Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Oral questions: Risk of legal challenges when relying on the provision in Article 21 of the Cluster Munitions Convention allowing the UK to fight alongside states that are not party to that Convention

extension of the Security Council is in sight. We are working on it very strongly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order

14:58

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since ratifying the Convention on cluster munitions, the UK has cluster munitions, the UK has regularly cooperated nonstate regularly cooperated nonstate parties including in combat. The cluster munitions prohibitions act 2010 sets out a clear UK legal framework for all UK military personnel and nationals engaging in personnel and nationals engaging in military cooperation and operations with nonstate parties to the with nonstate parties to the convention. The act enshrines the conventions prohibitions in domestic conventions prohibitions in domestic criminal law, while providing a defence in the context of international military cooperation

14:59

Lord Godson (Conservative)

- -

international military cooperation and operations with nonstate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

parties. I thank the Minister for his response. I wonder whether his response in light of the rapidly changing international situation and changing international situation and Russian lawfare is perhaps a little bit optimistic. The government is bit optimistic. The government is trusting in the strength of article 21, in the face of legal challenge. 21, in the face of legal challenge. Can I refer the Minister to the Human Rights Watch and the Harvard Law School study of 2010, which made Law School study of 2010, which made it quite clear that article 21's interoperability carveout which the previous Labour government obtained does not in fact exempt signatory does not in fact exempt signatory states from their article 1 obligation not to assist, encourage or induce the use of cluster munitions.

It concludes that the munitions. It concludes that the prohibition on assistance must apply at all times. Can the Minister assure this house that the assure this house that the government is certain that so eminent an interpretation of the convention is incorrect, so does not provide grounds for a subsequent successful legal challenge to our Armed Forces.

15:00

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

The straight answer to the question is, yes I am satisfied. And I will give a reason for that. I don't think we should forget the role of the CCM, which remains vital in protecting humanitarian norms. To this day, cluster munitions continue to pose threat to civilians with the 2024 cluster munitions monitor reporting that civilians made up 93% of cluster munitions casualties in of cluster munitions casualties in To be absolutely clear to the noble Lord, I have read his report by the way, that the term interoperability, that the members and nonmembers are clearly set out and enshrined in UK law and have functioned effectively since CMM came into force.

And since the convention's entry into force in 2010, UK forces have operated effectively, including in combat with all allies, regardless of their membership of CCM, in line with the CCM provisions on interoperability, in article 21.

15:01

Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)

- -

I thank my noble friend for the comprehensive answer he gave the noble Lord, but does he not agree with me there is a much simpler response to this question? And it is to be found in the 45 words of article 21, paragraph 3, of the convention itself, which reads as follows. " Notwithstanding the provisions of article 1 of this convention and in accordance with international law, States Parties, which includes the native kingdom, military personnel and nationals engaged in military operations with states not party to this Convention that might engage in activities prohibited to a state party." Is that not the answer?

15:02

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Maybe my noble friend has saved me some time, but I would repeat the simple fact is, since the CMM came into operation in 2010, we have done exactly that. We have done exactly that. Cooperative non-states members who are not party to the agreement, so I make my noble friend absolutely right.

15:02

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

Highlights an important point, a number of fellow NATO states have either withdrawn or never joined the convention in the first place. Obviously, Russia never signed up to it initially. There is an obligation under the convention that Gordon Brown signed us up to, to make recommendations to nonmember states. Can I ask the noble Lord whether the government has actually done that in government has actually done that in a formal way to some of our closest allies?

15:03

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Well, absolutely. We are committed to it, and I repeat, I have seen during my time as a minister, firsthand the positive impact of the United Kingdom's involvement in this. And certainly, I would pay tribute to the fantastic work of the Halo trust. And when I was in Angola, I visited those areas that were severely contaminated with such weapons. It impacted hugely not only on the safety of civilians, but on their ability to re-establish their economy after such a long war.

Period of war. I do accept, it comes back to the fundamental point about article 21, I am not making a judgement, we work with our allies, and particularly with Ukraine which is facing Russian aggression, and the use of such outrageous... I mean, Russia is also bombing civilian cities and attacking civilians and civilian buses, and we absolutely committed to defend Ukraine and its right to defend itself. I think we have to be clear, the important point about the convention is how it tries to stop this huge impact, the remnants of war, when war is over, 10 years of peace in Angola, yet people are peace in Angola, yet people are still dying from these munitions.

15:04

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

... And the very long legacy that exists due to the existence of these missions, the UK had been at the world leader in the mining, and also for the stabilisation programs and communities affected by it. But unfortunately, the number and the scale of the ODA cuts is biting very hard. Especially on initiatives such as the humanitarian action and also the stabilisation programs. In the last question, the Minister suggested I was incorrect with reductions for this, can you prove reductions for this, can you prove his case by saying these programs will now be protected?

15:05

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I did not say the noble Lord was incorrect, I said he may have more information than I have, because we are in the middle of very detailed spending reviews. While the outline figures are out, the Department has to go through a program by program process, determining how we meet the commitment of ODA. So, I was not saying he was misleading. One of the things I am very determined to do is we use all levers available to us, and is not limited to ODA.

It is not limited to only our diplomatic efforts and working with allies. We should be more innovative in how we develop and deliver these programs. Including, I might say, with the private sector.

15:06

Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)

- -

The government has made it clear, quite rightly, that we should be prepared for conflict if necessary. Unfortunately, this government, and indeed the previous government, got the reputation of the so-called legal freeloading. In other words, being restrained by an interpolation of international law, which often make it difficult for other trips to performing the way they want. Can the Minister assure me there has been a thorough analysis of Abbey legal obligations? And in the face of the possibility of war.

And the troops, as well as facing difficulties they are bound to face also find themselves walking into a legal minefield.

15:06

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Well, let me be absolutely clear to the noble Lord, ratification of the CCM and subsequent removal of cluster munitions from our inventory, does not constrain UK military capability. Nor prevent interoperability with allies. The UK has successfully developed alternative systems and policies that has allowed for effective operation with our allies since ratification with 2008 with combat. Can I also say that shortage of defence review was clearly United Kingdom Armed Forces will be a more lethal integrated force, equipped and ready for all future challenges.

15:07

Lord Dobbs (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I should declare an interest as I was actively involved in the campaign to get these horrible weapons, and indeed, I was present in Dublin when word came through that Gordon Brown had agreed that Britain should agree to the ban. Which opens the door to other countries following suit. Milos, countries following suit. Milos, given we have dealt with -- My Lords, given we have dealt with article 21, isn't the main onus on us that we ensure other countries do not withdraw from the convention and that we should use our phones as for because possible to urge them not to do so.

15:08

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Is committed member to the CCM, the United Kingdom continues to promote the norms of the convention and discourage the acquisition and use of cluster munitions by all states, irrespective of their status in the convention. So, we are absolutely undertaking what the noble friend suggests.

15:08

Oral questions: Assessment of the impact of changes to employer National Insurance contributions on charities working in the social care and special education sectors

Third oral question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to leave the question sending my name on the order paper

15:09

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

and declare my interest as vice president of the Shastri Society, and also, my involvement in many other similar charities. -- Shaftesbury Society for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the government has had to take difficult decisions to repair the public finances and repair the public finances and rebuild the public services, giving careful consideration to and properly assessing the impact of these decisions is a priority. The tax information impact note was published alongside the introduction of the bill containing the changes

15:09

Lord McColl of Dulwich (Conservative)

- -

of the bill containing the changes to employer national insurance contributions which set out the impact of the policy on individuals, businesses and civil society organisations. As I committed to your Lordships house during passage of the bill, we will continue to monitor and assess the impact and effects of these policies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government's national insurance increase to 15% plus insurance increase to 15% plus lowering the threshold to £5000 will cost charities an additional £1.4 billion annually. One in four employers are implemented in redundancies as a result. This will redundancies as a result. This will drastically cut charitable services, drastically cut charitable services, which is akin to kicking in the teeth the most vulnerable in our teeth the most vulnerable in our society. Can I ask the Minister has any assessment been made of the impact on charities serving

15:10

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

vulnerable young adult people?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I grateful to the noble Lord for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I grateful to the noble Lord for his question to the government, will cause recognise the important role charities play in our societies as a trusted and independent partner to trusted and independent partner to the public sector and deliver vital public services and also recognises public services and also recognises By unpaid carers, and this week is an opportunity to pay tribute to the valued work unpaid carers play valued work unpaid carers play throughout the UK. As I said in my opening answer, we have had to take a number of very difficult decisions but necessary decisions, including but necessary decisions, including on employer national insurance, to fix the public finances and restore economic stability for stopping doing so, we do recognise the --.

In doing so, we do recognise the --. In doing so, we recognise the doing so, we recognise the charities, which is what we have doubled the allowance to £10,500, meaning more than half the businesses including charities either gain or see no change in the amount they will pay. As I also said, we will continue to monitor and assess the impact and effect of those policies. those policies.

15:11

Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the government has already published several Comprehensive Spending Review announcements over the past week? Does he further accept that social care funding is inextricably linked to the recovery of the NHS? Will he therefore use this opportunity to reassure the House that social care will not be cut from the Comprehensive Spending Review?

15:12

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

While I do agree with the noble Ladies first statement of fact and we have already made several spending review announcements, she will know the government is making available so far 31 £7 -- £3.7 billion, including £880 million increase in the social care grant, this is part of an overall increase in local governance spending increase power, 6.8% in cash terms, in terms of future years, so the noble Lady will have to wait for Wednesday, to find out the details spending review.

15:12

Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour)

- -

In addition to their own in providing many care services, charities also perform a very important function, in speaking up for patients, users and carers. Enabling them to find their voice and claim their rights. Would my noble friend agreed that this advocacy function is extremely important, and should be supported and encouraged? I draw attention to my register of interests and thank my register of interests and thank the Minister for his acknowledgement of Carers Week.

15:13

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

I am grateful to my noble friend for her question and wholeheartedly agree with what she says. Civil society organisations do play a vital role in speaking out and advocating on behalf of their beneficiaries. This role is a fundamental part of a thriving democracy for we have a rich history of charities campaigning for change in this country. Examples span the huge breadth of the voluntary sector, from the SBC see on child protection, to the RSPCA promoting animal welfare, charities tackling global poverty and inequality, environmental charities, raising awareness of global warming and many other examples.

Civil society campaigning and advocacy roles, should have coarsely recognised and celebrated, which is why the civil society covenant framework, launched in October 2024, aims to establish a new partnership between the government and civil society organisations. It outlines four foundational pin suppose, recognition, partnership, participation, and transparency. Following extensive engagement across the sector, we are aiming to launch the civil society covenant later this year.

15:14

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

- -

Given the worrying data that has come from a national careful and, that 73% of providers reckon they will have to refuse new care packages from local authorities, or the NHS, and 22% are planning to close their businesses entirely, what consideration is the government giving to renegotiate completely the National Insurance contributions, to ensure those who are providing direct care are not actually burdened with an expenditure that risks then putting up the node and demand on the NHS itself? Under local authorities.

So that we get circle downward spiralling when excess expenditure.

15:14

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

I don't think I can give a positive answer to the main thrust of the noble Lady's question. She will know the government is making available an additional £3.7 billion of additional funding for social care authorities in 2025-26, we will set out future years allocations in the Spending Review on Wednesday. And, she notes, the government will provide support for departments and other public sector employers for the additional employer national the additional employer national The national insurance bill, we put an amendment down to assess hospices additionally, from national additionally, from national insurance increase rises, the CEO of Thames Hospice, to which I declare I am a donor, said as a result of the changes, more people will die in changes, more people will die in pain and agony than would otherwise need to be the case.

What assessment need to be the case. What assessment has the government made in terms of the actual cost of these national increases on hospices specifically? increases on hospices specifically? And what advice would you give to the Chief Executive of Thames Hospice? As the noble Lord notes, the government recognises the vital role hospices play in supporting people at the end of their life and their families, the government is determined to shift the healthcare into the community and ensure patients and their families get high quality personalised care in the most appropriate setting on hospices most appropriate setting on hospices will have a very big role to play in that shift.

The government is supporting the hospices sector, to ensure £100 million for adult and children's hospices, to ensure they have the best physical environment for care, £26 million revenue to support children and young people's hospices.

15:16

The Lord Bishop of Southwark (Bishops)

- -

The noble Lord, the Minister, will recall from the amendment I tabled, at what was then the bill at committee stage, that my twin brother was an early beneficiary of SEND transport. Will the government monitor the impact of national insurance increases for the effectiveness and continuity provision in this area? And inform the House of such findings in due the House of such findings in due

15:16

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

The answer is yes, I did commit to doing so during the legislative process for that bill. As I said then, the government do not expect changes to National Insurance to have significant impact on children with send. We've increased funding for the schools budget by £2.3 million, increasing funds. 1 billion will go towards special educational needs, as part of the spending review on Wednesday.

15:17

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

The fact is these increases have devastated the charitable sector. For example, Noah's Ark Hospice in North London said recently the rise in National Insurance represented basically £100,000 tax on that we hadn't budgeted for. Yet the need for these services has never been greater, as the Minister just acknowledged. Will he assure the house the government will not increase National Insurance contributions again? And that his review will look sector orally in detail at the effect on charities, and on hospices and social care, before the next budget?

15:18

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

In terms of the first half of the question, as the noble Lady knows as part of the changes to National Insurance the government recognises the need to protect smallest businesses and charities, which is why we did more than double the employment allowance meaning more than half of businesses with National Insurance liabilities will either gain or see no change. The government does provide a great deal of support to charities through our tax regime, one of the most generous of anywhere in the world, with over just £6 billion for the tax year from April 2024.

from April 2024.

15:18

Lord Sikka (Labour)

- -

Partners of big accountancy firms derive most of their income from one source, but despite that they are not deemed to be employed by the firm. Therefore, the firms do not pay the insurance -- the employers National Insurance as part of the profits. The big law firms are avoiding about £4 billion per year in employers National Insurance Contributions. Can I urge the Minister to look into this and bring forward reforms so that we can have much more revenue for the things we need.

15:19

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

I am grateful for his suggestions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which I will always take very seriously. That concludes Oral Questions for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That concludes Oral Questions for today. We now come to two instruments previously debated in

15:19

Business of the House

Grand Committee. Pension fund clearing obligation exemption Amendment regulations 2025, and one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other motion, Lord Wilson. With leave of the house I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With leave of the house I beg to move the motion standing in my name

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Order Paper en bloc. As many as are of that opinion,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Any members who wish to leave the

15:21

Statement: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Questions Questions on Questions on a Questions on a statement Questions on a statement made Questions on a statement made in Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 4 June, on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

15:21

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, the events we are seeing in Gaza and that we witnessed in recent weeks is truly harrowing. It's evident that dramatic change is needed from the current situation, and the level of suffering ongoing on the region on all sides is intolerable. We are clear that the deaths and casualties near distribution centres for aid should never have happened, I note public threats were issued by Hamas towards any civilians trying to access those eight points. Will the noble Lord Minister informed the House what discussions have taken place with Israel about those events and the status of any investigations.

I'm sure the whole House is agreed the government should do all it can to try and stop and alleviate this humanitarian crisis, which is escalating in the region. Written must leverage its influence to get more aid in, see the hostages released, and end the terminal situation with Hamas to achieve a proper sustainable end to the conflict. It's only after this work has been done we can begin to progress towards a better long-term future for the Palestinian and Israeli people.

We must never forget those who remain in Hamas captivity, some 58 hostages remain in the hands of this murderous terrorist organisation. They have now been in captivity for well over 600 days. We have always been clear that they must be released. We are aware of initiatives put forward by the United States, they have been rejected by Hamas. What pressure are the government exerting on Hamas, perhaps working through sympathetic Arab governments to get them to reverse their opposition to those plans. And what steps does the government intend to make next to secure the release of those hostages, which I'm sure the Minister is well aware of that it is the only true way to end this conflict.

Turning to the West Bank, the government recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority. Can the noble Lord the Minister provide an update on progress with reform and governance since that time. Strengthening credible covenants will be essential to long-term peace, we need assurance from the government they are confident these vital steps are being taken. It is after all essential, if we are ever to ensure Hamas do not maintain a grip over the region that the Palestinian Authority is strengthened and reformed.

That is also the only way we will ever reach a viable two state solution. Can I take a moment to speak about last week's Gaza demonstration outside this House. Of course, I am proud this is a free country. Everyone is entitled to protest and make their point. However, there were numerous reports of peers from all sides of this house being jostled, harassed, videoed and shouted at, including disabled members of this house. A letter has been sent to the Lord Speaker regarding some of the security failings.

That demonstration was attended and supported by about a dozen Labour members from the other place. I would be interested in the Minister's comments on whether he considers that behaviour acceptable. The gravity of the situation escalating in Gaza means the government must leverage all the influence they have in the region to try and end the suffering we are seeing. The UK has both a diplomatic tools and moral responsibility to press for meaningful change. That means doing all it can to ensure aid reaches those who need it, that hostages are returned to their families and Hamas is prevented from continuing its campaign of terror.

It also means supporting the reform and stabilisation of Palestinian governance as an essential foundation for a viable two state solution. I hope the noble Lord will be able to respond to these points in his reply.

15:25

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We are witnessing both the systematic collective punishment and brutalisation of the civilian population, combined with the weaponisation of food and medicine. The government has made a decision to annex land that is not theirs, to put in a position where women and children whose only sin is seeking aid will now literally be at risk of starving to death. These are war crimes. Civilians are dying daily from gunshot wounds inflicted as they queue for food. And yesterday the head of Save the Children US said it is reported that four children who require surgery they are waking up during surgery because there is insufficient anaesthetic.

All of the catalogue of horror in recent days, we know it three incontrovertible facts. First, Prime Minister Netanyahu's approach has not ended Hamas activities and the trauma of hostages continues, with too many turning to despair. Second, we see unabated the approach of extremist Ministers to forcibly and illegally occupy new territory. And third, the sincerely meant and genuine concern of Ministers in the UK and elsewhere is having next to no effect preventing it. The time for timid behaviour is over.

These benches have consistently called for the government to take further action, and they must do so now. We called for the sanction of extremist men -- Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich months ago because we knew we needed clear preventative action. Given the legal text of what we called for is on Ministers desks, why is the government not implementing those sanctions? Demonstrating that the UK will no longer tolerate calls for Palestinian D possession. We must cease all trade in all areas affected by these, because Netanyahu's Ministers claim illegal outpost settlements are Israeli land, which they are not.

Why has the UK not expanded action to those Ministers and members of the Knesset who supported continuation of the blockade of aid, and called for annexation. Why has the UK not ceased all arms trading with the Netanyahu government until they adhere to international humanitarian law. The Minister in the House of Commons was asked last week of our government's view of the ICJ advisory opinion on the Netanyahu government that "Policies and practices are contrary to the prohibition of forcible transfer of the protected population under article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention".

He replied, "We continue to consider the ICJ advisory opinion with the seriousness it deserves. I remind a house the opinion was in July last year, surely the government cannot any longer simply consider it but should act on the opinion. When Ministers tell me the government acts on the advisory opinion of the Chagos Islands but not on Gaza I say to the government we must not have double standards. As I said at the start of the questions, we are a witness to history.

One where we look at the continuing unconscionable horror and torture of children. We must now, with urgency and clarity, provide action which is not too late to seek to prevent the annexation of Gaza and West Bank with the UK leading others in recognising the state of Palestine. Showing beyond doubt the UK's commitment to Palestinians right to self-determination and a two state solution. With this and the other actions, these benches have outlined, might we at least try and restore process which a ceasefire could start and be honoured, and there could be some respite for those being so terribly brutalised.

15:29

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and their questions. Can I say to the noble Lord opposite, the UK has been a close and long-standing friend of Israel. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, Israel suffered a heinous attack on October 7, the government has always defended Israel's -- backed Israel's right to defend itself. We have stood with the families and demanded that their loved ones are released. However, we also have a duty to condemn Israel's latest action in Gaza.

As the Foreign Secretary has said, the Israeli government is isolating Israel from its friends and partners around the world. Undermining the interests of the Israeli people and damaging the state of Israel. Can I just say that we have been very clear in terms of condemning the comments of a number of the government Ministers, in fact Ben- Gvir and Smotrich, we have been clear in terms of condemning that outrageous language. As the noble Earl knows, I will not be tempted into foreseeing or predicting future sanctions.

We do not do that and I'm we have been absolutely clear, we were not specular, but we have been clear in our joint statement with France and Canada, if Israel does not cease the military offensive and lift restrictions on humanitarian aid, then we will take further concrete actions. We have been very strong with our partners, in opposing the expansion of Israel's military operation in Gaza and reaffirmed our cause for Israeli government to stop its military operations in Gaza and immediately allow humanitarian aid into.

On 20 May, the Foreign Secretary did announce the sanctions, to target those supporting violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank, especially surges in this type of violence. We have announced a formal proposal free trade agreement negotiations with Israel effective immediately. This is because it is not possible to advance discussions on deepening trade relationships with the Netanyahu government that is pursuing policies which are damaging to the UK, the wider region, and its own citizens. The Minister for Middle East and North Africa also summoned Israeli ambassador to discuss our severe concerns at the situation.

And we are clear that if Israel doesn't are clear that if Israel doesn't cease, the military offensive and restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take actions in response. Of course, noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also raised the ICJ, and can I just say, we are fully committed to international, and respect the independence of the ICJ. We continue, despite what the noble Lord says, we continue to consider the course advisory company in carefully. With the seriousness and rigour it deserves.

The UK commitment to a two state solution is of course unwavering. Under Become that point. But can I just say, -- Can I come back to that point, but can I just ate in all -- Can I say to all noble lords, policies have been killed when trying to access a site in Gaza. Desperate civilians who have ensured 20 months of war should never face the risk of death or injury, simply to feed themselves and their to feed themselves and their families.

We have called for the immediate and independent investigation into these events, and for the perpetrators to be held to account, including chairing a meeting of the UN Security Council on 4 June. We do not support any aid mechanism that seeks to deliver political or military objectives or puts vulnerable civilians at risk. We call on Israel to urgently engage with the UN, to ensure a return to delivery of aid in line with delivery of aid in line with humanitarian principles.

Israel's proposals to deliver aid to Gaza via private companies is dangerous for civilians and aid workers and cannot possibly deliver aid to all who need it. And we endorsed the plan for delivery put forward by the UN on 16 May, which is based on humanitarian principles, as built in litigations against a diversion, and uses established mechanisms to deliver aid at scale, which is required. Hamas must allow humanitarian assistance to be distributed without interference. I think all noble Lords understand and appreciate the seriousness of the situation and certainly, we are very focused on trying to see what leverage we can, with working with our allies, to find a solution as soon as possible.

In terms of the demonstration, I think the noble Lord is absolutely right, we can be proud of our country that does allow the right to association and freedom to demonstrate. And I think all of us in this House also respect opinions that don't necessarily agree with our own. Particularly on the subject. But I do accept that it is wrong for people to interfere with others who are going about their business, and certainly, our join him in condemning such action.

It's not acceptable at all.

15:35

Baroness Blackstone (Labour)

- -

My Lords, the statements make reference to the importance of a two state solution, if we want to get security for both Palestinians and Israelis. In light of that, could the Minister say what action, it means more than condemnation, it really does mean action, the government is taking? Given the decision by the Israeli government to build 22 new settlements on the West Bank. Settlements which are illegal and will make it more and more difficult to have a two state solution.

If you could give us some hope that we are going to take action that go beyond simple condemnation on this matter, I would be grateful. be grateful.

15:36

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I hear what my noble friend says, but since we came to office, this government has taken action. And of course, we stop the Expo forms that can be used in Gaza. And we are can be used in Gaza. And we are In discussions for the free trade agreement. We have taken action but it isn't just about punitive action, this is about working with allies to achieve that goal of a two state solution, that is why we are very committed to ensuring that the conference cohosted by France and conference cohosted by France and Saudi Arabia is a success because if we can focus all international allies, including those in the Middle East, on the importance of delivering a two state solution, then I think it won't just be punitive action this government will be taken, but it is that positive action towards a peaceful solution.

The only, I would say to my noble friend opposite, the only real secure future, both Palestinians and for Israel as a two state solution peace.

15:37

Lord Pickles (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, if there is to be a recognition of a Palestinian state, Would the Minister tell us what the boundaries are going to be of that state? And will he give an assurance that any recognition would ensure that all parties recognise the right of the Jewish people to have a state?

15:38

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Well, I think the noble Lord knows the answer, because those that have advocated a two state solution and support parties towards it obviously a precondition is the security of the state of Israel. We are absolutely committed to that. I think the progress towards a two state solution, we have been working with the Palestinian Authority let us recognise that, and we have a progress in the past, but we want to ensure that we support those in the Palestinian Authority, that can deliver the two state solution the noble Lord referred to.

I don't disagree with him, I just think that he implies I would strongly say we see recognition as part of the process towards the establishment of a two state solution. We don't see it as the end in itself. When the time is right to do that, it will be when we can deliver a more secure basis for that solution.

15:39

Lord Walney (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, the situation in Gaza is horrendous. And any new settlement building is completely wrong. It can I just press for a greater understanding of the government's position on aid delivery? Follow the logic of what the noble Lord the Minister says. That aid should not be delivered on any critical military objective. But then what does the government think of the age that has got in until now? When the noble Lord, the Minister, sees Hamas gunmen on top of a trucks, and sees the Hamas operatives threatening death to anyone who takes age not through that route, surely the government does understand that that route is also fundamentally compromised.

also fundamentally compromised.

15:40

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Well, the only word I disagree with, from my noble friend, is the way fundamental. Because we have been working with all UN agencies and other NGOs, to ensure that Hamas does -- Does not interfere. At that interference is something we strongly condemn. But something we know is the delivery of aid by private companies is dangerous for civilians and aid workers and cannot possibly deliver aid to all but needed and that is why we continue to press the government of Israel to permit the full unhindered resumption of aid flows through Gaza, that should take place immediately.

By far the most effective way to meet the desperate needs of the Gazan people at the speed and scale needed is via overland routes, that is through the UN agencies and other NGOs we have supported to deliver that aid.

15:41

Lord Grocott (Labour)

- -

For as long as most of us can remember, ministers like my noble friend have been talking about the two state solution is being the holy Grail that gets us all out of their difficulties. It is time now that we recognise the simple truth, which I asked him to confirm, that the present government in Israel, and indeed almost any reconfiguration of it we could imagine, is implacably composed in principle to any suggestion of a Palestinian state, and indeed, as Lord Pickles helpfully reminded us, there is a boundary that could be seen to provide one at the moment.

Now, what we need to be doing is to try and unlock that hopeless position of the Israelis vetoing any independence whatsoever to the people of the West Bank or East Jerusalem, and take the opportunity of the Saudi Arabia and French initiative and take some movement towards breaking the logjam to say that yes, we will, the UK government, with allies, will recognise a Palestinian state. Because until everyone, including the Israelis, recognise the imperative requirement for that, there will be no peace.

This there will be no peace. This

15:43

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Well, if only it was a question of the United Kingdom recognising a Palestinian state. Either course mallow selling position is that we will do so, we will recognise a Palestinian state, at a time that is most conducive to the peace process and the realisation of a Palestinian state, it is one thing to say yes will recognise, it's another thing to see a secure situation established whether Palestinian people can live securely in a neighbourly way with the state of Israel, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, says.

So, we will recognise when it will be conducive to delivering that objective. And I understand, I mean, everyone in this chamber has had its hopes raised for peace in the Middle East, certainly peace in the Middle East, certainly since 1948. And I think we have got to be more renewed in our efforts to deliver that because the humanitarian situation, those extremists in the Israeli government have shown what they can do, the situation in Gaza is absolutely evidence of that and we must not tolerate it.

15:44

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry on the register of interest. And hearing and listening very carefully to my noble friend, Lord Pickles, I would say there are plans, there are people in Israel, there are people within the Palestinian Authority, there are people amongst all communities, who want peace and peace now. We all agree, as one, irrespective of the need to get aid in, I have sent to the Minister before, use the air routes, unblock them, work with the United States, Egypt, and Jordan, and get aid delivered, and work with all sides to ensure that aid gets in.

But my question is quite a specific one. There is a peace plan from a former premise of Israel, and a former Foreign Minister of the Palestinian Authority, it works on the two state solution, including in the definition of boundaries, but importantly recognise the sacred nature of these Jerusalem. And indeed, as a place, which is sacred to the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the Christian community. There are plans and people who are wishing to engage. Will the Minister if you are me that he will run back ensure me that he will ensure His Majesty is engage with all these parties, because ultimately peace is inevitable.

inevitable.

15:45

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Well, I think at the noble Lord is absolutely right in terms of the people of Israel, and I am very careful to draw a clear distinction between people of Israel and the current government of Israel. It is the current government of Israel that is pursuing this awful policy He is right to draw attention to a range of options in terms of the peaceful discussions. That is why I think the initiative by France and Saudi Arabia is really important, because it can convene people and we talked about before, in the earlier question about the convening power of the United Nations, which is absolutely vital.

I don't think we can take an exclusive approach to the peace process, it has to be as inclusive as possible. But one thing we are determined to do is to support the reforms within the Palestinian Authority, to strengthen its work, and strengthen its credibility, amongst the Palestinian people and we are determined to do that. Can I just say in relation to his question on aid, he knows, if we his question on aid, he knows, if we could have a lift into it, we would explore every mechanism to get aid in, but as he has repeatedly reassured me, when I was in opposition, and he was a minister, there is only one and he was a minister, there is only 1 Real Successful Way to get the amount of aid in that is needed into Gaza.

That is true the road routes. We are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have plenty of time, the

15:47

The Lord Bishop of Southwark (Bishops)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bishop first then LibDem. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Minister and His Majesty's Minister and His Majesty's Government for the statement on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. May I press the noble Territories. May I press the noble Lord Minister on two things. Firstly, the attack by Israeli forces on the compound of the Anglican al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza, killing five. Including three journalists and a father is courting his son to the surgical unit for treatment from prior injuries.

This is the latest in a number of attacks by the IDF on church hospitals and churches in defiance of international law. Will the Minister accept specific actions are now required, since reasonable pleas have been ignored. Secondly, in light of what the Minister has said about the UN conference from the 17th to 20 June, and talking about conducive time to recognise Palestine, will he recognise that a bold and clear statement will be made at that conference on the firm intention of government to recognise the state of Palestine.

15:48

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I would say to be right Reverend Prelate that I have been clear in relation to when we will recognise the state of Palestine, that is when it is most conducive to the two state solution. We will work with allies to ensure that we can create those conditions. I think the conference is part of that, but it isn't the sole part. I also think he is right in condemning the actions in Gaza and the occupied territories in terms of the use of violence.

I think we can all be very concerned. I would point out, it is frustrating to sort of appear to think we are not doing anything. We are absolutely determined to work with our allies so that the government of Israel understands fully our concerns. And of course, we voted on June 4 in favour of the resolution in the UN security, which was focused on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We highlighted that the Israeli government's decision to expand its military operations in Gaza severely restrict aid, they are totally unjustifiable, disproportionate and counter- productive.

And with our allies we have called for its end to the restriction on aid. We believe that UN and other humanitarian partners must be allowed to operate. And we must be able to get back to the situation where we can get aid where it is most needed. Of course, on 19 May we released a joint statement with Canada and France calling for Israel to cease its renewed military offensive and lift restrictions. So we are using what mechanisms we can.

We are also using specific actions bilaterally against the government of Israel, and of course the initial one was the restrictions on arms sales, and also the trade agreement. We are absolutely committed to ensuring we work with our allies to ensure that the government of Israel knows our deep concern on this situation.

15:51

Baroness Janke (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, what is the government's response to reports claiming that thousands of items listed under the category bombs grenades torpedoes missiles mines and similar munitions of war were exported from the UK to Israel, as well as for shipments described under customs codes as tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles. All reportedly delivered after the government suspended licence for equipment that could be used offensively in Gaza in September. Will the government take firm action to ensure weapons from the UK are not being used to commit war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank and occupied territories?

15:52

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Can I absolutely reassure the noble Lady that the UK is not arming Israel's war in Gaza. We can categorically, we do not export any bombs or ammunition for use in military operations in Gaza. As I have repeatedly said, one of the first acts of this government was to review and suspend export licences that could be used by the Israeli defence forces in Gaza. We have successfully implemented that suspension, and continue to refuse all relevant licence applications.

I have also seen press reports, we do not recognise the suggestion that arms exports from the UK to Israel increased following 7 October 2023, which covers a period under the last government. The government took decisive action upon taking action initiating a review of international humanitarian law on that day. I can categorically say we are not exporting bombs or ammunition for use in military operations.

15:53

Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Crossbench)

- -

Everyday in prayers in this house we pledge to put aside personal interest, prejudices and partial affections, that is so called friendships. And yet we look in a benevolent way to the Israeli government, accused of genocide, war crimes and the weapon icing of hunger against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. And unbelievably, yes, continue to supply arms and intelligence to Israel. Will the noble Lord the Minister agree that in the 21st-century it is imperative that we look beyond political or friendships or economic gain, and base our foreign policy on the Christian and seek teaching of looking to the wider well-being of all, including Palestinians.

15:54

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I think I gave in response to an earlier question and absolutely categorical assurance that we are not arming Israel with bombs and ammunition that could be used in Gaza. I categorically say that. Can I just say that I think we are faced with a situation here, Israel has the right to defend itself. What the government of Israel doesn't have the right to do is to deny humanitarian aid into Gaza. We have made that position absolutely clear.

And of course, we are absolutely focused on ensuring that aid gets in. I think as we have debated on many times, the real solution comes when we can create the situation which I believe the majority of Israeli citizens want. They want peace, they want to live with their neighbour, and they want a secure state. But so do the Palestinians. And that two state solution is something we should absolutely be aimed towards. That is the condition for peace.

Living side-by-side with neighbours in a peaceful way. neighbours in a peaceful way.

15:55

Baroness Berger (Labour)

- -

I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is desperate, with many thousands of civilians needing food and medical supplies. Access to aid must be safe and rapidly expanded. I was in Israel discussing these issues with opposition leaders the week before last. They are clear that this war must stop and that the hostages need to come home as a top priority. An election will take place in Israel next year, and every poll since October 7 points to Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition being ejected from office.

What steps is this government taking to strengthen those Israelis and Palestinians serious about the compromises necessary for progress towards peace and the two state solution we all want to see.

15:56

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Of course, the government of Israel is a matter for the people of Israel. It is for them to decide. But I am confident the majority of people in Israel do want peace and want the things my noble friend has said. But I think what the most important thing this government can do is to work with our allies, particularly in the Middle East, to ensure that the agenda for the conference on the two state solution is absolutely focused on the means to deliver it.

And to ensure that we can create those conditions my noble friend has said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the timer has now elapsed for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the timer has now elapsed for this part of the business, I propose this part of the business, I propose a short pause so that the next

15:58

Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - committee stage (day 3)

15:58

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

I beg to move the house do now again resolve itself into a committee on the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the house do now resolve itself into a committee now resolve itself into a committee on the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The After clause 4, Amendment 66,

15:59

Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Grey-Thompson. I speak to Amendment 66 in my name and that of Lady Walmsley and name and that of Lady Walmsley and Lord Moynihan. This is a probing amendment, and the core aim is to amendment, and the core aim is to further protect children. In January this year the house debated my Private Member's Bills on the Private Member's Bills on the mandatory reporting on child sex abuse. It ties in very well with Amendment 107B in this group of Lord Watson, which I think we are all Watson, which I think we are all very keen to see the recommendations implemented in full.

I'm not to implemented in full. I'm not to prejudge what the noble Lady the prejudge what the noble Lady the Minister may say, but I'm possibly to be told there's another vehicle for this amendment. I think this is for this amendment. I think this is where the off debate. From Rotherham to Rochdale there have been far too many children abused. And too few perpetrators to justice. We must continue to learn from our past mistakes. And this amendment is a step towards ensuring the positive changes are being made.

This amendment seeks to ensure adults in position of authority over children in regulated activities would have a legal requirement to report any suspicion of or knowledge of child sexual abuse. Regulated activities include those in education, healthcare, sports and others, which are fully listed in the schedule. I recognise this is a children's schools and health and well-being bill, but I am keen that the protection goes much wider than just schools. I am keen to hear what Lord Moynihan might say around duty of Moynihan might say around duty of care.

This amendment doesn't seek to criminalise the general public, rather it seeks to ensure those in positions of authority have a duty to speak up and protect children. This is often teachers, also coaches and support workers. They are able to put the safety and needs of children first because they spent a lot of time with children. We have heard that upward reporting in an institution is sufficient, sadly we have seen it's not. Whether it's because of possible damage to reputation, concerns over implications or something more sinister, it's clear we need stricter guidance on how to report child sex abuse.

In March 2020 the Office for National Statistics estimated at 3.1 million adults in England and Wales have experienced sexual abuse before the age of 16. In October 2022, XR estimated more than one in six girls and one in 20 boys are being sexually abused in on average, it expects 26 years to report abuse. It is estimated one in three children abused by an adult told someone. Our system is failing the victims of child sexual abuse and changes need to be made, too frequently there is a lack of understanding surrounding child sex abuse across professions and organisations working with children.

Raising public awareness and providing training and support for all is essential. My Lords, a significant number of people support some version of mandatory reporting. What we need to do as legislators is ensure the right protections are put in place. I beg to move.

16:02

Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)

- -

After clause 4, insert the new clauses suspended on the Marshalled list. -- As printed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lady for putting this on the Order Paper putting this on the Order Paper today. I would like to quote from a speech that I made on 26 June 2014. speech that I made on 26 June 2014. Tune after the terrible crimes of Jimmy Savile had been analysed in the Lampard report. Of course, our the Lampard report. Of course, our campaign for mandatory reporting of child abuse went back at least a child abuse went back at least a decade before that.

But the case showed clearly what happens when people who know do not tell. I realise, as the noble Baroness does as well, that the Minister might tell us that this is the wrong bill tell us that this is the wrong bill to explore this issue. But I have always taken every opportunity to always taken every opportunity to raise the issue and that is why I am doing it again today. I said on that occasion that I have always felt that a child is his or her own best protected.

We can do our best to protect the child but we cannot sit on my shoulder the whole time. This is why it is important children are taught in school how to protect their own personal integrity. They are also needing to be told what a healthy non-abusive relationship looks and feels like. And who to turn to in case of fear of actual abuse. And I still believe that this is every child's right. I went on to say that we must minimise the opportunity for perpetrators to reach vulnerable children and I talked about the shortcoming of the DBS checks, which are not enough, as they only identify those who have offended before.

And our no use against first-time offenders or those who are clever enough to avoid detection. This is still the case. Now, in that situation, the knowledge or suspicion of abuse by adults around the child is a vital ingredient of protection. We need to ensure that those who know all suspect what is going on report what they know to an appropriate and responsible person. I mentioned that lawyers who acted for dozens of Jimmy Savile's victims have told me that the most shocking revelation of all was the number of victims who had reported what had happened at the time in to someone in their institution.

Only for them to be ignored and their claims covered up. One girl in Stoke Mandeville told a nurse what the Jimmy Savile had done, only to be told you are making a mountain, you silly girl, do you know what he does for our hospital? How shocking. That is why I believed then and I still believe 11 years later, that we need a clear and comprehensive mandatory reporting of child abuse system. Which would make it an offence, with clear penalties for those in a position of trust, in a regulatory activity, to fail to report, or acknowledge, reasonable suspicion of abuse.

The person making the report need not know for sure abuse was taking place. That is for the competent authorities to decide, after investigation. Reasonable suspicion is all that is needed. The amendment we have before us refers to regulated activity. As defined in the Children Act 2004, and the safeguarding vulnerable groups act of 2006. Both of which I well remember. Although, the definitions would need amending to exclude such confidential health lines such as Childline. These measures have been successfully in operation in Australia for years, so I do not believe it would be a problem here.

I am grateful for the advice of Professor Ben Matthews about the Australian system. He also advised IICSA, the idea that there would be a lot of mendacious reporting did not occur in Australia. In any case, one cannot fail to lift a stone, for fear of the slime one might find underneath. Often, Childline advisers would encourage children to report abuse themselves to a trusted adult. In that situation, the child must be able to have the confidence that, if they do so, the disclosure will be properly dealt with and no concerns about reputational damage should get in the way of that adult doing the right thing by the child.

The only way children can have that confidence is to make failure to report abuse on offence. When a child gets up the courage to confide in a trusted adult about abuse, they do so, because they want it to stop. Imagine how that child feels when nothing is done. The intention of the amendment is not to put people in prison, except in the most egregious cases. But to change the culture. I believe that it would help workers to report abuse, if they saw it as a public duty, not as telling tales.

There is also considerable public support for this. Even in an independent poll, in the public in 2014 for 76% of people supported it. I'm not sure what the figure would be now, but in the years since then, given the revelations of mass grooming gangs abusing young girls for years, and nobody believing the children, I would think the figure might be even higher now. I do urge noble Lords to support the amendment.

16:08

Lord Moynihan (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, this amendment is both necessary and important and is a credit to the noble Baronesses Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Walmsley, who most eloquently moved it. And for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse to be firmly placed on the statutory book. My Lords, child abuse, whether in the form of Is a testable, and I welcome the recognition that the amendment should capture the importance of child sexual abuse, also in schools, and sports clubs, as covered in schedule 1A, S1, in each case of sexual abuse of children, it is one case too many.

In sport, it is compounded because it takes place in a relationship of trust, responsibility, and abuse of power and breach of that trust. The influence, my Lords, that a sports coach of physical education teacher has over children is disproportionately compounded by the physical nature of proximity in sport. The near total control which can be exercised over an ambitious child seeking success in the world of sport. We have seen how prevalent this is in the world of gymnastics, football, athletics, to name just three spots which have witnessed the ugliness of child sexual abuse.

Taking each in turn, for decades, this was a problem festering at the heart of gymnastics. For far too long, coaches and teachers have been able to act with total impunity, forcing young children to experience extreme training programs, whilst bullying and humiliating dissenting voices into silence. Some coaches have abused their power and authority to commit terrible crimes against the children they should have been caring for. Living lives destroyed in their wake. And in the wake of the Me Too Movement, numerous prominent gymnasts spoke out about the bullying and discrimination and abuse they experienced in sport in schools and in clubs.

As a result, the review was commissioned an independent report examined the allegations of mistreatment in the sport of gymnastics. My Lords, predatory coaches and teachers were allowed to move from school to school and gym to gym, undetected by a system of oversight. Predatory coaches and teachers work to conceal abuses. A child abuse scandal involving the abuse of young players in football clubs began in November 2016 and by the end of 2021, 16 men have been charged with the historical sexual abuse offences, 15 of whom were tried.

My Lord, one was head of PE at a school in Birmingham, another, a secondary school teacher. In athletics, a documentary Nowhere to Run in the UK concerned the sexual abuse of athletes by a coach and how athletes try to deal with the impact of the abuse. Of the current situation, as noble Lords no in this committee, is that while child safeguarding our mandatory, thereof some very statutory and is that I welcome it. However, we need to go further.

Those measures did not deter many of the cases that have come to light. And there is no law that compels everyone to report child sexual abuse. Despite the promises for action within the Crime and Policing Bill, there is no criminal sanction for failing to report child sexual abuse under the mandatory reporting plan. We need to go further in a duty to report, which may be referred to a professional brigade, where applicable, or the disclosure and barring services would consider their suitability to continue working in regulated activity with children.

I joined the noble Baronesses in their view that there should be professional criminal sanctions to fail to report or cover up child sexual abuse, which they have placed on the face of the amendment they have tabled. My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey Thompson, has worked on a duty of care and safeguarding and has led at work, I have been privileged to support on it for over 20 years. We have sought to create a sports ombudsman or sports duty of Care Quality Commission, who would also have duty of care with all schools.

We have sought to develop an independent benchmark survey to measure duty of care, to monitor whether duty of care policies are working and to inform future policy and investment decisions. And we have sought to ensure there is a duty of care Guardian. One, my Lords, I hope in every school, with the responsible 84 engaging with participants in school sports as well as those young people across the talent pathways, and in communities of sport. Today, we can go on step further, my Lords, we can rectify the position of the absence of a well-designed mandatory reporting law at the heart of the safeguarding shortcomings in a no settings, like sport and recreational schools.

My Lords, let the lessons of the past protect the children of tomorrow. And let those of us who I hope one day will vote for this amendment, if it is not accepted by the Minister today, take the lead for future generations. the lead for future generations.

16:13

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I think this is an extremely important amendment and I have a slight concern that the Minister, in replying, may say that the Crime and Policing Bill is the place for such an amendment. But the problem with the proposals in that is based on age. Whereas this amendment is much more subtle, in terms of responding to the emotional entrapment that goes on in grooming, the activity that goes on in grooming, and the difficulty of sexual abuse being perpetrated at all ages.

There are five areas which I think would have to go along with this. Which is a public health awareness over the dangers of the early stages of emotional entrapment, leading to grooming, that lead onto sexual abuse. And the pressures that children are under. Therefore, an awareness overall across society that none of this is acceptable, with training and support for all those who have any responsibility for children. And clear pathways, when there is suspicion for people who can really deal with this sensibly.

Because one of the situations that comes to mind is the child who goes into see their GP, perhaps as a teenager, and is seeking contraceptive advice. I may actually in a sexual -- They may actually be in a sexual relationship where they have been coerced and pressured and groomed and are really trapped with the person abusing them, even if that is somebody who was also very young, and there may be an imbalance in a relationship, particularly if it is a child who is desperate for love and affection and closeness altogether in their lives.

So, when legislation is introduced, which it must be, it will also need good scientific proper evaluation, not just a sort of tick box review, but really a proper study to see how it is working. I was glad to hear that the noble Lady, Baroness Grey- Thompson, introducing this probing amendment, simply because there was a change I would like to see on it. a change I would like to see on it. And that is in the amendment, refers to healthcare, including GP services, I would like that they be extended to primary care services, given a lot of primary care services occur out in the community's.

District nurses and community nurses are coming into people's homes, and they will be places that pickup where something a fight, particularly if there is one parent or sometimes even to parents who are real, and needing input. -- Are ill The slight concern I have a riverbed that says the period of seven days before it comes to the knowledge of the provider, I would say that simply from experience of having been a GP that sometimes you can have some suspicions but you can't put a finger right.

And you need more than seven days to begin to ask questions and explore it. But that's not to criticise this amendment, I think it's extremely well drafted and brought together. And I do hope the Minister will actually take the contents of this forwards, even the it was proposed as a probing amendment.

16:17

Lord Meston (Crossbench)

- -

I would like to support amendment 66 and the proposed introduction of a mandatory reporting requirement for sexual abuse, in accordance not just with the speeches we have heard but also the carefully reasoned recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. In simple terms, failure to report known or reasonably suspected abuse puts the child concerned at future risk. And it can make a person failing to report complicit in what has happened and in what may later happen to the victim of that abuse, and indeed to others.

Moreover, a failure to report prevents a proper and prompt investigation of the abuse, and can deprive the victim of appropriate treatment and support. A failure to report is a failure to protect. All that is obvious. But it is a complex area. There are only few cases when it can be truly known that abuse has occurred, because it is largely an un-witnessed crime. Accordingly, under the terms of this amendment, the person expected to report must have reasonable grounds for suspicion.

If the child is young that suspicion could well depend on the adults understanding of what the child has said or tried to say, or on an interpretation of the child's behaviour. That may not be easy, particularly if the person concerned does not know the child well or the structure or dynamics of the child's family. These difficulties should not be made worse for victims of child sexual abuse by failures to report, and by deflection of evidence of abuse for the sort of reasons and excuses so clearly described by the report of the independent inquiry.

In particular, from a misguided desire to protect the alleged perpetrators or institutions. In the sort of cases dealt within the family court, schools can often be the first to realise there may have been some type of abuse. And some school staff understandably can be nervous of the reaction of angry family members if allegations are made. I recall a case in which the teacher admitted not acting when he saw obvious injuries to a child, simply because he was reluctant to get involved in making the statements and reports that might be required.

If there is to be a duty in law underpinned by criminal sanctions, as the amendment proposes, it will be particularly important that it is made known to all who will be subject to that duty, and that where possible they have guidance on how to record and manage disclosure and evidence of possible sexual abuse. It can be crucial to avoid inappropriate questioning of a child and repeated questioning of that child. May I just change the focus slightly towards cases arising in the family context.

The child safeguarding practice review panel's cogent and disturbing report in November 2024, entitled "I want them all to notice", stated that over the past 20 years or so the light on the sexual abuse of children within families has gradually deemed. We have witnessed a worrying evaporation of the skills and knowledge that professions, leaders and practitioners must have to work confidently and sensitively in this complex area. This dilution of focus and expertise may be partly explained by the greater public and professional attention on the sexual abuse of children in institutions, by famous people, and on the sexual exploitation of children outside their home.

This was undoubtedly urgently required, but it may also have drawn our eyes away from the more common experience for children, sexual abuse in their families. It goes on to suggest that moral outrage that can accompany media attention on extra familial sexual abuse has perhaps distracted attention from the more commonplace nature of familial abuse. And that in turning our attention away from the latter we have undermined the confidence and capability of professionals to identify and respond to sexual abuse in families.

The panel called for a national strategic response, and I would suggest that approval of this amendment would be an important step in that response. There should be a mandatory duty to which all professionals should adhere. professionals should adhere.

16:22

Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)

- -

I very strongly support this amendment, and agree with everything that has been said so far. Particularly the very important and valuable contribution by the noble valuable contribution by the noble Lord best. He like I tried many child sexual abuse cases, it's a sad part of the work family judges do that there are so many sexual abuse cases, from babies to 17. And they are all absolutely terrible. And it is important to remember that there are two sorts of sexual abuse, those within the family and those without.

As the noble Lord has just said, there has been less of a mirror looking at that than there has been on other aspects of strangers abusing children. It is extraordinary in some ways that we don't already have mandatory reporting. Because it's so obvious, and it's so important. There are so many people out there, certainly members of families who know what is going on, and don't what to do. If in fact they know that they have an obligation to tell, I'm talking about siblings, I'm talking about aunts, uncles, grandparents, because this is a very serious part.

I don't know whether the noble Lords realise that the majority of sexual abuse is within the family, although there is far to much for outsiders. If it's within the family it becomes increasingly important that those around the child who do know -- don't know what to do have an obligation to do something effective. I do hope the noble Lady the Minister will recognise that this is long overdue. It either has to come into this bill or into the crime and policing Bill, preferably into both.

Because one group of people who have not so far been referred to are of course the police. If it's a pretty obvious case of sexual abuse to a local authority employee, the absolutely crucial thing that employee has to do is go immediately to the police. Don't let us forget it, any sexual abuse of any child or young person is a crime.

16:25

Lord Bichard (Crossbench)

- -

I thought it necessary to add my voice to support this amendment. It may be that we want to talk about the vehicle, it may be that we want to talk about the drafting. But I think it's really important that this House makes absolutely clear that on the principle there is agreement around mandatory reporting, because that hasn't always been the case. And that's the first massive step to dealing with first massive step to dealing with this issue.

I only otherwise wanted to say how pleased I was to hear Lord Moynihan's contribution. I have to say that in 2012 when I spoke in this chamber against the watering down of vetting and barring I was told roundly that we should have an exemption for all sports clubs and all societies, because they were exempt last. I think the last 12 years has shown us how wrong that would have been, the last 12 years have also shown us how important this amendment is.

16:26

Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)

- -

I rise to speak to amendment 107B in this group in my name. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the same legal rights apply to a child in care as those which apply to children living with their families. In that sense it's linked to amendment 69 AB, which I shall move later today. The final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, henceforth referred to as IICSA, in 2022 high like the fact that the family court can limit the parents responsibility but is unable to intervene in the same way with corporate.

The report recommended a new " Route by which children in care can apply to the family courts for orders to mandate or limit a local authority's exercise of its parental responsibility". Which is what this new clause 6 to achieve. There are many recognisable flaws in the system, among them children being moved from settled homes, children being sent many miles from their home area, siblings being split up, children forced to move areas ahead of critical exams, children desperately unhappy with where they are living and being told there's nowhere else for them to go, and children approaching their 18th birthday woefully unprepared for life ahead of them.

Incredible as it sounds, it's still common for children in care to be told they must register as homeless once they reach their 18th birthday. It's not difficult to understand why that often causes unbearable stress and anxiety affecting all areas of the child's life. The family court is able to intervene in how parents exercise their parental responsibility, yet it has no equivalent power in respect of corporate parents, when looked after children are the most vulnerable in our society. As the report claimed, courts can make decisions about children not care but only local authorities can make decisions about children who are in care.

That's an inconsistency I believe needs to be confronted and brought to an end. IICSA considers the role of the Independent reviewing Officer, the ability of children in care to discharge care orders, to bring claims under the Human Rights Act 1998, and judicial reviews. It found each of these systems of protection to be insufficient. Exam acts once children can't have a legal mechanism whereby the exercise of a local authority's parental responsibility could be put under the spotlight and subject to restriction and obstruction where necessary.

This new clause will implement the recommendation six, by giving children who are the subject of a care order the legal means of challenging the corporate parents actions, and perhaps equally importantly in actions. When a child is at risk of suffering harm this new clause will enable the family court to make an order to prohibit the family taking action that could be harmful to the child. The family court will also have an order to make the local authority take particular action to safeguard or protect the child's welfare.

On 16 January in another place Home Secretary made a clear statement that the government would set out a plan for implementing all 20 of the final recommendations. They are tackling child -- the update set out in April set out how children's access to services will be strengthened through advised -- revised standards and guidance. This is a long way from incrementing exam acts recommendation six, the purpose of which is to give children in care a new legal mechanism to challenge the actions of their corporate parent when they are likely to cause the child significant harm.

Such a measure will go hand-in-hand with effective independent advocacy services, because it's likely to be independent advocates to assist children in care to access this new legal safeguard. We all know IICSA was a seven-year inquiry with devastating evidence on the way our whole host of institutions consistently failed vulnerable children. This recommendations must be taken seriously, and as I said earlier the government is on record as committing to all 20 As the noble Baroness said Baroness Finlay in introducing her amendment, it may well be the case my noble friend will suggest the bill is a more appropriate vehicle for this amendment.

I would say to that, if so why does it not appear in the Crime and Policing Bill? Because it is I believe a very important step. I do hope my honourable friend will be a bit more positive about that and able to offer a commitment where she will return a report to the government amendment to make children in care legally equal to children in the community.

16:31

Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I rise very briefly to illustrate the importance of the noble Baronesses amendment, 66. I was making a speech in whole in 2017 and Hull was the city of Culture. As I was talking about and comes in and when she sees me she almost faints and buckles. I thought that is very strange. Anyway I finished my speech and when everybody had asked for a selfie and an autograph. This woman came towards me and says, I am sorry I react that way but when I was eight I was fostered.

And my foster parents had two sons. And every day they used to come home and sexually abuse me. The only thing that got me through it flow well was to see yours :-). I so wanted to scream out and tell you but I knew someone out there loved me. I am now 48-year-old woman and every time I am going through a dark period of my life I think of you and so I wish I could have told you back then.

My Lords, that is why it is important children should know there should be somebody and there is somebody they can speak to about the kinds of abuse this 48 old women is now reliving because as I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime.

16:33

Lord Lucas (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment six nine Eight in this group. It speaks to itself, I look forward to the Minister's response.

16:33

Baroness Berridge (Conservative)

- -

I rise briefly to speak to amendment 66 having spoken in the Private Members Bill. And also gave evidence to the independent in and I believe at that time in my -- if I am the remembering correctly the government's position was that this was under consideration. I am really grateful to see this recommendation from IICSA has been taken forward endorse the recommendation for a char protection agency which the subject of a later amendment. I wish to make just two very brief points.

Firstly I think it is important to remember is the noble Lord Moylan handset -- has said there are some settings where there are large institutions with disciplinary processes already in place but many of the organisations outlined in schedule one a what is probably more appropriately called out out-of- school settings. Those can be even not incorporated charities often. And if they are the result of propagation and duty they have are there from the trust. Not part of any wider network. I believe it is really important to put this mandatory reporting obligation on those who are involved in an increasing number of charities, who do excellent work that they are standing sometimes in a very vulnerable government situation.

A second point connected to that is there have been previous discussions in your Lordships house. I think with the noble Lord Lord Flynn in relation to some suggestion that has been floated around over the years of some kind of confessional exemption in the context of religious institutions of. I think the days when we could nail down who those religious institutions were, maybe some synagogues, if you nonconformist churches in the Catholic Church are long gone. And so I really do not see and I hope this can be hit on the head, how can we practically have any confessional type exemption if we have such a wide variety of institutions nowadays? In fact increasingly within the Christian community although the Catholic Church is seeing a resurgence, increasingly young people are going to these independent churches that may not be a member of any network.

I do hope that can just be... I do not see how practically nowadays that works and I would hate for any confusion around that hold what is an incredibly important amendment and is way overdue.

16:35

Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, when I was a vicar in the early '80s five young women came to see me. And for had been abused by their fathers. And the youngest was eight at the time it happened. Working with them, listening to them, finding help that will restore really who they truly were was a very long journey. I am glad to say that all of them have now taken on professional jobs that you did not think possible.

One of them has had the courage to report her father and is now doing a sentence, he is now doing a sentence, albeit a very long one. And working with those young women I come originally from Uganda. I never imagined that a father could abuse and nature old girl. -- An eight-year-old girl. I just thought this was outrageous but I have listened and we had to find a way of helping them. Families, friends, most of the abuse of young children happens in the homes.

We need to work very hard so the message is clear. Reminded again those wonderful word by The Lord Bishop. I heard him speak in the inquiry into the murders. One of the wonderful phrases he had in that report which has sustained me and my work for people being abused, he said we will never succeed in preventing child sexual abuse but we can make it very difficult for the abusers to do it. And therefore mandatory reporting for me is quite unimportant like an important reality.

When I appeared before IICSA I was asked the question and I said, mandatory reporting must actually happen because that is the only way we are going to make it difficult for those who want to carry out their heinous crimes. They will know that it will not remain hidden. But because it is in the homes, most of it, at least in my experience, we have got to find a message that actually can remind that it may be behind closed doors in an apparently loving home where people's lives have actually been blighted.

So I want to support amendment 66. Maybe all really in the noble Baroness, the Minister at least say something that can capture the imagination of this nation. Don't just look out in the big organisations but what actually happens in the home. happens in the home.

16:39

Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I give my thanks to Baroness Grey-Thompson for putting this amendment down. We can talk in Parliamentary language but it is when you hear an example that Baroness Benjamin told us, you suddenly realise or you don't suddenly realise but you know the appalling effects child abuse has on children. And young people. And they often carried out for the rest of their lives and they carry it in their lives and they carry it in silence. -- They often carry it for the rest of their lives and they carry it in silence.

This is about changing the culture where the responsibility is not to pretend you are telling tales or all this is a friend of mine and I should not say this, if you suspect child abuse is happening you have to do some thing about it. I just wonder, recently of course we have heard all of the sort of problems of the Church of England that they have faced. We have heard various clergy say well I did not think it was that important, already do so and so.

If we had this in law than those prominent clergy would have had a responsibility in law to speak out. And those abuses over many decades to young people not at school but in various holiday camps I understand would not have taken place. We think by saying we have ticked the box, we have CBR checks and -- CRB checks on the data barring service that is all sorted in schools. It is not. When we come to the school's part of this particular bill and we look at own regulated schools, particularly I have to say religious unregistered schools there are examples which have come to light of children who have been abused in unregistered settings.

Again I do not think that has really happened and I better not blow the whistle on this, that is the case. Various members in this House know that. I think this is really important as an amendment. I do not care which bill it comes in but we really need to make sure it passes into law.

16:41

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, the noble Baroness Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley made a predictably powerful case for the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse and in particular highlighted the terrible scale, impact and extent of it. I do not disagree with them and they say the system is currently failing the victims and my noble friend, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea gave very powerful examples from the world of sport. In my experience this is one of the most difficult areas both to legislate on and to implement that legislation.

And implement that legislation effectively. We know from a range of terrible cases in this area including of course the rape gangs scandals of recent years, even when a disclosure is made whether by a child or even when a professional makes a disclosure directly with the police or the local authority, those disclosures are not always listened to. We also know from the international research that mandatory reporting has led to enormous increases in recorded incidents and perhaps that is a very important contributor to the culture change which the noble Lord, Lord Storey rightly identifies is so badly needed.

There is Phil -- there is still of course an enormous gap between recorded incidents and the prosecution of the offenders concerned. If I have concerns about the amendment it would be in a couple of areas. One is on the impact of weather are volunteers who play -- where there are volunteers who play an important role and how that might affect their willingness to take on voluntary and unpaid activity. But perhaps the most important one really is to think through the issues where there are suspicions rather than disclosures.

As we have heard the majority of child sexual abuse happens within families. Handling that in practice with the implication of children being taken into care while allegations are made against a parent or a stepparent or a sibling or step sibling, I am not saying in the case that abuse is happened that is not important to do but I think we need to think through and the government needs to think through very carefully the implications of that and the disruption and fracturing of important fracturing of important relationships in children's lives.

I note the government plans to introduce mandatory reporting where there is a disclosure. In the crime -- in the Crime and Policing Bill. Where abuse has been observed. And I have some sympathy with that as a starting point. I hope very much we can keep a lens on this terrible issue and have the greatest respect for my noble friend, Lord Moynihan who says he has been working with Baroness Grey-Thompson for over 20 years. I have the greatest respect for the tenacity and patience on such a difficult subject.

I was planning to say a little more about amendment 69 A but my noble friend decided to do. The amendment understandably focuses on cases where there has been a conviction but we do know this is a very complicated area and there are various things about my noble friend's amendment which make me uneasy. Firstly there are vastly more cases, perhaps particularly in the area of child sexual abuse but certainly in the area of domestic abuse which I know personally the most about.

Where there will be no conviction. I would worry such an amendment could bring a focus on a subset of cases which ironically might not be the most worrying in Secondly, it will not always be clear whether the conviction is related. So in the case of domestic abuse, stalking related offences might be handled under the misuse of communications legislation and therefore not nice to is a domestic abuse offence. And thirdly we know in cases where there is bidirectional violence, there is a risk of the primary carer receiving a conviction, but the secondary carer does not.

So I have a great deal of sympathy of this particularly in relation to direct child abuse and child sexual abuse, but maybe the noble Baroness the Minister can clarify how many cases where there is a child sexual abuse case that parental contact is needed. I would argue, but there are greater experts in The Chamber than I stop we need our judges and others to be able to balance the considerations that affect the safety of the child.

I worry that if we start managing specific situations via primary legislation, we may constrain their discretion, which we need to be working so well. The focus on the welfare of the child being paramount is crystal- clear and the family court is and needs to stay focused on that. Finally, in relation to amendment 107B, and grateful to the noble Lord. I confess I didn't completely understand his amendment from the marshalled list. I think he is right that we must set high expectations for local authorities and have consistency in terms of the legal rights of children in care.

rights of children in care.

16:48

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, this group of amendments has enabled us to, I think, here a consensus in this House about both the enormously difficult, tragic and appalling instances that they have been of child sexual abuse over the years, and also a consensus that it is no longer good enough for us to not take important action in order to protect children in the most appalling circumstances. That is why this government is committed to protecting children from harm, including from the horrors of sexual abuse, trafficking and exploitation.

Measures included in this bill and the significant programme of reform already under way will help protect children at risk of abuse and stop vulnerable children falling the cracks in services. And in rising to speak to the detail of the amendments, turning first to amendments, turning first to amendment 66, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Grey-Thompson, as we have heard, seeks to insert a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse into the Children Act 2004. I can wholly understand why noble Lord is have taken the opportunity today to raise this issue.

As the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley said, we should take every opportunity to raise this issue, and to emphasise the determination of this House and in fact this government to take action. We have also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan about specific issues Moynihan about specific issues relating to sport, and alongside the noble lady Baroness Lady Grey- Thompson, we've heard from Baroness Finlay, Lord Meston, the noble and learned lady Baroness Butler-Sloss and the noble Lord Lord shard about their experience.

And rightful pressure on the government to make progress. But noble Lords also new part of what I was going to say in response to this. The government is already taking forward a new mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse for individuals in England and undertaking regulated activity with children and crucially, a new criminal offence of obstructing an individual from making a report under that duty. This duty is included in the crime and policing Bill, which is currently in the other place.

I think therefore that that is the most appropriate route to dictate the detail of mandatory reporting duty, but I have no doubt that colleagues in the other place and in fact those of my noble friend who will be responsible for taking this piece of legislation through this House will have listened carefully to the specific points and challenges raised by noble Lords during the foot of the debate on during the foot of the debate on this group of amendments in this amendment 66 in particular.

I will draw this debate to their attention as well because whilst we might disagree over the details, we can agree that any new duty must ensure that the words of children seeking help must be heard and apply the strongest possible measures to anyone who seeks to cover up abuse of this kind. I will just respond to a couple of points however that were made about the mandatory duty. On the point about criminal sanctions, I think there may well be differences on this particular point.

That is partly because of the sensitive and careful balance, which I think the noble Lady Baroness Barran identified. The government has not attached criminal sanctions in the crime and policing Bill to a failure to report. There will be criminal sanctions for anyone who obstructs an individual for -- making a report. Millions of people in England take part in regulated activity with children and people. Many are teachers and others, but many are volunteers. Those volunteers are the life of opportunities on offer to our young people.

They should comply with the duty, but we don't think it will be proportionate to create a criminal sanction for failure to comply with the duty. That could create a chilling effect where people are reluctant to volunteer or enter certain professions because they fear being criminalised for making a mistake. I know this is a delicate and difficult area and I am sure it will be subject to further debate on the crime and policing Bill comes to this House, but the purpose of mandatory reporting has to be to improve the protection of.

The aim is to create, as the noble Lord Lord Storey said, supporting knowledge and openness when dealing with child sexual abuse. We must be careful in working through the details of how this mandatory duty works that we do not do the opposite to that. So mandatory reporting then will create a culture of openness and honesty, empower professionals and in tears to take prompt, decisive action to report sexual abuse and demonstrate to young people that if they come forward they will be heard.

Turning to amendment 60 9A, tabled by Lord Lucas, and I thank him given the amount of work we have to get through on this bill for his brief but effective introduction of his amendments. I do recognise the importance of safeguarding children from the risk posed by parents convicted of serious offences, including those of child sexual abuse and domestic abuse. Ensuring their well-being must remain at the heart of our family justice system. This amendment seeks to allow the High Court to curtail or remove parental contact where a parent has been convicted of child sexual abuse, sexual abuse or domestic abuse, sexual abuse or domestic abuse.

Statistics will also need to be published on how many times they have had parental contact curtailed. The new provision we don't believe is required because existing legislation serves to protect children from the harms associated with abusive parents. This is undoubtedly an issue where the courts should consider the potential courts should consider the potential damage that could happen to a child through contact with people in the sorts of circumstances that this amendment references. Section 1 of the children's act 1989 already states that the child's welfare must states that the child's welfare must be the courts paramount concern.

The welfare checklist must be taken into account when the court continues its -- when the court considers the contact with a parent. It follows that when determining whether parental contact with the child as appropriate, legislation already gives the court the powers set out in the first subsection of this amendment. The court must already consider any potential risk or harm to the child. This includes the very serious risks associated with domestic abuse, child abuse and sexual abuse.

The noble Lord's amendment would also require the High Court to publish data on the number of times parental contact is curtailed or removed. I have two SATA noble Lord is whilst I can understand the call for accountability, in fact it would not be possible for the Ministry of just to collect this information without consulting each individual judgement. Many of these judgements also will be made in the family court. It will be very difficult therefore to go through each individual judgement order to collect the information that the amendment asks for.

This is not to undermine the significance of the point being made by the amendment, but I hope the noble Lord will see that there is already within the law and in fact within the practice of the Lords to ensure that this protection is available for protection is available for children. Turning to amendment 107B where the amendment seeks to enable courts to prohibit or enforce specific local authority action where children in their care are experiencing or at risk of significant harm.

I wholly share my noble friend's objective here. We recognise the necessity for children and young people to be protected from harm, to have their voices heard, to challenge aspects of their care, especially when they have care, especially when they have concerns about their safety. But if a child is at risk of harm, they need swift responsive action from the professionals around them, not a court process to navigate. The system of children's social is purposefully designed to protect and safeguard children and there are numerous existing mechanisms through which any concerns can be escalated.

That does not mean that there is not room for improvement here, as I will outline, but for example, there are many professionals that surround children in care, each with a specific duty to promote the child's best interest. People such as social workers and advocates. In children's homes they are required to report serious allegations to Ofsted who will investigate and where necessary have power to take the appropriate action. Also legal routes to challenge local authority actions where there are serious concerns of misconduct.

We are of course aware of cases where children have been harmed in care which is completely unacceptable and we know that strong trusted relationship surrounding the child are key to keeping children safe, which is why we are already as I say taking further action. Firstly to improve advocacy for children in care by publishing new national standards and statutory guidance for advocacy later this year. Secondly, introducing new post-qualifying standards for social workers that clearly set up and need to be agile and timely in adapting plans and intervening to keep children safe.

We are creating a new local authority designated Officer handbook to improve consistency and information sharing across local authority boundaries. We are improving qualifications, standards and access to training. In children's homes to ensure children are receiving the high quality of care they need. And we are in dialogue with the sector including children and young people to consider how effectively professionals around the child work My noble friend reference this in the note of the IICSA recommendation and he will note the government published an updated April 2025 on its work to tackle child sexual abuse and within that data -- within that update it confirms the government will introduce the new advocacy standards for children and young people and provide standards for advocacy for children and in 2025.

Including new standards on the provision in specialist noninstructional advocacy for children with complex needs and learning disabilities and we also as I have already reiterated, we also remain committed to reviewing the roles and professions surrounding the child to ensure they are creating that seamless network to protect the child. The introduction of new Court powers proposed by this amendment risks actually creating uncertainty around the role of the local authority. When what we should be ensuring is the systems and processes in place immediately around the child, available on a day-to-day basis are as robust and effective as intended.

Yes. effective as intended. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for the point she has made. She reference the update that came out in April. That does not go came out in April. That does not go far enough with recommendation six of IICSA because that talks about of IICSA because that talks about access to courts. It seems to me there is an inconsistency in what there is an inconsistency in what the Home Secretary said in January the Home Secretary said in January about involving the full 20 recommendations if the update is as I understand my noble friend correctly, as far as the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

correctly, as far as the government is prepared to go in this aspect of it at this stage? In relation to recommendation six, a very big consultation with six, a very big consultation with the sector and the objective of the government is to deliver actually on the intention of the recommendation. But recognising and this is something I think that professionals have also raised, for the reasons I have also raised, for the reasons I have outlined a new Court, a new legal route here not only is not necessary but risks making children's ability to be able to have their voice heard and the professionals around them to be supporting them less likely to happen.

So it is the government's view this is a more effective way of delivering the intentions behind recommendations. And the recommendation six. Because between existing Safeguarding mechanisms and planned improvements this government sets clear expectation children are safe, their voices are heard and professionals are working together to take immediate action in response to issues or concerns. I thank noble Lords for the range of issues that have been raised during the course of this group of amendments. I hope I have been able to provide some assurances and noble Lords will feel content to withdraw their amendments will stop

17:04

Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I thank the noble lady, the Minister for her response. It was perhaps not unexpected. I would also like to thank all of those who spoke in the debate this afternoon. I am really pleased there is consensus on mandatory reporting and perhaps the wording requires a little bit more work. I do understand why His Majesty government thinks another vehicle might be more appropriate. Perhaps this is a useful rehearsal for that future debate. My Lords, I do not think what the government is currently proposing goes far enough.

She is absolute right in terms of we need to use every opportunity we can to discuss protection of children. I would like to thank the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley for the decades of work she has spent in this area. She has had a couple of times a Private Members Bill and I am following in her footsteps. She raised the absolutely abhorrent case of Jimmy Savile. He was given complete unfettered access to vulnerable people. Based on fundraising he did.

As a child I spent a lot of time in Stoke Mandeville and other sports events and in places where he turned up at. I remember one event I was probably about 12 years old and he arrived to a great fanfare. A lot of people said Jimmy is here, Jimmy is here. You have to go and see him. I was not particularly keen to do that. And there was one adult who said to me very quietly, no you do not need to go.

So I asked why is everyone saying we have to go and see Jimmy? And she said no you can just hear you do not need to go. I did not think anything of it, I did not tell anyone, I was chatting with my friends and I thought she probably thought chatting with my friends was more important than going to see him. But that was one adult who had a suspicion he was uncomfortable about behaviour but there was nothing I could raise, nobody I could complain to.

Even now I was just told you do not need to go. It just sort of reminds me of how easy it is for adults in positions of power and positions of trust to groom and coax and lead to abuse. And how adults have an amazing position where they can get into really comfortable situations. But also adults have incredibly positive relationships with children. And I note words of the noble Lady, Baroness Barran and recognise her extensive work in volunteering.

I absolutely do not want this amendment in any way to stop people from volunteering or stop people from volunteering or feeling unable to feel there is a -- there is undue pressure on them. I wonder if there is a form of words or whether it is the right training or the right regulations around it, that would enable people to feel more comfort because again a lot of these youth organisations and other organisations have very positive relationships. Relationships with young people. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.

We have worked together for a long time and duty of care. I would like to say my idea for an ombudsman that was in my 2017 government report and duty of care was actually borrowed from him. And the noble Lady Baroness Hoey from the early '90s. I think we both agree sport at its best is absolutely amazing. It can give people a very positive life. I have a huge benefit from my time in sport. But whether it is teachers or coaches, those who want to access children, live on their reputation.

I have heard a number of times but they are a good coach, they are good at their job. And they are able to slip through the net sort of. I would also like to pay tribute to the survivors of the football abuse who I met with several times over the years. A number of them came into Parliament about 18 months ago. To talk about their experience and how it had just been ignored by so many people around them. Because there was not any legislation in place.

And again they fell behind, but they -- they fell behind while they are a good coach. They hindered their dreams of wanting to play professional. Which leads me onto the words of the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley, and my noble friend Baroness Finlay. We have to be better of defining what a healthy relationship is. And educate children of an appropriate age about that. I think in a sporting context there is far more that we can do in terms of doing that on that pathway.

And as they graduate through to performance levels. My noble friends, Lord Meston, Baroness Butler-Sloss and Lord Bichard very sadly have extensive experience of these issues. I think we should listen to them. Like my noble friend, Lord Bushra die argued against watering down of DBS checks. Because it would just allow those who wanted access to children to be who wanted access to children to be able to have that too easily. I am very reassured by some of the statements made about sharing information between LED owes but again I do not think it goes far enough.

Very briefly my Lords, the noble Lord Lucas, I would like to support his amendment if he comes back to another time with it. And the same for Lord Watson of Invergowrie. This report, the IICSA report took seven years and I believe strongly all recommendations need to be implemented. It is not just about the intention of the recommendations but they should be implemented in full. With that in mind and recognising there is promise more work I need to do on drafting and have further discussions on this amendment, at this time I beggarly to withdraw.

--

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Beg leave to withdraw. Amendment by leave withdrawn.

17:10

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment by leave withdrawn. Return to amendment 67. Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Finlay. My Lords, the Long title of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the Long title of a bill starts by stating it is to make provision about the safeguarding and welfare of children. The bills focus welfare of children. The bills focus on well-being will be undermined if we allowed it to generate cycles of violence toward children, to remain perpetuated. This amendment 67 at perpetuated. This amendment 67 at its consequential -- and its consequential 505 closes a loophole in the safeguarding provision for children. A loophole that has been closed in Scotland since 2019 and in Wales in 2020.

But not yet in England or Northern Ireland. Children need the same protection from all -- from assault as adults but lack protection. Because the Lords Amendment 20 years ago left loophole. When children are hit the assaulting adult can claim it is reasonable chastisement. There is no legal definition of what is reasonable, it depends on the circumstance. The line between lawful punishment and unlawful abuse is open to interpretation. Professor Andrew Roland, child protection Officer of the Royal College of Paediatrics and child pointed out he is regularly faced with difficult situations where it is alleged physical punishment has been used against a child.

Last year's practice review in Worcestershire into nine-year-old Alfie's death flagged up the difficulty in and I quote, " Distinguishing between what is lawful and proportional and what is harmful and abusive". Preceding year the review into the death of the child AK concluded current law is confusing. These risks are reiterated in safeguarding practice reviews, particularly as bruisers are more difficult to see in skin of colour. Or when the child is extensively covered by clothing of extensively covered by clothing of course.

The 2018 report on safeguarding children in black and ethnic minority communities in London and Manchester found the complexity and ambiguity in England leaves many families unclear on the law, particularly those who have recently arrived in the UK. The UN can on the rights of the child to which the UK has signed up commits and states to protect children from all forms of physical violence including Corporal punishment within the family. The UN committee has expressly stated physical punishment is a violation of a child's right to is a violation of a child's right to protection.

And should be banned. 68 countries around the world now prohibit physical punishment and have shown a drastic reduction in the number of children being subjected to severe Corporal punishment. There is clear evidence physical punishment has no positive outcomes for children. As reported in the Lancet 2021. The review of 69 studies found that physical punishment consistently predicts increases in child behaviour problems, mental health issues and in escalating physical abuse over time. Increasing the need for child protection for more severe violence.

The behaviour of control by hitting becomes externalised with ever worsening behaviour. These associations between physical punishment and detrimental outcomes are robust across child and parent characteristics. The more children are hit, the worse the child behaviour over time hitting children hurts on the outside and on the inside. It damages an emotional inside. It damages an emotional element. Eight in 10 child runaways site family violence as a cause as one child said I was sick of my dad and his girlfriend hitting me.

The recent report last year from the Royal College of Paediatrics and child health shows those who experience physical assaults in the name of punishment are 2.5 times more likely to experience mental health problems and twice as likely to go on to experience significant injury and damage through more serious forms of physical abuse. Children subject to being hit in the name of discipline are more likely to bully others and to repeat the cycle of violence over and over again once they become adults.

The Welsh Children's Commissioner with all four Children's Commissioner supports the extending people protection for all children in the UK for this amendment does not seek to prosecute parents. In Wales and Scotland there has been no evidence of a significant increase in prosecutions following this change. It is a bout behaviour and culture It is a bout behaviour and culture My Lords, if I hit one of you, would rightly accuse me of assault. Yet England allows adults to hit children who are much smaller than them with much more vulnerable bodies and much more vulnerable emotional make-up.

It is a way of venting their anger when they the adult cannot coat. In Wales removing the common law offence is reasonable punishment of battery to a child was implemented with a public education plan. The police can decide whether it is in the public interest to take a case forward and decide the most appropriate disposal. They can refer for a rehabilitative alternative, allowing preventing support to encourage positive parenting. The monitoring report will be published later this year, but to quote the cheap with in the Senate when it was the third anniversary she said, it is the third anniversary of this landmark legislation and is part of life.

It is accepted, it is embedded. Similarly five years experience in New Zealand is that such laws serve an educational rather than a punitive function, shifting attitudes to more beneficial behaviour change. My Lords, this proposal has the support of over 25 sector organisations, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, NSPCC, a dose, the children commissioner for and the British Association for social. It is time to protect children from assault and battery. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. After clause 4 insert the following new clause in

17:17

Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)

- -

4 insert the following new clause in the words as printed in the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to speak to amendment 173 in my name and thank my noble friend Baroness Walmsley my noble friend Baroness Walmsley for adding her name. Before I talk to my amendment I just want to say that I am extremely supportive of amendment 67 and 505 which has bin amendment 67 and 505 which has bin Musaid powerfully by Baroness Musaid powerfully by Baroness Finlay. My amendment seeks to publish a national neglect strategy for a sustained focus on neglect. In for a sustained focus on neglect.

In my view for far too long neglect has been absent or underplayed from our conversations about supporting children and families. I think it is children and families. I think it is critical that it can play a role in reducing the number of children in care, which is going to be so central to many of our discussions in this part of the bill. Yet the scale of neglect is significant and it impact on children far-reaching. Neglect is the most common form of mulch reported as the initial category of abuse on child protection plans and was also the top main reason for adults reaching out last year to the NSPCC helpline, and indeed I know this week new research from the NSPCC underlining this point is going to be published.

Neglect has some of the most profound, negative long-term effects on child behaviour, educational achievement, emotional well-being and physical development. It impacts every area of a child life and unaddressed prevents children developing their full potential and puts them at serious risk of harm. My Lords that in my view is the very antithesis of well-being, which is what part one of this bill is all about. Yet unlike other forms of maltreatment there is no national strategy for neglect and existing practice guidance really refers to neglect specific approaches and models.

The NSPCC has reported that professionals have concerns about the lack of a national focus on neglect and how it has left many children without the right support at a time when family pressures are at an all-time high. So requiring the government to prepare and publish a national neglect strategy, as my amendment would, would make sure that we provide greater protections to children and families, better understand common drivers for neglect such as poverty and housing, identify certain tools and improve information sharing across agencies.

Taken together that package I think could be very powerful. While neglect is prevalent in child referrals and assessments, a lack of action being taken to address it has become the norm. It's so commonplace that it can be easy for professionals to either stop noticing it all to become desensitised to its potential severity. Neglect is a complex harm I think which requires a great deal of professional skill to actually understand and assess its impact, but I know that many professionals feel they are simply underprepared and under resourced to do so.

There are limited specialised professionals or interventions for them to draw on. Research last year found that 83% of professionals in healthcare, the police, children social and education believe there was not enough service available to provide support for children experiencing neglect. So enabling parents to reach out for support in a non-stigmatising way and for professionals to identify neglect early and ensuring there are sufficient resources are all vital to reducing the devastating impact it can have on children. And this is critical, reducing the number of children going into care, which is currently at an all-time high.

So with neglecting such a prominent category of abuse and often the earliest sign of mistreatment, surely it should form the cornerstone of any intervention, which I think we are all agreed is so important. So if we ask was about supporting families and helping children as early as possible as I know we are, preventing and tackling neglect must become a central plank of our policy response and the need for a national neglect strategy I think needs to be given very careful consideration.

I hope it is possible to do so during the passage of this bill and I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's response. hearing the Minister's response.

17:22

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

- -

I rise to add my name to amendment 67, and so ably introduced by the noble Baroness. For me it's very much a question of children's right. As Lady Finlay said, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 19 makes clear that children must be free from violence and governments must do all they can to protect them from violence, using all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures. This amendment would ensure that the whole of the UK and not just Scotland and Wales is complying with the UN can.

Moreover, if we are taking children's well-being seriously, we cannot continue to allow them to be subjected to physical assault. The only group, as the noble Baroness said, who are not legally protected from it. Ministers say they are open-minded, they want to see the review of evidence from Wales from a range of voices, but as already noted, we have ample evidence from numerous countries. Both of the negative impact on children's well- being of physical punishment and the positive impact of its prohibition in terms of it having a desired effect of reducing the use of physical punishment.

If she has not seen it, I refer my noble friend the Minister to a recent article in children in new services review which brings together much of that As already noted the evidence is sufficient for all the Children's Commissioner's, including from Wales, to be calling for reform. Indeed they call the current law outdated and morally repugnant. They reject the argument that it would lead to the criminalisation of parents. Polling shows consistent support amongst the general public for reform and new polling a majority among safeguarding professionals in support of change.

Over half of social workers and teachers said the current law makes their work of safeguarding children more difficult. My Lords, I fear the waiting for Wales argument is becoming a legislative form of waiting for Godot. How long will we have to wait for another bill which will provide such a perfect opportunity for reform? The Children's Commissioner's and a range of Health and Social Care organisations are calling for urgent action now. Surely we should be listening to them and stop prevaricating.

17:25

Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)

- -

17:36

Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)

- -

lot. I will never use that word myself because I think it very much trivialises what we mean. We are talking about a hit. We are talking about physical assault on a child. The reasonable chastisement defence is only ever likely to be used in a Court of law and it has been. As we I think now -- as we I think no, every battery of a child starts with a hit but not every hit of a child leads to battery.

Now one recent case illustrates the point. On the first day of the trial of the killers of Sara Sharif in 2024 the killers of Sara Sharif in 2024 the prosecutor told juries Sharif called police having fled from Pakistan after Sara's death. He used what may be classed as a peculiar expression. He said I legally punished her and she died. I wonder where he got that phrase? I can tell you. It appears in section 58 of the Children Act 2004.

And for the last 20 years I and others have tried to delete it. The presence of those words in the law send the message it can be lawful to beat a little child. Back in 2002 the Adoption and Children Act acknowledged the damage done to Act acknowledged the damage done to children were -- was from witnessing violence in the home. As long as reasonable chastisement remains, babies and children who witness violence have greater legal protection than those who are directly assaulted.

Emlyn Jones said Sharif also told the police I beat her up, it was not my intention to kill her but I beat her up too much. An intention to kill is not necessary. An intention to cause serious harm is sufficient for a serious harm is sufficient for a murder conviction if death in shoes. -- Ensues. The prosecutor said a note in Sharif's handwriting was found next to his daughters body which said, I swear to God my intention was not to kill her.

But I lost it. Sara Sharif had more than 70 injuries to her ribs. To her shoulders, fingers, spine and brain. And a burn from a domestic iron to her buttock. She had numerous bruises, scold marks from hot water, restrained injuries and human bite marks. These injuries did not occur on one occasion when her father lost it. These sorts of cases are not new. When Mariah Caldwell died in 1973 she had black eyes, fractured ribs and brain damage.

This was inflicted by her mother and stepfather William cattle. Cattle was convicted of Mariah's murder in April 1973 the charge was later reduced to manslaughter. Officials repeated the mantra, it must never happen again. But it has. And it does. Victoria Climbie who died on 25 February 2,000 was rushed to hospital suffering from hypothermia, weighing just three stone and £10. And suffering 128 injuries. Arguably one of the most notorious child deaths, Peter Connelly known in the media as Baby P died in London on 3 August 2007.

Aged just 17 months. After suffering more than 50 injuries. He had been seen six times by healthcare professionals and social workers. On 3 March 2012 four-year-old Daniel Parker died after being severely battered. By his mother and her partner. Daniel had suffered 22 injuries including 10 to his head. Arthur Hughes was murdered after months of abuse in 2020. Arthur H6 was tortured to death by his father Thomas Hughes. And stepmother. After months of horrific abuse he was starved and poisoned with large quantities of salt.

When he died his skeletal body was covered with 130 bruises. He suffered 93 different areas of injury. On 22 September 2020 Savannah Brockville caused baby star Hobson catastrophic injuries after inflicting months of brutal abuse alongside her mother. Medics said her injuries were usually only seen in car crash victims. Boris Johnson vowed action would be taken to stop such shocking and heartbreaking tragedies in future but it has not been done. There have been many other fatal cases that hit the headlines and hundreds of beaten children who did not die but who were marked for life by their experience.

Briefings we have received by the Royal College of Paediatrics and child health have made it clear hitting children is not harmless. It is harmful. Yes there were serious shortcomings in the actions or inactions of various public services in the cases I have just outlined. But the social workers and police did not kill these children. Their parents and carers did. And they did it because they thought they could get away with it. And every terrible beating started with a single hit.

A single physical assault. The sort of thing that recently lost a former MP his seat and his liberty. The reason why these children died was because they did not have the voice or the ability to stop it. And because they were not sufficiently protected by the law. If the early stages of anyone of these cases like any one of these cases had been perpetrated on an adult the attacker would have been imprisoned long before the pattern of assault became fatal.

The fact is children do not have equal protection against assault. Under the law. Because of the excuse expressed in those chilling words, reasonable punishment. These assaults are not reasonable by any measure. And they are not punishment either. No child was ever naughty enough to deserve such abuse. It is not punishment, it is an expression of the anger and hatred and frustration of the perpetrator. Leading to actions which should be classed as criminal without mitigation. These children are calling from the grave to make them so.

Let us do it at last by carrying this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 67 and 505 in the name of my noble friend Baroness Finlay. I have added my name and which she spoke so elegantly. My Lords, I am spoke so elegantly. My Lords, I am afraid I am unable to comment on the speech of Lord Jackson of Peterborough because my cerebral Peterborough because my cerebral cortex received so many messages of complaints that it shut down quite complaints that it shut down quite early on.

My Lords, I have lived on this planet for 60 years, I have this planet for 60 years, I have been a parent for 20 years, a cricket coach for 15 years, kinship cricket coach for 15 years, kinship carer and teacher for 10 years. I kinship carer for over one year and I have never hit, slapped or smacked I have never hit, slapped or smacked anybody except one unfortunate time anybody except one unfortunate time in a game when the opposition scrum-half started. It has been mentioned this is the Children's Wellbeing Bill.

The bill is quietly going on its way without mentioning the fundamental problem of well- being. Legalised violence against children. For that is what we are talking about. Not a quick clip round the ear, not a short sharp shock that teaches them right or wrong. Not something that was done to us and we are no worse for it. My Lords, we are talking about grooming our children to believe violence is acceptable by the powerful against the week. For their own good. That is not an exceptional -- that is not an acceptable message.

I believe the results from Wales and Scotland are showing no major increase in any prosecutions and I suspect most people it will not be a surprise that hitting a child is a bad idea. So a change in the law would only remove the defence for those who really aim to harm children. The rule of thumb is an urban myth. It has never been acceptable to hit women. Why do we still allow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am disappointed to be speaking again. The first time was 21 years

17:45

Lord Hampton (Crossbench)

- -

again. The first time was 21 years ago in support of Amendment 67, this time in the names of Baroness Walmsley, Baroness Lister and the noble Lord. I will simply emphasise

17:46

Baroness Whitaker (Labour)

- -

again that since 2004 when I first spoke, very many more countries have spoke, very many more countries have come to the conclusion that children are of equal worth two adults. View are of equal worth two adults. View it seems not shared by the noble it seems not shared by the noble Lord Lord Jackson of Peterborough. And it is even clearer that the legacy of physical punishment of children is more violence in society children is more violence in society and worse mental health.

As the noble Baroness Lady Finlay said, noble Baroness Lady Finlay said, there is no definition of this type there is no definition of this type of punishment. Surely it is time to agree that physical punishment is agree that physical punishment is the reverse of reasonable punishment the reverse of reasonable punishment and get it out of our understanding.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendment and thank my noble friend for putting this forward. This is not a new debate and I call for this change in law many years ago. Including when I was Children's Commissioner for England. And I have Commissioner for England. And I have not changed my view. As we have

17:47

Baroness Longfield (Labour)

- -

heard Sweden outlawed smacking in 1979. The move in Scotland, in Wales and in Ireland over very recent years has all been about closing the loophole because they all recognise the defence of reasonable chastisement is outdated and wrong. I do believe it is time for England to follow suit. Making sure that children have equal protection from adults. I do think that we have moved on considerably in this country over recent years on the issue and that views have changed.

It is no longer a particularly contentious issue I don't think. Most parents no longer believe that hitting children is the right way to improve behaviour, or to discipline children. Much better to support and help parents to support their children with positive behaviour. So we should not see this as either a complex or controversial issue or debate. It is not the nanny state. Or the government interfering in how parents discipline their children. Children should be provided with the same rights as adults, not to be victims of assault.

victims of assault.

17:48

Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I rise to support amendment 173. The passionate speech on child neglect by my noble friend Baroness Tyler. My Lords, neglect can affect a child right through into adult hood and we need to address this by giving support and protection to protect our children. My Lords, I also rise to speak in support of Amendment 67 in the name of Baroness Finlay, who spoke so powerfully. And in the name of other noble Lord's, and in doing so I declare my interests as Vice President of Barnardos.

As we have heard, Nardo's, NSPCC and the Royal college paediatrics and Child health, together with over 20 organisations, including UNICEF, have called for a including UNICEF, have called for a complete ban on smacking. Almost 70 countries have banned smacking, leaving no ambiguity in the law that it is never OK to reasonably punish a child. It is time to join those countries and end physical punishment against children. My Lords, there is no evidence that smacking is effective or prevents bad behaviour, or teaches positive behaviour.

But it can lead to mental health issues in later life and also develop a pattern of behaviour of a child who may use violence to solve problems or get what they want, or even become bullies. My Lords, smacking can damage parent-child relationships and can lead to resentment and fear rather than respect. In fact, I have spoken to so many adults who tell me how much they hate their father because of the physical violence they suffered as a child.

And it is not only fathers who they hate, but mothers, too, you have in did violence on their children. I believe it is much better to talk a problem through with a child. Reason with a child through role-play and set good behavioural examples. The earlier the starts, the better it is long- term for a happy childhood experience. So I heartedly support this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendments moved by my noble friend Baroness

17:51

Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)

- -

moved by my noble friend Baroness Fitly in Germany. When a lobbyist made relating to something that affects children, for example, they sometimes insert something in their constitution. I note that in 2,000 when the parental right to smack was rescinded in Germany and new phrase was introduced into the German constitution which reads as follows. Children have a right to an upbringing free of violence. Corporal punishment, emotional harm and other humiliating measures are not permissible. Well, similar steps have been taken in I think actually 75 countries to date smacking is not permitted.

Many of those countries are in Europe, almost the whole of Europe forbid smacking. We stand out as an exception in the map of Europe where it is illustrated. I believe that just as Germany and Spain and Norway and Sweden and Finland and Denmark are not worst places in anyway whatsoever as a result of running smacking, the same will be -- it will be the same in England when it follows Wales and Scotland. Section 58 of the children's act 2004 is predicated by opposition to smacking, not by encouragement of smacking.

As it has already been said, it was banned in schools, but it has been allowed to continue in certain restricted circumstances in homes. As early as 2007 the Crown Prosecution Service issued a report in which are the time it was supposed to banning smacking altogether, but observed that the defence was being used in inappropriate situations and in the wrong kinds of cases. There is absolutely no evidence that the running of smacking would have any running of smacking would have any dramatic effect on parents, who like the parents and the countries I have named, have simply been told you cannot smack your children any more.

And I believe that people are ready for that in this country. The noble Lady Baroness Walmsley in an extremely powerful speech gave several examples of cases, real cases in which the terrible violence that eventually was used against children probably started with the first smack and it is quite wrong that we should allow that sort of situation to develop. I listened with great care, my synapses were operating in overdrive whilst Lord Jackson was speaking, but I have to say to Lord Jackson I think he is now a bit historical in this argument.

I would again these points, which I treat with respect of course, prefer those to be made by other noble Lord in this House and between the noble Lord and the Royal, I think I prefer the Royal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

college. The case for Amendment 67 and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The case for Amendment 67 and the associated amendment 505 has been powerfully made. I will add a couple powerfully made. I will add a couple of additional points that perhaps my infant House and be useful. I note that more than 30 MPs in the other place supported a similar amendment and that it was driven there by the honourable member for Lowestoft in

17:55

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

honourable member for Lowestoft in the Labour Party and the Member for North Herefordshire. It is not that we are suddenly bringing this up in your Lordships House, there is strong support in the other place as well for government action here. I moved an amendment along similar lines to the defence of reasonable chastisement in the domestic abuse Bill, now act. It was when I was quite to your Lordships House and found out that many people have been working on it for decades longer than I had.

I heard from the then Conservative government that it was not the time and that we needed to wait to see what happened in Scotland and Wales. I hope we will not hear the same thing this evening, although I am not terribly optimistic. I listen closely to the noble Lord Lord Jackson and I have a couple of things to say in direct response to the noble Lord. He cited a professor. He would be best described as a controversial academic. I point noble Lord to an article this bonding to some of the work of the profession.

This was in the journal family and marriage review in 2017. There was research for a better critique. It was said the Professor misunderstood positive parenting and was misinformed about the whole academic field. I would also respond to the noble Lord Lord Jackson, I think you could feel the visible sense of shock around the House when the noble Lord suggested that smacking was harmless. That is really a think a disturbing label to use when we know from the rock that children who have experienced physical punishment are 2.6 times more likely to experience mental health issues.

And we know what a mental health crisis we have in our society. They are twice as likely to experience further forms of abuse, sometimes leading to the cases that the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley told us about so powerfully. Also the college makes an important point that children who experience physical assault are more likely to believe that violence is accepted and encouraged in society. I think this also addresses, of course we want to protect vulnerable children, but we are also addressing the question of what sort of society we are.

In that light I will point to the fact that we had a number of international comparisons, but I believe that Thailand is the most recent state to have banned physical abuse of children. I know quite a bit about Thailand. I was once technically a tie civil servant when I was there as volunteer from Australia board. I do know quite a lot about the society in Thailand. It's a great step for them to take. When you look at the context were Thailand has a rate deal offended difficulties in recent years, but it has regarded protecting its children is so important, that it has ensure there is legal protection.

It's really interesting when you look at the government announcements around this. They focus on the need this is a need to support parents as well as to ensure the protection of children. I have one final point to make, and a question to put to the noble Lady the Minister. The article NGO sets out the historical background for reasonable chastisement which arises from a criminal case in 1860, about the head teacher found guilty of the manslaughter of a 13-year-old child with learning difficulties.

The head teacher had beaten the child with a stick for more than two hours. We look at the judge's was on which this whole reasonable chastisement is based. The judge said that a parent or schoolmaster made for the purpose of correcting what is evil in the child inflict moderate and in the child inflict moderate and reasonable corporate punishment. That is the origins of what has got us to where we are today and what we are trying to change with this amendment.

I think that is a reflection on how out of date this whole current legal situation is. And finally my question to the noble Lady the Minister, this article 39 briefing. It's focused on parents, but it says the defence has not been removed from part-time educational settings, including those operated by religious organisations, children's health settings, or supported accommodation for looked after children aged 16 or 17. I wonder if the noble Lady the Minister can even now or I will understand if she wishes to write to me, set out if that briefing is correct, and there is indeed that allowance still against -- regarding violence against children in that violence against children in that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise slightly nervously to respond to this debate. nervously to respond to this debate. Which follows and covers a number of Which follows and covers a number of very important and very thorny issues. But one of the reasons I am issues. But one of the reasons I am anxious and I double checked, hence looking at my telephone, is I felt looking at my telephone, is I felt at point the House was talking about slightly different things and I slightly different things and I accept absolutely very valid point made by the noble lady, Baroness

18:01

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

Walmsley. Every terrible serious case of a child death at the hands

18:02

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

of their parents starts with a single hit. She would also accept

18:02

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

single hit. She would also accept thank goodness those are very much the exception, rather than the rule. And the overwhelming majority of And the overwhelming majority of parents who may or may not smack or use physical discipline towards the use physical discipline towards the child do not end up anywhere near those kinds of tragedies. The reason those kinds of tragedies. The reason I called out I pulled out my phone was to make sure I understood was to make sure I understood correctly.

The reasonable chastisement defence applies only in cases of common assault and battery. Since the review of section 58 and implementation of that with the Children Act 2004 in October in October 2007. At the leave of the House I will just read a couple of sentences from the advice produced by department in October 2007. Therefore any injury sustained by a child which is serious enough to warrant a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm cannot be considered to be as a result of reasonable punishment.

Section 58 and the amended charging standard mean for any injury to a child caused by a parent or person acting in low of the apprentice which amounts to more than a temporary reddening of the skin and where the injury is more than transient and trifling, the defence of reasonable punishment is not available. I am sorry, whatever it is down to Lord Hampton's brain -- it has done to Lord Hampton's brain to listen to Lord Jackson of Peterborough.

He makes a very fair point. This is clear and noble Lords and parents around the country may or may not agree. But this is absolutely clear that where chastisement amounts to more than a temporary reddening of the skin or whether injury is more than transient or trifling -- where the injury is more than transient or trifling, the defence is not available. I think it is fair and it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say and also the noble Lady, Baroness Finlay who I know has thought about this long and hard.

To understand really what difference this is going to make to the kinds of cases that have been cited in the House this afternoon. My other concern is about nonphysical chastisement. So I spent the first six years of my time and your Lordships' House never mentioning the words domestic abuse. I think I have never stopped talking about it since we started in this bill. We know that actually many abusive relationships and that applies to children as well as adults, you do not need to use physical violence.

And coercion and fear and control are incredibly harmful. Figures were cited about the harm of physical violence. I do not question those for a second. But I do wonder where the logos and if -- where the law goes and if we were to adopt the noble Ladies amendment which honestly has significant support in both houses, where do we then go? And perhaps what I would argue would be much much more toxic and damaging for a child's mental health and their physical health given what we know about the links between the two in terms of emotional abuse and psychological harm to children.

I look forward to noble Lords comments on that. And then I think we also need to address, again as ever I am surrounded by people who know much more about this than I do. But the reality is a parent is accused of smacking, hitting or slapping a child, not the kind of severe physical violence that has been cited but the violence that would fit under the defence of reasonable chastisement they may enter a slow and stressful and ultimately quite harmful criminal justice process.

During which time they may be prevented from having contact with their child, during which time the child might be removed into care. I think we need to balance the impact of the kind of chastisement as set out in section 58 with the kind of harm that process would bring. To children. In no way do I endorse violence...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope the noble Lady, Baroness Barran will excuse me for just picking up one point she has just picking up one point she has just picking up one point she has just made. I think the law as it stands is extremely confusing and unhelpful to parents. For example she talked about reddening of the skin. I do about reddening of the skin. I do not know about the noble Lady but I would not know if I was going to hit a child, what level of pressure was a child, what level of pressure was going to raise a red mark on the child's skin.

And which was not. How child's skin. And which was not. How can a parent possibly know. So the can a parent possibly know. So the law is confusing and unhelpful. It certainly is disco and a jury, as has been mentioned. -- Discriminatory as has been mentioned. You cannot tell when a bruise is arising as easily on a bruise is arising as easily on a skin of colour as on a paler skin. Those are just a couple of examples. Where the law is confusing and it needs clarifying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am not sure I entirely agree with the noble Lady because I think the spirit of the law which talks the spirit of the law which talks about trifling, where the chastisement is of a trivial nature, different parents might interpret it different parents might interpret it in a different way. But the kinds of abuse that were cited in the debate abuse that were cited in the debate we have just listened to were not trifling. There was no question they trifling.

There was no question they were trifling. So I will turn now if were trifling. So I will turn now if I may to amendment 173 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. To introduce a national strategy to address neglect of children. As we heard, the noble Lady explained and from her own professional experience she brings great expertise. On this matter. This is too common a feature into many children's lives.

-- In too many children's lives. I commend her for bringing this to the attention of the House. I would support her assertion many practitioners lack confidence in how to respond to neglect. I think the approach set out set out in the amendment is practical in terms of sharing best practice and supporting both professionals and parents to understand and address neglect. My question to the noble Lady and potentially to the Minister is whether it really is wise to try and separate neglect from abuse since we know in most cases they will coexist.

And therefore I imagine one would want practitioners to go in with their eyes open to both.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this government is putting children at the heart of putting children at the heart of everything we do. This is evident in the far-reaching child protection and safeguarding measures of this and safeguarding measures of this bill. I rise to speak to amendments bill. I rise to speak to amendments in Group 2. Tabled by the noble Lords, Baroness Finlay and Baroness Lords, Baroness Finlay and Baroness Walmsley. These are amendments which relate to the defence of reasonable punishment and what government is punishment and what government is doing about neglect.

I turn first to doing about neglect. I turn first to speak to amendment 67 and 60 -- 67 and 505 in the name of an ability and 505 in the name of an ability Baroness Finlay full on removing the defence of reasonable punishment in legislation which has been the basis of most of the contributions in this group of amendments. Let me be completely clear, this government does not condone violence or abuse of children. And there are laws in place to protect children against this.

Violence against children is not only unacceptable but it is also illegal. The Crown Prosecution Service guidance referenced during the course of this debate is in fact very clear. Only the mildest form of physical punishment can be used to justify discipline. Child protection agencies and the police treat allegations of abuse very seriously. They will investigate and take appropriate action including prosecution where there is evidence of an offence having been committed. Local authorities, police and healthcare professionals having a

18:12

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

clear duty to act immediately to protect children if they are concerned a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley The noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley identified terrible cases that we should all take note of. Much of the should all take note of. Much of the first part of this bill is aimed at addressing precisely these types of addressing precisely these types of cases. But it must be important to cases. But it must be important to emphasise children who have been abused or murdered by their parents, children in fact you have experienced abuse -- who have experienced abuse -- who have experienced abuse far short of the terrible cases the noble Lady identified, even in cases where they identified, even in cases where they claim to have been legally disciplining them would have not been covered the reasonable punishment defence.

To suggest otherwise is simply wrong. I am not convinced in those cases it really was simply a reasonable punishment that led to the terrible outcomes. I think there was something far more profound and dangerous and worthy and in fact legally required of attention than that. We have heard there are other countries who have made these changes. We are looking closely at changes in Scotland and Wales. And continue to build our evidence base. We do not want to take this important decision yet.

Wales will be publishing the report at the end of the year which looks at the impact the change in legislation has had. It is important as well that we consider all voices, including those of the child, the trusted stakeholders as well as those who might be disproportionately affected by removing the defence in making any decisions. I certainly accept some of the examples that have been used by noble Lords this afternoon. About the support there is for removing this defence.

I do not think it is quite as straightforward and completely categorically clear as some noble Lords have suggested. Most parents want what is best for their children and they should be supported. It is right we are protecting all children at risk of harm. But it is also right we do not intervene in family life when children are safe, loved and well supported. This is why I do agree with noble Lords who have identified the need to find more positive ways to parent.

I think, -- I do not think any parent or I do not think most parents who have resulted at most parents who have resulted at some point or another to smack feel that is the most positive way in which they can be parenting their children. And that is why we are rolling out national reforms to multiagency family help and child protection backed as we have said previously over £500 million of funding and importantly providing parenting support in 75 local authorities through family hubs.

Parenting is difficult. Any of us who have done it understand the challenges of choosing the right ways to promote positive development of our children. And the publication recently of our practice guide for parenting services, for parents of zero to 10-year-olds, supporting parents in doing that very difficult job I think is a positive way to help to identify for all parents facing that really difficult job how to do that in the most effective way. Turning now to the amendments 173, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley.

On neglect. I agree with her that neglect is a, both enormously difficult and important area of work for children's social care and also probably an area where professionals and others need even more support to be able to identify and take mitigating actions against it. It is vital children suffering neglect are identified and receive the support and protection they need. Protection from all forms of abuse including neglect is a key priority for this government. And underpinning this is our commitment to an enduring reduction in the number of children living in poverty in this Parliament living in poverty in this Parliament Our statutory guidance working together to safeguard children, I think Baroness Walmsley identified that perhaps they has not been sufficient guidance and support for professionals in this area.

The statutory guidance does identify the utmost importance of practitioners identifying and responding to neglect. Neglect also features in our recently published families first partnership guide for local areas, which focuses on our reforms to family help and child protection. This is the cornerstone of early into. These reforms will produce a fundamental shift in the way we respond to children and families who need support and protection, including when neglect is happening. For example, one of the family's first pathfinders has established a new family help team that is focused on welfare, benefits and debt advice to help support families where circumstances could lead to cases of neglect.

We know that other pathfinders are rolling out specific training to their family help lead practitioners and multidisciplinary teams on neglect. Additional measures in this field will help to improve child protection and safeguarding. Measures such as improving information sharing between agencies, setting up multiagency protection teams and strengthening the role of education in safeguarding will help to make children safer and will help to ensure that the clues about neglect in a child's life are more clearly brought together so that action can be taken.

We are supporting teachers, social workers and all safeguarding professionals to spot the signs of abuse or neglect more quickly, including with our national children social framework for safeguarding children and strengthening statutory guidance. We are investing in the recruitment, training and development of child and family social workers to ensure that the workforce has the capacity, skills and knowledge to identify support and protect vulnerable children, including those who are subjected to neglect. The protection of children is critical and this bill takes important steps to improve safeguarding.

We have, I hope I have assured the noble Lady Baroness Tyler about the measures that we are taking in the enormously important area of identifying and rectifying for those children who are the subject of neglect and the situations they find themselves in. I note the noble Lord to have contributed to this debate in support of Baroness Finlay's amendment will be dissatisfied with my response, but I hope they also recognise the enormous range of work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being included within this bill. I warmly welcome the remarks of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I warmly welcome the remarks of the noble Lady the Minister because it seems to me that at the heart of the debate is mischaracterisation

18:19

Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)

- -

the debate is mischaracterisation and misunderstanding of section 8 of the children's act 2004 and eight conflation of assault by beating, which should be subject to the full. The Lord. Would she agreed with me just to sum up the words of our noble colleague the Minister for State Cathy McKinnell. For the avoidance of doubt, as the law stands, any suggestion that reasonable punishment could be used as a defence to serious harm to a child or indeed as has been asserted is completely wrong and frankly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absurd. I hope I did make that clear

18:20

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope I did make that clear earlier on, but I'm very happy to reiterate. It will be wholly wrong. It would not be in line with the law It would not be in line with the law for the types of cases, and in fact those very short of those types of cases as we have heard today to be subject to the defence of reasonable punishment. That would, as the Crown Prosecution Service has been clear and as professionals have been clear, that get nowhere near to this defence.

I know that noble lords will be disappointed with the exception of the noble Lord Lord Jackson, with the response of the government, but I think he is a reasonable recognition, both of the very strong action taken when children are subject to violence with the need to learn from those who have recently changed the law. He is a sensible and appropriate way to go forward in this particular case. -- This is a sensible way to go forward.

18:21

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

- -

I am in support of those who have spoken. I'm disappointed it has led into the court end of things and I did not recognise being categorised, as was said, that I wasn't activist parent. I am not an activist parent. I am grateful to the Baronesses who have been with me on this journey have been with me on this journey for such a long time. Starting out violence and assault against children happens insidiously and children learn that this is the way to get control over other people and it escalates.

And as the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley said, parents lose it. When they have lost it is often associated with alcohol, drugs or other stresses in the home. So they do not deliberately set out to eat up the child, but it just escalates and it becomes more and more common. I am grateful to Lord Carlile for pointing out the change in the constitution in Germany towards children and certainly to the noble Lord Lord Hampton for his extensive experience with children.

His experience may remind. When I was doing paediatrics and admitting children and was told, I just smack them and they fell over stop then we investigated further we found multiple fractures, old friend shows, new fractures, all kinds of injuries that nobody had noticed before because they thought it had just been a smack, a gentle smack. I have yet to find a family who declares that they are wilfully not a loving family, but loads of families declare they are loving families and they clearly are not and they have many problems.

The emphasis on positive parenting is certainly being this government. It has been a team from the government in Wales and it is terribly important. The last thing that I would just say is having seen this first hand with one family where a father certainly smacked his children remarkably often and when he had had a drink even more often. When he was told by the others in the family you cannot do that anymore, you have got to stop, his behaviour changed, but interestingly the children's behaviour improved dramatically.

They went from being quite disturbed and disruptive to being quite well-behaved because of the positive parenting that went in place of being told why what they were doing was not good rather than just receiving a clout. That is what we are trying to do. The defence is used at the end of the road, but for somebody seeing a child who is told, oh, that was just reasonable punishment, it is very forgot to unscramble it, in the school, the GP surgery you cannot do a bone scan.

You have to take things at face value and to justify my comment on skin of colour, you do not see bruises as easily in a highly pigmented skin. That is fact. I advise you to look at a book on dermatology. In pigmented skin all kinds of things look different, and that includes injury and so-called superficial injury. So to say that you must not leave a mark does not hold water in a country where we have people from all over and a wonderful rich make-up.

At the moment I will withdraw the amendment, but I'm tempted to come back to it later on because I am not convinced really by what I have heard today from the government and I do feel much more convinced by my home country of Wales and my other home country of Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 68, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. I rise to meet amendment 68 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to meet amendment 68 and to speak to amendment 171 in my name

18:26

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

to speak to amendment 171 in my name and 169, to which I have attached my name. In the interest of time I will constrain myself to those three amendments. The first of these amendments, 68, introduces a new clause to have a requirement on local authorities to provide family support services for all children and parents in the area. This follows on from what the noble Lady the Minister were saying about their desire to provide support for parents in the last group, but that is not what has been happening.

What we have seen is a massive increase in spending on crisis intervention services. In the last decade that is up 67% and four pounds in every five pounds spent is going into late intervention. At the same time the number of children in residential care has increased by 79% and spending is up in that decade by 61%. But there is a 46% decline in early intervention services and that is what this amendment seeks to address. We know that if we have investment in early interventions that will reduce the demand for higher cost later interventions.

More families can stay together in healthy ways, families in stable and loving homes where they can grow up peacefully and fewer young children expressing, experiencing the collect, abuse and harm. Again, this amendment I am pleased to say is following on from the work of my honourable friend member for North Herefordshire. She and others who made the case in other place, this is something that what lots of people are saying about this bill would lots of amendments and attempts, there is a huge amount in this bill to deal with improving care for children who need to live with a foster family or in a residential home.

Of course that is terribly important, but to significantly improve the condition of children in this country, we need to start earlier and that is what is lacking from this bill. I'm not particularly attached to the detailed drafting here, but I like to see some movement from the government and the intention to make sure the bill covers this early into. The governing party has a proud record in this area. The Sure Start 's sector, and there has been Start 's sector, and there has been more than 300 500 -- 3,500 centres that have been started.

They have welcomed families. You don't have to be a problem or have a problem to visit, it is just something there to support you. But the reality is, and I declare my position as Vice I declare my position as Vice President of the Local Government Association, we know how cash strapped local authorities are and the services are seen as nice to have, we want to keep it, but we can't find the money type of service so they have disappeared.

So I stress that this clause introduces a requirement for local authorities to provide sufficient family support services. I acknowledge the only way local authorities will be able to do this is if there was support funding from the centre, but if we take the children's charity Barnardo's, it's welcome to parenthood programme, benefits return to pounds 44 for every one pound spent which means we could be saving significant amounts of money. I moved to amendment 171 which is in my name and again was originally placed by my honourable friend in the other place.

This is about ensuring every school has a bereavement policy. I declare a personal interest here because I was 23 years old when I was in a car crash in which my mother was killed. I was not a child, but I was a young adult and I know how utterly wrenching and destroying that experience was. And also in my group at University we had a small group of students, about 20 odd, and one was killed in a car crash and I know what a shock it was to that group of students.

We don't actually have annual statistics on the number of children and young people who are bereaved but the total bereavement network estimates that more than 46,000 children and people are bereaved of a parent each year in the UK stop that is about 127 each And if you take an example, in any And if you take an example, in any school today, about one in 29 children will have been bereaved of a parent or sibling at some point in their childhood, some 70% of primary schools have at least one recently bereaved people on the role.

There are all sorts of stats which I won't come in the interest of time, go through, but this obviously is a huge shock both to the child, to the whole school community but it also has long-term effects on GCSE scores, it has impact on what happens to people further in life, death of a parent by the age of 16 is associated with women failing to gain any sort of qualification and both men and women being unemployed by the age of 30.

I have no doubt there are some schools that manage this very well, that have really good policies in place. But very often, schools are going to find themselves suddenly experiencing this situation, then thinking, gosh, what do we do? What is amendment aims to achieve is that that is not the case, this is set in standard. I am just going to finally, very briefly, addressed the amendment in the name of the nobility, Baroness Barran, number 169. I really want to thank the noble Lady for tabling this amendment because it addresses such a relatively small number of people but such an awful situation.

When mothers are pregnant, and there is a risk, having had children taken into care before, that their baby, at birth, is going to be taken into care. And what is awful, and I'm sure the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, will set this out in more detail, so I will only be brief, but the stats from Pores, which if anyone wants to look this up, is the NGO doing tremendous work in this area, a large proportion of children entering care are from families that have previously had a child removed from care, almost half, 47%, of the newborns who are subject to care proceedings are born to mothers who had previously had a proceeding also subject to care proceedings.

This makes it very clear that it is possible to intervene, to make sure this doesn't have to happen. To improve lives, both of mothers and babies. And I note that, the figures from Worcestershire for example, they had 29 mothers who were involved in their program, and high risk for recurrent pregnancy, eight of them had met with the adopters of their children, 11 had better attendance and family time, 12 agreed to meet with their children's social worker. They were supported to address housing needs, manage finances, get skills for life.

Learning to use public transport, absolute basics that can equip people to be parents. So, my lords, I'm sure the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, and I know the noble Lord has also signed this amendment, and will say further on this, but really, this is something that is just so obvious and important, to address the needs of some of those vulnerable in our society. I beg to move.

18:34

Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Amendment proposed, after clause four, a following new clause, the words as printed in the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, any parent would tell you, that raising children is a you, that raising children is a difficult job. It is important that all families have access to the all families have access to the support they need. They need to help them to be the best parents they them to be the best parents they can, that is why early intervention matters. Yet, too often, family support services, such as family support services, such as family hubs or centres are the first thing to be closed when funding is tight.

to be closed when funding is tight. to be closed when funding is tight. Recent analysis, on behalf of Barnado's, and the other leading children's charities, show that children's charities, show that spending on centres has been reduced by £1.4 billion since 2010. Resulting in any closure of over 1,000 centres. My lords, this is why I support the mobile Baroness Bennett's amendment 68, which I have put my name to. It would place a duty on local authorities to provide sufficient family support services, including family hubs.

For all children and families. This has been recommended by Barnado's in action for children. But my Lords, these charities believe that such a change must of course be backed by sufficient funding. Otherwise, we will be letting down a whole generation of children and families, generation of children and families, and any hope for their well-being.

18:36

Lord Farmer (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I will speak to amendment 68, 60 8A, 60 8B, 169 and 171 in this group. I added my name to amendment 68, in the name of the noble Baroness Bennett. It has been my long-standing position that every community in this country needs preventive family support for social flourishing. In the same way they need GP surgeries and schools. When the welfare state was founded in the late 1940s, there was recognition that health and education would not be able to defeat disadvantage without it.

80% of children's educational attainment is determined by people level factors, like family and community and only 20% by school level factors. Healthwise, in 2015, Citizens Advice published a report called A Very General Practice, which found 90% of GPs say that patients raised personal, often family or relationship problems, during consultations. This was the top nonhealth issue they deal with, and only 31% of GPs felt able to advise adequately in this area. In 1949, one of the architects of the welfare state call for child welfare The preservation of parental responsibility and to deal with the emotional cost to children, of high post-war levels of family breakdown.

These costs persist today. Compared to those who do not experience family breakdown, children who do are at least twice as likely to be homeless as adults, in trouble with the police, or spend time in prison. And underachieve at school. Young's Child Welfare Centres, began to emerge as family welfare centres in the 1980s, which helped parents of all age children, mainly in disadvantaged areas, to prevent the need for social services. Or they worked collaboratively with those services, many works with services like Children's Home, Action for Children, and many had social service department involvement.

Promising beginnings led to the 1989 children act requirement, that local authorities should provide family centres. This would have been a base for local authorities to work from and delivering family support. Buildings on their own are not enough, but even in this digital age, there does need to be a focal point in a community, where people can find out about the full range of services, and support available. Family centres pave the way for the Family centres pave the way for the national program of short start and children's centres, which began in the late 1990s, and focused on the preschool years.

Whilst children's centres were immensely helpful to many parents of this life stage, the cut-off at aged five became increasingly contested, with greater emphasis on early intervention. emphasis on early intervention. Throughout childhood. Finally, in 2020, family hubs became official government policy, and after 70 years, the family support infrastructure envisaged by Michael Young as being so important for families of all age children seems to be emerging. I declare here my interest as a guarantor of HFA and holding, the not-for-profit owner of the family hubs network Limited.

Given this potted history, it shows the intervention several decades ago have been frequently revisited, but family supports still seems to be on a precarious footing. As we basically had already. We await the granularity of the Spending Review, later this week. Moreover, a proper family support system, in a local authority are so much bigger than the family home, a network of buildings, people and services around it. The hub has to sit in a bigger way of relational practice, that guides how all support for families, including children social care, is one.

-- Is run. The government has made promising progress and implemented the independent review of children's social care. The families first partnership program of preventive family support. This aims to transform the whole system of help and protection for families. So, the right help is therefore every family were needed. It has a strong emphasis on early intervention, to prevent crisis. The families first program guide gives family hubs a good profile, as a place where universal services and community- based early help are delivered, and where emerging problems can be identified at an early stage.

My aim in supporting this amendment is to get more information from the government about how they will ensure the rebalancing away from crisis spending towards early intervention across the age range zero-19, and zero-25, with special needs. Prevention, A, it becomes embedded, B, it cannot be unravelled, and C, that it is further developed. Turning to my amendment, 68, A, 68, B, in my name, in family hub networks, working with local authorities, we talked to many people, who are locally leading the family hubs and start for life program, who say they have been somewhat held up by having to implement Start for Life instead of being able to present by integrating services across the age range zero to 19 and zero to 25.

The quote one counsel, the family hub part of the program gets overlooked, as the focus has been on start for life, and delivering its tight specifications. Some told us that prior to this program, they were doing well in the early years as a legacy of their children centres, many of which are still running. Albeit Start for Life funding has enabled them to strengthen this further. Due to how the funding is structured, some LAs have been in danger of only assuring up provision in the early years, family hubs, the greater goal have been the provision of family support from pregnancy, to 18, 19, 25, as I have said, if SEND or care leavers.

Boosting family support beyond the early years, vital though these are, must be a key goal, and delivered through a range of settings, organisations, public sector, and VCS, with some private sector as well, and professionals, backed by well- trained volunteers. Amendment 68, A and are -- 68, B, it would mean wanted more effects ability in how they use government funding to be delivered in their family hubs come implemented well, family hubs involve transformation and family support, through system change.

Yet, the requirements of the current program do not adequately prompt local authorities receiving funding, to implemented system change. They put the focus on funding a minimum offer, rather than on the system changed, to embed new ways of working, using an integrated approach. Cole OK to services, whilst beneficial, is not the same -- Code locating. Also, without system change, what happens when the system stops? Mainstreaming any of the funding programs require system change. Another key aspect of family hubs is using funding more effectively.

Particularly by combining funding pots. Westminster Council, a pioneer of the first family hubs, prior to central government funding was able to deploy troubled families program money, to develop family hubs. Because it had earned autonomy from the tight scriptures of that program's payment by results model. If the government extends funding for family support, to the rest of the country, beyond the 75 and the family hubs Start for Life how program, which I very much hope it will, learning from the original program suggests an earned autonomy approach would greatly help facilitate the desire for information.

I'm also supporting amendment 169 and 171 already mentioned, as post removal support for parents to prevent future removals, and bereavement support services for children. They need to be key elements of family support, but they are either vanishingly rare, hard to find, or both.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Farmer is moving 60 8A, amendment proposed, subsection 6, insert the word suspended in the

18:46

Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert the word suspended in the I rise to speak to amendment 167,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 167, in my name in this group. It's very in my name in this group. It's very much about an earlier intervention which I think has been a key theme of this group, a very important theme. I very much support the amendment, Amendment 68 put forward by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett. I also wanted to say how important I think amendment 169 put forward by the noble Lady Baroness Barran and others is.

In a previous life when I was chair of Cafcass I can remember visiting various pause projects, I was so impressed with the work they were doing and how that was preventing young mothers who had already had one or more children taken away from them into care, for that to keep repeating. I can remember hearing a story of a mother who had eight children. They had all been taken into care. It was only when they were part of a pause project that this terrible cycle stop repeating itself.

So I'm enormously supportive of that amendment. My amendment probably is a fairly sort of, I think it's important if not as exciting as some of the other amendments. It basically would require local authorities to report annually on the early intervention services for children and families in their area, and report back to the Secretary of State. In terms of the context, frankly we've already heard it. We know early intervention services are crucial for the healthy development of babies, children and young people.

Singularly giving them and their families access to the help they need before problems escalate and families reach crisis point. We also know, and we've heard so not going to repeat all the figures, that local authorities have had severe financial challenges and haven't been able to provide nearly as many as those early intervention services as I'm sure they would like. Because their money has frankly been taken up with crisis and child protection services, but they are under a statutory duty to provide.

We've heard about what's happened over the last decade, the reducing numbers of children centres, hubs, youth services et cetera. So not hearing to repeat that. I will just say the impact I felt was very starkly and clearly set out in Josh MacAlister's independent review of children's social care back in 2022. I think that review makes a powerful case for a strong focus on earlier intervention, and giving families the help they need. I was lucky enough to hear Josh MacAlister talk about his review last week, in the context of additional help for children in care.

Who knows, we may even hear something about additional money for early intervention in the spending review. So let's wait and see. I think both the economic and moral case for investment in early intervention is incredibly clear, so I'm not going to set it out. I would say from all of the discussions I've been part of in this chamber over the years on children's social care, ensuring that children and young people get the right support at the right time is widely supported across the political divide.

I don't think it's a contentious issue actually, I really hope we hear some welcoming news in the review. I contend that there is too little known about the services that are currently available in the field of early intervention. So this amendment is really designed to promote data collection on these services, to create greater awareness of what is available. I think it would help the Secretary of State to respond to the needs of local authorities, ensuring sufficient services are being provided.

Across England. And also just better information on the numbers of families accessing it, demographic information about the children receiving support, and how effective they are. Are these services actually working? I think, put simply, to understand how we can better support children and target funding to help the most vulnerable we just need to know more about what the current picture really looks like. I think this amendment is simply a first step to help us ensure children and young people don't fall through the gaps of ineffective service provision, and that they do get the right support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at the right time. I'm grateful for this bill, it's

18:51

The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for this bill, it's an opportunity to address a number of what we call adverse childhood of what we call adverse childhood experiences. I suspect given the lateness of the hour we won't reach some of the amendments of mine about levers, but this is about children who have suffered serious bereavement. I will say a few short words. I was in that position, my dad died when I was 14. That left me and my younger brother and my mum, it it made my mum the only wage earner in the house, at the same time as coping with the huge grief of losing her husband at the age of 43.

She had two children, boys of 14 and 11, not the easiest to cope with. I still don't quite know how we coped, I think I did it by burying it for the next 10 years, my little brother coped by having stomach pains for the next few years. It damaged his education. I sometimes widened whether it led to me feeling that I had to be a pass -- that I had to be a pastor. As the eldest son of the family I felt I was trying to hold the family together where everyone else was falling apart.

I would have appreciated their being somewhere I could have turned to, some signposting where I could have looked for something outside of the family. People who were not grieving as I my brother and mother and father's parents and all were grieving, somewhere I could have done to for support. If this amendment 171 can help us create better bereavement services for children, so children in the position I was in all those years ago, they are not left in position. That would be a great thing for us to do.

18:52

Lord Meston (Crossbench)

- -

I wish to strongly support amendment 172, and I do so with reference to amendment 169 although I can see those are directed to the same Richard problem of successive removals of children and babies from others. Quite simply, much more needs to be done to support parents. Particularly mothers, after a child has been removed into care. To reduce the risk of a further child being removed from the same mother. The sad statistics of already been mentioned by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett, but the fact is at least one in four women will return to court already having had a child removed.

Too often they have reacted to the removal of their child with an ill considered or unconsidered decision to have another baby. With all too often the same consequences. These are truly wretched cases for the courts to deal with, particularly if it's impossible for the court to find any real improvement since the previous removal. And particularly if they are mothers who have become mistrustful and find it difficult to see and accept help. -- Seek and accept help. Once the previous proceedings finish as things stand the mother may receive no further support or attention from the local authority until the next pregnancy is made known, which by then may be too late.

The evidence collated and presented by the Nuffield family Justice Observatory on the frequency and impact of recurrent care proceedings and removals is compelling, if depressing. The Nuffield Observatory points out that services are available in some areas, but are described as few in number and mostly small in scale. The work done by the specialist charity, Pause, already mentioned by Baroness Bennett, shows that with the right work and support the cycle of recurrent removals can be finished.

The financial costs to local authorities of successive care proceedings leading to fostering and adoption is enormous, I would suggest avoidable. When Sir James Mandy was President of the family division he encouraged judges to persuade local authorities in their area to adopt the work done by Pause. Many of us tried to do so, but it was not easy because local authorities were nervous of the cost. Thinking only in terms of the current years expenditure rather than the potential budgetary benefits in years to come.

Accordingly, post removal support remains unavailable. In more than half local authority areas. That is why primary legislation is needed. I note that previous attempts in November 2016 similarly presented by Baroness Armstrong were not accepted, for reasons which I have to say were frankly inadequate. I hope this government will do better

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and accept amendment 172. Just a brief intervention here in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just a brief intervention here in and around amendment 167 and 168. and around amendment 167 and 168. Both of them are about early intervention, I know the situations are often different in Northern are often different in Northern Ireland where the local health trusts look after young people, and trusts look after young people, and young people services. In England it is the local authorities. However, the principles of the issues are the same. Dealing with the young people

18:57

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

same. Dealing with the young people in the early intervention is hugely important. My issue is it shouldn't be just about the early intervention, it should be an ongoing process. One aspect I think is not looked at in this bill, and I wonder if it could be included at some stage, that is around the rights of parents. I have worked with looking after children for many years, I'm an adoptive parent. The really significant issues with young people can sometimes manifest into wider family difficulties, particularly when a younger person is a refusal, maybe refusing to take on counselling or go to school.

Then the pressure returns to the parents. The pressure of maybe facing a court hearing, a legal proceeding, because that child or young person will not attend either counselling or school. Quite often there is huge pressure because the law is on the side of taking the family and the parents to court. And that often isn't a good prospect for the family proceedings, and the family support. What I'm trying to say in this brief moment, I know there are other amendments coming up at a later stage that I will also hopefully speak on with the same issue, but my concern is that early intervention is vital.

Very important, but that also needs to be ongoing intervention as well.

18:58

Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)

- -

I very much support the intervention, not only early intervention but intervention at all levels when the family absolutely needs it. As Lord Maxton has said, there's a financial advantage to local authorities. Not of course short-term, but long-term. Because the more a local authority intervenes with a troubled family, the less, with any luck, those children will go into care. It's particularly important when one child has gone and has already been sent to make sure the next child, then nearly always is a next child, will actually have to not go into care.

It's a sad situation for judges, when you really can't help the mother and the second, third or fourth child, sometimes more, because she's never had any help from the moment each time she has lost the child. So there is a genuine financial advantage to stopping children going into care, which of course is obviously far more long-term expensive. Could I also add a short word following on from the sad story of the right Reverend Prelate. My son aged 50 died of cancer, five years ago.

With teenage children. And their mother, my daughter-in-law, was brilliant. But the loss of their father for the early teenagers was devastating. I'm glad to say they have succeeded extremely well and they have coped, but it is a moment when I have no doubt at all my daughter-in-law would have gained enormously if she actually -- she actually lives in Los Angeles so the wider family couldn't help, they would have gained enormously if there had been someone there in a similar situation in this country.

I do think this bereavement amendment is a

19:01

Lord Hampton (Crossbench)

- -

I rise very briefly to speak to amendment 172 which I add my name to. I noble friends, Lord Meston and Lady Butler-Sloss has said it far better than I could have possibly said, I know the amazing work of Holes and I commend their work to the House, and I have faith the Baroness Warsi anything missing. -- The baroness and she will say anything that is missing for

19:01

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

I rise for amendments 169 and 172 in my name and comments on other members amendments in this group and I would like to thank the noble Baroness, and amendment 69, the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Meston, for their support, 172. As has been noted, they seek to do similar things. Amendment 169 is a narrower version, focusing on support for mothers who have had a baby removed into care at birth. And like Lord Meston, I prefer amendment 172, which is broader, and would create an obligation for local authorities to offer an evidence- based program, to mothers who have had a child removed from their care.

And who, as we have heard, very often, immediately, then get pregnant again from a human point of view, I think one absolutely understand why, after all the attention that they may have received from children's services, prior to the child being removed, and the deafening silence that surrounds them once the child has gone. And very often, that void is filled by another pregnancy. I say I prefer amendment one-72 because I think it is a real issue and is broader.

But I think the evidence is crystal-clear from amendment 169, almost half of newborns, subject to care proceedings, are born to mothers who have previously had an older sibling removed through those proceedings. So, the kind of near inevitability of that seems very powerful. I am not sure if it is on my register interest but I did do a period of volunteering, before I joined your Lordships house, so I have seen the quality of their work. First hand. And since 2013, over First hand.

And since 2013, over 2,000 women have completed the, who prior to working with them, have collectively had over 6,200 children removed from their care. That is just over three children per woman. And this is not a competition for how many children a woman has had that are removed, but it was founded by social worker, social Humphreys -- Sophie Humphreys, after they worked together on a case, when the 14th child was removed from the same woman, so it is grounded very much in the experience of women, and Abbott suggested the noble Baroness, the minister, that this amendment -- I would suggest to the noble Baroness that this amendment is Baroness that this amendment is Baroness that this amendment is , in the sense that we have some that offer these programs, some that do not, but delivery is inconsistent and patchy as the noble Lord, Lord Meston said, the funding for it is not always available.

We know, also, in the spirit of this bill, which seeks to support those in the care system that 40% of women who have taken part in the programs were in care themselves. And the noble Baroness, the Minister, will know that the DfE's own evaluation of this work so significantly improved outcomes for mothers, reduce rates of infant care entry and very significant savings to children's social care, with the Department valuation suggesting that 1 pound spent on of the program, resulted in a saving in social care of £4.50 over four years, £7.61, it seems remarkably accurate, over 18 years.

I'm not sure whether that is the net present value of £7.61, but anyway. A 71 return, so from the point of view of the mother, from the point of view of the children, and from the financial perspective, I think these amendments deserve the ministers and serious attention. -- the Minister's serious attention. More broadly, this group has been focused on the important subject of support for families, both at a relatively early stage, and at crisis point, such as when a child crisis point, such as when a child was removed into care of course, the purpose behind amendment 68, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend, Lord Farmer, is to ensure that there is a universal provision of family support services and there is no question that such services are valued by the families that use them and can make a great difference in the lives of children and their parents.

And the spirit of the amendment, which keeps universal services separate from those that are voluntary, but targeted to more vulnerable families is one, as the noble Baroness notes from our earlier debates, on clause three of the bill, is one that we support. Amendment 68, A, and B can introduce a concept of earned autonomy for family support services, which, again, is something that we are very sympathetic to. And I have the greatest respect for my noble friend, Lord Farmer, for his extensive work in this area.

Particularly in relation to family hubs. I look forward to hearing what the Minister might say about the expansion of family hubs, which the government has described itself as a non-stigmatising gateway to targeting whole family support, which in normal speak I think is a good thing. Amendment 167, in the name of Baroness Tyler of Enfield, which would require local authorities to report annually one earlier intervention services, for children and family, in their area, and as the noble Lady acknowledge, I think local authorities have annual reporting requirements, including in relation to the multiagency safeguarding work but as I understand it, this amendment would make that more explicit in relation to early help.

And I just wondered whether this wouldn't naturally fit in a way to the safeguarding children statutory guidance, as opposed to being on the face of the bill. Again, it is hard to argue with the spirit of amendment 171, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I was sad, both to hear of her loss, and that of The Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester, and I'm sure across the House, we are very grateful to those charities that offer great support to children, their families, who have been bereaved.

When I was in the department, I remember meeting the team at the Ruth Strauss foundation, and indeed, went on to recommend them to extended family members who benefited from their support. And of course, in some cases, when perhaps a parent has cancer, the death can be anticipated and support can actually happen pre- bereavement, as well as post bereavement, if the family wishes. But in other cases, such as in cases of domestic homicide, the child effectively loses both parents, one parent has been killed, and one parent is in prison.

Effective support in all of these cases is to be encouraged, and if accepted, this amendment would make the task of finding the right support so much easier for bereaved or soon-to-be bereaved children. And I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. the amendment standing in my name.

19:10

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in group 3, I want to thank the baroness during the course of this debate, for highlighting important issues that aiming to ensure children's and families can get the support they need at the right time. That is an enormously important theme of the government's reforms of children's social care. And in doing that, we are already taking forward recommendations from the independent review of children's social care, mentioned by several people today.

Particularly, the aim to rebalance the children's social care system, towards earlier intervention, and supporting more children to stay safely with their families. Turning to the detail of the amendments, and firstly, to amendment 68, in the names of the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett, Ravi noble Lord, Lord Farmer. -- And the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Which raises the important issue of family support services. I appreciate the noble Lords intention of this amendment and confirm the government is already investing in the provision of family support, nationally.

And I also except the point made by the noble Lady, Baroness Benjamin. That there is a need to ensure that that investment is there. The noble Lady outlined the fall in investment, since 2010, for example, in the sugar start program. It took -- The sure start program for the particular back to one of my interventions I made in the other place, before I came starkly up against the electorate in 2010. When I expressed concern that a different government might not continue to support the development of family support services, and sure start, in a way that that government had.

There was heckling, there was cheering, as tends to be more the case at the other end of this Houston here, but nevertheless, there was. But what we saw in the intervening years was a reduction in support, for precisely the sort of services that noble Lords are quite rightly, today, pushing the government, to ensure that we both develop, and fun. And that is why, as we have frequently reference, but I will reference again, this government has provided over £500 million to local authorities, to rollout the national families first partnership program.

Which aims to prioritise earlier intervention and ensure families can access the right support sooner. Turning to some of the more detailed points. I note the noble Lord, Lord Farmer's amendment, regarding earned autonomy status for local authorities, do not follow prescriptive criteria in determining the services to be delivered. This is a challenge, isn't it? How do we enable local authorities to have that autonomy to be able to build the services, telling the services, in a way that makes sense to them, given their particular circumstances, whilst also, of course, ensuring that additional investment has been placed into preventative services is actually spent on that.

But I have considerable sympathy with the idea that there needs to be that flexibility. That is why the government is not mandating the delivery of specific family support services by any local authorities through the program. They all have fixed ability, to respond to the needs and areas, with available resources, they are supported in thinking about what might be appropriate and what would work best by, for example, the program guide the government has issued, and by the work of foundations in developing information about what is most effective, and working well.

It is of course though, important, as I say, that it is clear that additional money allocated for this work is spent on it. And grant funding, therefore, is ring fenced to ensure it is spent on a range of preventative services. But within that ring fence, I think there is flexibility for all local authorities, to think about the nature and combination of the services they are providing. Through the family hubs and start for life program, 75 of the...

Sorry, before I move on from that, I also wanted to respond to the point that the noble Lord made, both about flexibility, as we talked about, but also about combining funding pots, which I think it's an important point. Most local authorities funded through the family hubs and Start for Life Program have the ability, to tailor services to meet program expectations and address local needs, this idea of combining funding I think is an important, also an important bit of flexibility, and many local authorities are actually combining funding with other funding sources, to enhance support for families and I think it's important they are unable to do that, notwithstanding that accountability point I have made.

So, through the family hubs and Start for Life Program, 75 of the most deprived local authorities in England have received funding to set up family hubs, with integrated start for life services. Additionally, 30 local authorities have received funding to embed family have models, and by joining up and enhancing services, the family hubs provide a welcoming front door to support families. There are now more than 500 family hubs funded, 25-26, local authorities are receiving a further authorities are receiving a further The noble Lord farmer and the noble Baroness Lady Bennett also raised the question of how we can ensure not only that we are developing services, but we are achieving sustainable system change through the rollout.

I think just to say a few words about how we believe that the approach we are taking will enable those changes to be fully embedded, for earlier intervention to become the mainstream part of provision that it needs to. In the families first partnership program guide we have encouraged local authorities to take a whole system approach to reforms, working closely with children and families to redesign services from universal settings such as family hubs through to social care intervention. Some of the families first for children pathfinders have integrated family hubs and family help to support delivery, for example using family hubs as the primary co-location space for multidisciplinary family help teams.

One such area is Wolverhampton, who have integrated their targeted family help offer with an existing family hubs to provide the non-stigmatised place funded through the Start for Life program and the families first partnership program. I think the noble Lord said at one point in his contribution it's not sufficient to co-locate, and I agree. But it can be an important start. If you bring together the ability to pull sources of funding, if you work to ensure that the changed way of working is embedded not just within children's social care but across the services that support families, it becomes far more difficult for it to be unrolled and it becomes much more likely it becomes embedded in the way the noble Lord is rightly looking for it to become.

Turning now to amendment 167 in the name of Baroness Tyler, this seeks to place a duty on local authorities to report to the Secretary of State on the delivery of early intervention services. I very much agree with her contention that we need to be able to monitor and evaluate the extent to which early intervention is being delivered, and what the successful methods of doing that are. I'm not sure that requires what I suspect would be quite a burdensome annual report to the Secretary of State, but I wholly agree with her that we need to be clear about monitoring need to be clear about monitoring and evaluation.

And we need to know more about what is working. Funding conditions of the program require conditions of the program require local authorities to deliver a range of preventative services such as parenting classes, housing support and welfare and benefits advice, along with the other elements of the families first partnership program which has been rolling out nationally since April. We are collecting monitoring data and information from local areas as these reforms embed, to ensure the reforms are effectively supporting children and families.

It is possible under section 83 of the children's act for the Secretary of State to collect information on these services from local authorities. We have of course OFSTED, reviewing the success of what is happening. So I think we have a range of ways in which we can bring together information about the delivery of early intervention services. Without necessarily going down the route proposed by this amendment. But I completely agree with her, and I'm sure that we quite rightly as a government will be held to account for explaining how the services are developing and the impact they are having.

Turning now to amendments 169 and 172, in the name of Baroness Barran, which seeks to ensure local authorities offer evidence-based support to parents who have had a child of any age removed from their care in order to prevent repeat removals. I know particularly that amendment 169 focuses on the important issue of supporting parents who have experienced the removal of a baby. I think the noble Lady ably a dental fired -- ably identified the scale and impact for any individual woman of the repeated taking into care of children.

I think she very well expressed what might be happening to a child who has been taken into care, that makes having a -- another child seem like the right thing to do. Keeping more children safely at home with their families and ensuring families get the right support at the earliest opportunity is absolutely vital. That's why at an important part of the family help being rolled out will be to provide support for multidisciplinary teams for all families, including birth parents, adopters and families when children are returning home from care.

And Pathfinder local authorities are finding positive early impact of those reforms. I note the noble Lady specifically mentions therapeutic services, and I want to reassure noble Lords our investments already support the delivery of these services including taking forward examples from Pathfinder local authorities where senior therapists have been embedded into family help multidisciplinary teams to provide direct therapy and support to families. We are also already investing in services that support families through pregnancy to early childhood, including family hubs and Start for Life programs.

The work of Pause certainly sounds enormously important, and leading the way in this area. It is clear that they are doing important work to improve the lives of women who have had or are at risk of having children removed from their care. My ministerial colleague Janet Daby met with Pause earlier this year, at the Department -- and the Department is keen to continue working with them both to support the work they are doing, and of course to learn more broadly about how we can support women in these particular situations.

And of course their babies as well. I think actually the ability to be able to use family group decision-making in these cases may well also be something that could support much better outcomes than we are seeing at the moment. Finally, I will turn to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 171... I would be grateful for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would be grateful for the Baroness Minister to go back and perhaps talk to her ministerial colleagues again about this. She is absolutely right that some of the effective targeted help and section effective targeted help and section 17 types help that she was talking 17 types help that she was talking about that is set out in the families first pathfinders, they can be useful to some families. But be useful to some families. But these cases where a woman has already had multiple removals don't typically fit into that bracket.

typically fit into that bracket. They are straight to care proceedings. The caseload, if I remember it rightly, for each full- time Pause practitioner is they work with three women. So it is super with three women. So it is super intensive. And I think it is complimentary to guess. I would be grateful if she didn't close the door on that as an option, particularly as I know her noble friend Baroness Armstrong previously put this down as an amendment. I feel strengthened in that knowledge.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have been persuaded during the course of this debate about the course of this debate about the significance of this issue. I had some experience in previous work I did in children's social care about this, so I will certainly undertake this, so I will certainly undertake to go back and talk to my colleagues about some more specificity around about some more specificity around the particular requirements in these particular cases. Perhaps I can return to the noble Lady with a bit return to the noble Lady with a bit more detail about that.

Turning to amendment 171 in the name of the amendment 171 in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Bennett, seeking to establish a duty on local authorities to improve access to authorities to improve access to bereavement support services for children. Like others, I recognise and respect the noble Lady talking about her own experience of bereavement, as we also heard from the right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Identifying the enormous pressure that falls onto families, particularly to other children at the point at which they are bereaved.

It is for this reason the government continues to consider how to improve access to existing bereavement support. There is a cross government bereavement group chaired by the Department for health and social care, the Department for work and and the Home Office continuing to look at how we can improve access to support. Following discussion by this group about opportunities to improve signposting of support, and I think the right Reverend Prelate said I would have appreciated being signposted to some support outside the family, we have recently added links to brief and support specifically for children and young people on GOV.uk.

Schools of course talk to their pupils about mental health and where to access further support, both as part of the curriculum and through their wider pastoral duties. Relationships and sex education statutory guidance specifies that teachers should be aware of common adverse childhood experiences, including bereavement. So I hope that bringing those things together we are hoping to, we are enabling an improvement in the support we provide for children who have suffered the evening. -- Suffered treatment.

So I hope this, along with the continued investment in services for children and family support, reassures noble Lords we are taking action on that. In all of these areas I hope I have provided, I think after a useful and important debate, some reassurance about the acceptance by the government, in fact of all of the issues identified during the course of this debate. But also the action government is taking to commit to invest in improving outcomes for children and their families, through effective support services.

I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw these amendments, but I will certainly come back on the specific point and also reflect on the case made in what I think is being a very important and helpful group of important and helpful group of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, -- Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that amendment 68 a is withdrawn? We that amendment 68 a is withdrawn? We are coming onto 68. 68 A is withdrawn. Amendment 60 8B, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. It's always a bit of a tangle when we get to that point. I want to

19:29

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

thank the noble Lady the Minister and everyone who has contracted a from all corners of your Lordship's House. I don't have time to run through all the contributions, I will thank the right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and Baroness Butler-Sloss for sharing our personal experiences. And I think in responding to the amendment on bereavement services I acknowledge what the noble Baroness Minister said, but a think we still feel there are major gaps. Baroness Barran referred to charities with lots of services, but not everyone will be able to access GOV.uk and I think there are still some gaps in I am not going to run through everything you just want to pick up a point from intervention of Baroness Barran, there is a need to come back on 169 and 170.

I think there is the point that if you have a woman who has had a series of babies removed, she doesn't have a child, and therefore, it is going to be very tempting to local services do not put... They don't have any statutory responsibility and are not going to see this as commitment of every net, and unless there is some specific step taken here, this is an awful problem, which is just going to re-occur at great human and personal cost. On Amendment 68, the one I started with, I think I neglected to thank the noble Lady, Baroness Benjamin, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for supporting it, so I'm going to do that now.

And I'm also going to come back to the noble Lady, the Minister, because I think what the noble Lady said on recounting her experience with sure start centres, actually provides start centres, actually provides quite a powerful argument, for this amendment, for something to be put on the face of the bill for because the noble Lady said, as ministers very often of all stripes, very often do, we are doing this anyway, you don't need to put this on the face of the bill.

But we are in a very politically... Nature of great political turmoil, none of us knows what comes next, and if this was to be made a statutory responsibility, a local authorities, to provide this, I'm going to use a non- stigmatising word, I am aware Baroness Barran fancied a bit of a mouthful, but it is an important principle that that door over there is not something that people, families with problems walk-through, it is a door that lots of families walk through to get support, and that non-stigmatising label is really terribly important to make sure everyone is able to access this service and it doesn't provide any sort of stigma.

And if that is given by a statutory responsibility to local authorities, we know local authorities have so little funding barely delivering statutory responsibilities. If it is not statutory and politics changes, then we can see the same seesaw, the same creation of services, destruction of services we have seen before, surely, we want to get off that seesaw. So, because I'm going to withdraw Amendment 68 in this moment but I reserve the right to come back to it at report stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that Amendment 68 be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 69, Baroness Spielman, not Amendment 69, Baroness Spielman, not move? Amendment 69, A, Lord Lucas, not moved. Amendment 69, AB, Lord Watson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Watson. My Lords, I was think there is something rather sad about an something rather sad about an amendment that sits on its own, amendment that sits on its own, forms a group of its own. It looks like it is afraid to speak its name, like it is afraid to speak its name, would I prefer to think of group for today as being small but perfectly formed. And I speak to it on that

19:33

Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)

- -

formed. And I speak to it on that basis. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure the same kind of parental care expected in families that applies to corporate parents. At the children's care system. And in that case, it has echoes of amendment 107, B, which I moved earlier. Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 provides that the court may only make a care order in respect of the child, if it is satisfied the child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, this is attributable to the care received by the child not being what it would be reasonable for a parent to give them.

We have heard much about this this afternoon and this evening, about the failures of birth parents. Nonetheless, this amendment would equalise the position of looked after children, and children who live with their parents with no social care, corporate parents would be required to provide the type of care it will be reasonable to expect a parent in the community to give a child. Surely it is reasonable for the state's care of children to be at least A-level expected of parents, and should certainly drop no lower.

Under the Children And Young Persons Act Mountain a Nine, a local authority must safeguard and promote the welfare of every child in its care, that is a symptom of a care order, and every child is provided accommodation for a period of 24-hour's. This amendment adds to the requirement of the local authority, as the child's corporate parent must provide care it would be reasonable expect a parent to give their child. My Lords, this would strengthen and give legal clarity, as to the primary duty of local authorities, in their vital and frivolous role as parent.

And to provide care that would be

Feed Live - Click to view video

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page