farmer. moved. Amendment 18, Lord Farmer. moved. Amendment 18, Lord Farmer. Not moved. The question is that clause one stand as part of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the
21:13
Lord Hampton Portrait Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-
opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The content's habit. After clause one, amendment 19, Baroness Barran, not moved. We now come to the next group, beginning with amendment 20.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Hampton. My Lords, I rise briefly to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to amendment 20 in my name, which I enacted that the children's coalition for the support. And also coalition for the support. And also the technical amendments, 25, which I thank Lord Bichard for drafting, I thank Lord Bichard for drafting, while I sat there looking rather bewildered. Lord Bichard unfortunately has had to catch the unfortunately has had to catch the last train to Gloucester. To get home to Gloucester. So he cannot be here.

Education settings can and often do play a vital role in often do play a vital role in safeguarding. This applies from early years to FE colleges, it was early years to FE colleges, it was particular important in private and secondary schools. Including education, the statutory safeguarding partner has been called safeguarding partner has been called for repeatedly in recent years, including by the independent review of children's social care and the of children's social care and the 2022 reviews into the deaths of Arthur Hughes and Star Hobson.

Question of education's rolling safeguarding was part of the consultation for the latest version of working together. The government's response to which was published in December 2023. There was very strong support across the children's sector. For this being implemented. The DfE response noted that if 978 respondents 69% agreed or strongly agreed that education being the statutory safeguarding partner was essential for effective local collaboration. However, the DfE noted at the time that any formalisation education role in statutory guidance could only happen following legislative change.

The government committed in early 20 2014 setting out a timetable for doing this -- 2024 setting a timetable for doing this. How to make this work. This was derailed. Education played a full role for safeguarding partner, and has a long standing policy goal for many children's charities. It was a key recommendation in the Jay Review of criminally Reddit exploited children. Action for children in 2024. As it was a strong theme in both the oral and written evidence, submitted to the review.

It was also a recommendation in above and beyond action for children's report on schools role, in supporting disadvantaged children. The differences between the amendments and whether the responsibility is given to the Secretary of State or the responsibility is given by default. To quote the noble Lady Baron, please look at the intent rather than drafting. But either way, they endeavour to make education a powerful partner in safeguarding. Exact how it should safeguarding. Exact how it should safeguarding.

Exact how it should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Leave out subsections two to four and insert the words as printed on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshalled list. I stand briefly to support that amendment and not and more in terms amendment and not and more in terms of the case put forward, action for children, I'm grateful for their
21:16
21:18
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to my amendments, 21, 22 and 23. First, because these three amendments are explicitly focused on family hubs, I declare my interest as a guarantor of a not- for-profit owner of the family House network Limited. These amendments are probing because, as I have said previously, I am interested in hearing how committed this government is to local preventive family support in every community. More importantly, dedicated teams in local authorities and their partnership organisations up and down the country need-to-know what they can expect.

Including this infrastructure, in the safeguarding arrangements, makes complete sense because, as I said, family hubs support families as the primary means by which children are safeguarded. I think this can easily be forgotten when we talk about who has responsibility to keep children safe. This is also important in the wider discussion of the social care reforms, how did the government see the role of family hub in the landscape of the preventive, early intervention approach, which I support. Families needs to experience non-stigmatising and seamless support.

Family support staff, perinatal conditions, mental health professionals, even mediators around the time of couple separation, any professional, based in the hub, can spot problems early that might need bringing to the attention of social services, this is presumably how schools and childcare agencies will function in their safeguarding arrangements. Families engagement with social workers, even in quite complex interventions, can take place in family hubs or in the wider support network of buildings and organisations connected to the hub.

When social workers begin to see progress in these families, it is vital that there is ongoing support and lower-level input, including from volunteers in the community. And they are not just left to flounder. Active prevention of cycles repeating themselves can also happen by stepping up the family... Stepping the family back down into what I will loosely call family help. This is how the Isle of Wight came to pioneer family hubs, their social services were taken into special measures because only children were not receiving the assessments they needed.

Because social workers were so delusional. -- Deluged by actual cases. Hampshire County Council, drawn in to help the reform, were very impressed the solution. Early intervention hubs, also known as family hubs, were set up, within existing budgets, to help whole families waiting for social services assessments. Risk was managed. They also prevented many families coming to the point where an assessment was deemed necessary. Then, when a child was returned to a family, or the parents received social work help, so that their child drop below the so that their child drop below the threshold of need, they were stepped down into family hubs.

None of this down into family hubs. None of this could have happened unless these family hubs were operating skilfully in Safeguarding.
21:22
21:23
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to the amendments in my name, in this group. And I'd like to start by echoing the noble Lord's appreciation of my honourable friend for his tireless work on family hubs, fantastic to hear that it is making a real difference on the ground. My amendments, 26, seeks to try and find a way through the difficulty in the degree of statutory involvement. Involvement of education and childcare agencies. In Safeguarding.

My amendment, 26, requires the sectors to produce a report to Parliament, two years after the implantation of the clause, which sets out the impact on the resources and costs for education and childcare agencies, from their new duties. And it could, of course, look more widely at the impact on safeguarding and whether there is need to follow the recommendations of the many of the children's charities and the Children's Commissioner in making them a full, statutory safeguarding partner. The government impact assessment on page 34, is studiously vague, it talks about possible costs and time implications on local authorities to set up the new infrastructure and time implications on some education leaders to engage with systems they may not have been previously involved in.

I'm not sure how these impact assessments get written, but this does feel like it is bordering on naive. Of course there are going to be direct costs for schools and childcare agencies, both in time and money, and we need to understand the extent of these. And my amendment would seek to achieve this. We need to know what this approach will mean in practice for education and childcare agencies who already have considerable safeguarding duties, presumably they will need to put in additional processes or checks or, if this is just making the status quo statutory, I do not really understand why it is necessary, perhaps the Minister could explain, in his remarks, my amendments, 27 and 28 are probing amendments.

Trying to find out the government thinking on how this will work in practice. The kind of hesitation, which I think is reasonable, on the part of the government, in this area, I think reflects the difficulty in implementation, given the number of organisations involved in education and childcare. My amendment suggests it would help to have a single point of contact both within Local Authority and within education and childcare sector, I wonder with the noble Baroness, the Minister, can confirm, is the assumption that education and childcare providers can all contact the Local Authority with any safeguarding concerns? And is she confident that around the country they will have capacity for this? Similarly, a Local Authority expected to contact every organisation directly or is there a role for a single contact who can advise on general queries.

Finally, I have given notice that I intend to oppose the clause to stand part of the Bill. And to be clear, this is purely a probing amendment. The policy summary produced by the DfE states, and I quote, these arrangements enable education and childcare agencies to have representation, this is my emphasis, not the policy summary, and both the operational and strategic making levels of these safeguarding arrangements. The summary continues, practically, this may look like including the breadth of education settings from early years to childcare, to schools, including academies and independent schools, alternative provision and Further Education in operational safeguarding boards.

Again, my emphasis, having representing -- representation veggies and executive boards so they can influence decisions being made by safeguarding in their local area. Interestingly, there is no mention of special schools, I'm not sure why, I thought that would be a particular priority, I think we all have a sense of what this looks like at an operational level, but the policy summary talks about involvement at a strategic level, I wonder if the noble Lady could explain, who is going to be able to represent all agencies in an area and what does representation for them at these executive boards like in real life and how will this be resourced? Clause 2 is an area where there is broad support for the government's approach but we need more clarity on how the government intends to implement these duties and how they will be funded.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, briefly, Lord Hampton has done us a favour by bringing in education, organisation into it. They have the most contact, they are They have the most contact, they are logical. I cannot fault him on that, I also have a great deal of feeling when he described the experience of when he described the experience of watching the appropriate amendment being concocted and the idea of being concocted and the idea of sitting down there and looking poppy like and saying, please, this is what I'm trying to say, will you what I'm trying to say, will you help? That is something we can all empathise with.

I think it is... It empathise with. I think it is... It sounds sensible that something that happens with a young person, you see happens with a young person, you see them outside the family, you see them regularly, they do fit the them regularly, they do fit the logic and the approach here. The
21:30
21:30
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to support the amendments, these are well- intentioned but there are reasons why this hasn't been done before. And her desire to explore how these amendments are intended to work is absolutely right. Just to put it in context, in a typical local authority, there are four or 500 schools and nurseries, this goes beyond anything that can be reasonably characterised as a partnership. So, how will it work? How much capacity will it absorb each of those and what will it add? The court documents that all of these providers must work with, keeping children safe and education working together, get bigger and bigger each year.

And I believe many schools and childcare providers are close to the limit of complexity that they can manage. Apologies, should have declared an interest at the outset as the former chief of Ofsted. In this context. Most schools that fold down in safeguarding an inspection of small, particularly primaries, often stand-alone primaries and special schools. The vast majority do take safeguarding seriously. But some are struggling with the complexity. We need to be sure that layering on safeguarding partnership responsibilities and later on in the bill corporate parenting duties, on top of all the existing duties, because it may not add anything to safeguarding.

And in some cases, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. And drives good stuff camel's back. And drives good stuff out, or force its early years providers to close. Generally, layers of duties that make everyone layers of duties that make everyone responsible do tend to blur who has the primary responsibility in any the primary responsibility in any given situation. So, there will be the greatest value in these provisions. If they really work to achieve maximum simplicity and clarity, so they are actually clarity, so they are actually workable in the hands of normal well-intentioned people.
21:32
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, it's a pleasure to speak after such a knowledgeable contributions from all noble Lords. And I think it is fair to say that all the amendments in this group are wrestling with some of the same issues. Issues that have been raised by the children's Commissioner, by the independent review into child social care, led by the honourable member for Whitehaven and Workington. We want to include education and childcare agencies in safeguarding arrangements. Indeed, schools already play a huge part in this area.

And make a significant percentage of safeguarding referrals, where they have concerns about a child. But in practice, it is hard because of the number of organisations and their differing size and capacity. We have heard all sides on this. Many calling for full statutory status for childcare, such as amendment 24, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, noble Baroness, Lady Longfield. While others are worried about workability. We do fear that we may air on the side of caution about how full statutory partner status can work in practice.

Although, we will of course reflect on points made by all noble Lords. We support the aims and amendments of 21, 22 and 23, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who has such a depth of experience and understanding of these areas in general. And of family hubs in particular. And indeed, amendments 20 and 25 grammar in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, aspire to have an inclusive and non-bureaucratic approach to these arrangements.

Naturally, we fully support amendments 26, 27, and 28, in the name of the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness, Lady Barran. My Lords, everybody who has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, everybody who has contributed to this group of amendments has recognised that education and childcare are education and childcare are fundamental at all levels of safeguarding arrangements. But I safeguarding arrangements. But I safeguarding arrangements. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Effingham was right, there are a whole range of approaches to this. From those of approaches to this. From those who argue that education needs to be a statutory safeguarding partner, to those who, understandably, question how the government's proposals in how the government's proposals in this clause will actually work in practice.

And I hope to bring a bit practice. And I hope to bring a bit of clarity to that in my response. We can all agree that education and We can all agree that education and childcare settings should be consistently involved in multiagency consistently involved in multiagency safeguarding arrangements across England. And that is what this clause sets out today. -- Sets out to do. In terms of the probing amendment, or the probing question, of whether or not clause two should stand as part of the bill.

Clause two, by straddling the role of education, in multiagency safeguarding arrangements, recognises that crucial role that education and childcare settings play, in keeping children safe. And I think that evidence, in the way which education has tended to be involved in a safeguarding, is that, whilst in many schools there are reasonably well developed processes for safeguarding, including a designated safeguarding leads, and of course the focus that variable to put on it. -- That they are able to put on it.

And there are many places in the country where schools are being well engaged in safeguarding arrangements. It is not true, generally, that the whole breadth of education and childcare settings are engaged in that. I think my noble friend, Baroness Longfield, made an important point about early years settings and their ability to be able to contribute here. And of course, Fe colleges, which far less frequently are engaged in safeguarding arrangements. So, the intention behind this clause is to ensure that education and childcare settings are consistently involved in multiagency safeguarding arrangements for across England.

So the opportunities to keep children safe are not missed and we reduce the risk of children falling through the cracks between services. It places duties on those existing safeguarding partners, the local authority, police, and integrated care boards, to automatically include all education and childcare settings, in their arrangements. This will help to ensure that they work together to identify and respond to the needs of children in their area. But they consider in the forum in which safeguarding is being pursued, in these areas, that the relationships, the processes that are necessary in order to ensure that the voice of the knowledge of education and childcare settings are being included in safeguarding arrangements.

Where this is happening, we see improved communication in safeguarding partnership, better information sharing and more opportunities to influence key strategic safeguarding decisions. This will also mean that all education and childcare settings must cooperate with safeguarding partners ensuring those arrangements are fully understood and rigorously applied in their organisations. Turning to amendments 26, 27, and 28, in the name of the noble Baroness, Baroness Barran, I do appreciate the point made that we need to understand how this will operate in practice, and to understand the burdens and costs for education and childcare settings.

On this point about how they operate in practice, I think the point I was making previously is that we are beginning to see how, where education and childcare are properly included, local authorities are resolving some of the practical issues that the noble Baroness raised and are finding the relationships and forms of munication and fora necessary, to enable education and childcare to be properly represented in safeguarding arrangements, but she makes a challenge to me, to explain a little more about how that's working.

And perhaps I could write to noble Lords with some examples of how we would expect to see this operating in practice. Because I think that is a fair challenge. There are a couple of specific points however, that I can respond to today. First of all, on the point about identifying a single point of contact, to be involved in safeguarding. If we're not careful, of course, and
21:42
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
mandating that happens would incur duplication, New Burdens, and duplication, New Burdens, and resourcing pressures, as there isn't a single point of accountability for the sector, at the moment. And I the sector, at the moment. And I don't think the noble Lady were suggesting there should be new posts created for this role, and she specifically asked about the role of specifically asked about the role of the LADO, can I be clear that the the LADO, can I be clear that the responsibility of that role wouldn't be appropriate to support education be appropriate to support education and childcare settings, with their safeguarding responsibilities, with safeguarding responsibilities, with respect to this clause, unless it was in relation to allegations against people who work with against people who work with children.

That is the specific responsibility of the LA Dio -- LADO, and in this circumstance, they can be contacted. But it would not be that, in this context. Through this legislation, safeguarding partners should be continuing to strengthen existing relationships with education, and childcare settings, to ensure that there is join up in an enhancing role in safeguarding arrangements. On the point about accountability as well, we do need to understand and have sight about how this is working.

The Secretary of State has oversight of yearly reports, by local children safeguarding partnerships, which must include scrutiny by independent person on the effectiveness of the arrangements. And we will support safeguarding partners to ensure this includes a representation of education. And through those yearly reports, we will be able to see how education and childcare settings are being included in those safeguarding partnerships. Turning to amendments 20 and 25, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, produced by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and also in relation to amendments 24, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton.

These relate to the suggestion that education should become the for statutory safeguarding partner. And I think this was such a point by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, there are significant difficulties, in terms of structure and accountability for making education and childcare a statutory partner in the way in which he suggests. There is an organisation of an individual who can take on the equivalent duties as a safeguarding partner for education. I think the noble Baroness Spielman, and can I welcome you to the House, and I am sure your expertise in all areas, education and children's social care, will be important and helpful for us in our deliberations.

She identified there is a wide range of educational and childcare settings that would not be able to take on the equivalent duties as a safeguarding partner for education, because the expectation for those three statutory safeguarding partners is firstly that they have the authority to make decisions for all settings. Secondly, that they are able to commit funding on behalf of all settings. An R35 variable to represent the views of all settings. -- And thirdly that they are able to This is a legally different set of responsibilities that it would be possible to envisage for education and childcare, given the diversity of provision and then not being the equivalent partner in the education area that could carry that out.

This is not to say that education and childcare agencies shouldn't be... That we shouldn't up the way in which education and childcare is involved. That is the reason why clause two ensures they are involved in safeguarding arrangements across England, so that no opportunity to protect children should be missed. For those, there are also some technical issues around amendments 20 and 25, which would have the effect of revoking the relevant agency status of other bodies, that are not education and childcare agencies, such as Health and Social Care Levy youth justice.

Which would undermine the Multi agency safeguarding landscape, which is safeguarding landscape, which is The key point is about the nature of education and childcare and the way that it can be a safeguarding that it can be a safeguarding partner. Turning to amendment 21, 22 and 23, tabled by Lord Farmer, as others have done, can I commend the noble Lord's ongoing commitment to championing family hubs in England. This is enormously important work. He has identified some of the ways in which this has improved and transformed the way in which families are supported.

And that is something that the government is a very keen to pursue and support. On the practicalities of the proposals that he is making, first of all, as family hubs are community-based centres, they will already be included in a safeguarding arrangements by proxy of the Local Authority. As a statutory safeguarding partner. Through the family hubs and Start for Life program, the government has demonstrated support, 75 of the most deprived local authorities have received funding, with integrated Start for Life services, additionally, 13 local authorities have received DfE funding to embed family hub models.

I can assure the noble Lord that through the limitation of clause 2, we will be updating statutory guidance, working closely with the multiagency sectors and this will include guidance on the representation of family hubs in the multiagency safeguarding arrangements by virtue of the Local Authority role. I agree with him, what is happening in family hubs has to be included in a discussion about safeguarding arrangements, if they are to be effective in the safeguarding of children and we need to ensure that happens.

For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope, in responding to noble Lords, hope, in responding to noble Lords, people will feel willing and able to people will feel willing and able to withdraw the amendments and I will come back on some of the practical arrangements that the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, has challenged me on.
21:49
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page