Bills
Live Bills
Government Bills
Private Members' Bills
Acts of Parliament Created
Departments
Department for Business and Trade
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Education
Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department of Health and Social Care
Department for Transport
Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
Department for Work and Pensions
Cabinet Office
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Home Office
Leader of the House
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Scotland Office
HM Treasury
Wales Office
Department for International Development (Defunct)
Department for Exiting the European Union (Defunct)
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Defunct)
Department for International Trade (Defunct)
Reference
User Guide
Stakeholder Targeting
Dataset Downloads
APPGs
Upcoming Events
The Glossary
2024 General Election
Learn the faces of Parliament
Petitions
Tweets
Publications
Written Questions
Parliamentary Debates
Parliamentary Research
Non-Departmental Publications
Secondary Legislation
MPs / Lords
Members of Parliament
Lords
Pricing
About
Login
Home
Live Debate
Lords Chamber
Lords Chamber
Tuesday 17th June 2025
(began 1 month ago)
Share Debate
Copy Link
Watch Live
Print Debate (Subscribers only)
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
First First Oral First Oral Question. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We recognise the vital role
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We recognise the vital role learning disability nurses play in supporting those with learning
supporting those with learning disabilities. We are committed to developing this workforce and continue to work with partners to
attract people into the profession through various routes, including apprenticeships and providing a
apprenticeships and providing a nonrepayable grant and additional payments. Later this year we will
14:37
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
payments. Later this year we will publish a refreshed workforce plan to ensure the NHS has the right
**** Possible New Speaker ****
people, with the right skills, in the right places. I thank the noble lady the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the noble lady the Minister. The report highlighted people with learning disabilities
people with learning disabilities have a greater health inequalities
have a greater health inequalities than the general population. They are four times more likely to die from treatable causes. The Mencap
from treatable causes. The Mencap campaign, it confirmed services
campaign, it confirmed services where there are learning disability nurses have fewer such deaths. But
this workforce has reduced by 42%. Universities are closing their
causes.
There isn't one left in the south-east. The profession is at
south-east. The profession is at risk of extinction. Will the noble lady the Minister commit to making sure that learning disability nursing is embedded in upcoming
plan?
14:38
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Let me start by paying tribute to the noble lady and her work as a
campaigner in this area. Particularly through Team Domenica.
I know that through my office the noble lady will be meeting the Minister next month to discuss all
of these important issues. It
certainly is the case and it is unacceptable that people with a learning disability on average will die earlier than the general
population. We are talking in England alone about 1.5 million
people with a learning disability.
They do have significant health
inequalities. What I would say to the noble lady is a learning
disability nursing is one of the four specialist fields of nursing. Those areas will be attended to in
the forthcoming workforce plan. That will tie in with the 10 year plan,
which will be the first plan to be published and the noble Lord will not have to wait long for that. The
commitment to improving care for
commitment to improving care for
those with learning disabilities and also with autism is absolutely going to be there.
The noble lady will recall the discussions we have
through the Mental Health Act stop I hope that shows the way in which we
are going. But I would certainly agree how much more there is to do. agree how much more there is to do.
14:40
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
Will the government undertake to make sure in the workforce plan that
the training of undergraduate nurses in all courses, and undergraduate
medics and health professions includes training on managing the situation when people have degrees
of impaired mental capacity and that judgemental views over disability
are removed from any aspect of They are prejudicial to the way in which people are handled when they
which people are handled when they present as emergencies. The problem being that people with learning disabilities can present at any time of the day or night to any of the services.
services.
14:41
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The noble lady is quite right in what she said. One of the difficulties is that sometimes there
is a misdiagnosis. It is assumed incorrectly for the very reasons the
noble lady said that a presenting condition is the learning
disability, when actually it is a different condition. I certainly
agree on the need that the noble
lady outlined. I can certainly say
that reports like the review in transforming care report, there is a national focus on reducing health inequalities and increasing
awareness of this very point, diagnostic overshadowing.
I will be ensuring that is key to what we do.
14:41
Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
The Minister referred to the
report and the report pointed out about the deaths of people with
learning disabilities. Yet we have a seven month delay of the latest annual report, showing a lack of
urgency. Does the noble lady the Minister agree that this leads to a
perception that the ethical concerns of the sector are not being
prioritised? This in itself does hinder promoting learning disability nursing.
14:42
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think it is probably helpful to say to your Lordships' House that
care for individuals with learning disabilities within the UK, we have
had significant changes in how we respond to that. There is as in
other specialist areas a move towards multidisciplinary teams.
Which I certainly do well come. I would also emphasise the role of
learning disability nurses. They are
absolutely key and so might I say is the training of all staff. That is
why we are committed to rolling out the training which is highly
regarded across all staff.
regarded across all staff.
14:43
Lord Watts (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
There is a shortage of nurses and doctors and it is important that we
train and recruit new nurses. Will the Minister agree with me that in between times, we have some marvellous people from the
Philippines who are acting as nurses and supporting the health service and it is important they are not cut and it is important they are not cut off while we retrain our own people?
14:43
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I would agree. We have many
excellent, committed staff and very professional and hard-working, from
I presume my noble friend is referring to the changes in international recruitment. I can
assure my noble friend that is why there is a transition period until
2028, certainly in respect of care staff, in order to make sure we have the recruitment in the right place. the recruitment in the right place.
14:44
The Lord Bishop of London (Bishops)
-
Copy Link
-
My lord, NHS England in the best
practice guide made a number of suggestions regarding the disability nursing workforce, including
requiring CQC-registered providers to provide staff with training for
Could the noble Baroness the Minister say, what is the government doing to make sure this is implemented equitably across the Integrated Care System?
14:44
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We are focused on that. Certainly
NHS England is working with all areas of the country and local
services to make sure that is the case. There is a national plan for learning disability nursing which has been developed with key
partners, focusing on four priorities. Attracting, retaining and celebrating the workforce and I
think it is important we elevate the
standing of learning disability nurses to whom we are all grateful.
14:45
Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I thank my noble friend for
raising the important issue of the workforce understanding how to deal with learning disabilities? Given
the importance, can I ask the Minister if the government will consider committing to a targeted strategy, perhaps in partnership with local communities and sections
of the private sector, to aid all
children and help them access to early intervention and prevention services, to help them develop and improve long life outcomes for this
vulnerable group? vulnerable group?
14:45
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
This is indeed a vulnerable group
as the noble Lord said. I think it is probably best I refer to the upcoming workforce, sorry, upcoming
10 year plan, which will deal with inequality throughout a number of
inequality throughout a number of
14:46
Lord Patel (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
In relation to the noble Lady's question, is there a need to expand
ways of getting more people to train for learning disabilities, now that
the penalty for -- of fees... Isn't that an impediment to recruitment of nurses?
14:46
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Certainly, apprenticeships are important. As one of the ways we
have expanded the roots into the nursing profession, including
disability nursing. What that does mean is that the apprenticeships we
are applying to allow for opportunities for people from all backgrounds and serve all areas. It
roles.
14:47
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
standing in my name on the Order Paper. The government has no plans to legislate for the registration of --
legislate for the registration of -- or insurance of E bikes or pedal bikes. This would likely to put
bikes. This would likely to put people off -- this would be likely to put people off cycling. However, the government will consider both
the government will consider both registration and insurance for these scooters in future legislation. I look forward to exploring this further with the noble Baroness in
14:47
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
our forthcoming meeting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I look forward to meeting him tomorrow. Presumably, the government
tomorrow. Presumably, the government is seeking a safe space for all road users, including pedestrians, car drivers, e-scooters, E bikes and
drivers, e-scooters, E bikes and bikes. Currently, 1 million e-
scooters are being used illegally on
scooters are being used illegally on public roads without insurance. The accidents caused and the damage
caused is recovered through the
caused is recovered through the Motor Insurance, and pedestrians
Motor Insurance, and pedestrians between seven and 80 have been struck.
While I share the
struck. While I share the government's aim, will the noble Lord ensure that the government
applies the law is currently stands and reviews the possibility of
extending to e-scooters, E bikes and bikes both registration and insurance, because it is inappropriate that only car drivers
inappropriate that only car drivers are currently covered in the cost of this insurance.
this insurance.
14:49
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I feel this is a rerun of the noble Baroness's previous question. She is, of course, right that the
local road network should be safe for all varieties of travellers,
including pedestrians. It clearly is
an issue and I respect her view. The previous government started a trial
in 2020 and announced primary legislation in 2022 but failed to
deliver it. This government is giving consider it -- serious
consideration to these issues when it comes to insurance, and I'm sure
this subject will come back probably weekly until there is legislation.
weekly until there is legislation.
14:49
Baroness Meacher (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
Will the Minister consider banning E bikes and e-scooters on pavements and introduce a special
lane on the road for these vehicles to rescue pedestrians from what is
to rescue pedestrians from what is
currently a major risk? currently a major risk?
14:50
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We have limited road space in towns and cities of the United Kingdom. I have wrestled with that
issue personally when I run Transport for London. It's extraordinarily difficult. The
answer is a set of laws and people conforming to those laws which
leaves pedestrians save, leaves
space for disabled people, and therefore there is an issue about
enforcement. Lord Howe raised this
issue a few days ago. Surgeon forward from the London police has
done a lot -- Sergeant Ford.
The
answer is a proper behaviour, the answer is a road network that copes
with all of its users and proper enforcement.
14:51
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
From e-bikes an scooters and general antisocial behaviour by
those using these vehicles in my former constituency, spreading fear
and intense feelings of unease. Can I ask my noble friend what sanctions
can be deployed against such users and if there are any plans to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
increase them? The government understands this
14:51
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
position completely. There is enforcement. Last year, City of
London police seized several e-
cycles. -- several hundred e-cycles. The problem is not merely illegal use of the cycles. It's the
accompanying disorder and crime that goes with it. My noble friend was
also standing at this dispatch box a few days ago talking about the additional measures the government
is putting into place to allow easier confiscation of these bikes
when they are used in the wrong way.
We encourage police forces to follow
We encourage police forces to follow
the lead of the city of London police. And understanding of the
police. And understanding of the legal use of these also leads to
further reduction in crime.
further reduction in crime. further reduction in crime.
The report on Lime bikes... What plans does the government have to ensure that compliance of insurance
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is in place? The noble Baroness raises a really good point. I have read the
really good point. I have read the investigation by Jim Waterson. It is concerning that these bikes
concerning that these bikes apparently seems to cause so many
apparently seems to cause so many breaks of the limbs. I will write to
breaks of the limbs. I will write to her about actions and about the company itself and the design of
14:53
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
company itself and the design of their bikes and the damage they seem to cause on a regular basis.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I have asked questions on two
occasions about e-bikes an scooters. It is becoming increasingly clear
It is becoming increasingly clear that this government doesn't know
what it's policy is towards the. Will the Minister answer the question asks last time. Is the government essentially happy for the
government essentially happy for the current state of drift and danger to continue on our streets pretty well
14:54
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
indefinitely? Last time the noble Lord said
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Last time the noble Lord said
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Last time the noble Lord said that to me, I will repeat the answer I gave in April. I don't care to be
questioned about drift by a government that did absolutely
nothing. That answer is still the same. The government is considering
what to do. It is a complex problem. I've explained it to the noble Baroness among others about making
some decisions and about what needs to be in the decision. It's not a to be in the decision. It's not a simple thing to do.
It's a great shame his government didn't contemplate and do something about it.
14:55
Lord Dubs (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Somebody has to speak up on
behalf of pedal bikes. I say that as
somebody who has cycled for many
years. Is that the right policy to encourage the widest possible use of
encourage the widest possible use of pedal bikes? It is good for health and the environment.
14:55
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I've only cycled as far as Amsterdam on a pedal bike. The
reason why I answered the original question the way that I did is
because it is very important not to
put people off a mode of transport which is environmentally friendly, safe and done in the right way is a huge benefit to our society. That's
why registration and insurance of
pedal bikes is such a difficult issue, because it would undoubtedly put people off cycling. We also have
to recognise that there are behaviours about cycling in general
and the use of e-bikes and e- scooters that are very damaging to pedestrians and can cause serious harm or death.
That's why the
government intend to introduce
proper offences to the existing act with regards to careless and
inconsiderate cycling.
14:56
Lord Robathan (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Can the government confirm absolutely that there is no move at
all to register bicycles for anybody, but particularly for young people, because otherwise we will have six or seven-year-olds who want
to learn the bicycle being registered for some foolish reason.
registered for some foolish reason. The only danger in this situation is themselves. themselves.
14:57
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I share the noble Lord's enthusiasm for teaching kids to cycle, and that's why I said to the
noble Baroness McIntosh the government has no plans to legislate for the national registration of bikes. bikes.
14:57
Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
The Minister keeps telling us
that it is complex and difficult. Mean well, he is not doing anything either. Does he understand the
dimension of harm that is being caused to pedestrians but also the
corrosive effect that this normalisation of antisocial and
unlawful behaviour is having on public confidence in the tackling of
lawlessness? lawlessness?
14:57
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The one thing I did not say was that the government is doing nothing. The government is
considering very seriously what needs to be done in order to deal
with this, and noble Lords will now because I put it in the library, that the range of legislation
affecting particularly e-bikes and
e-scooters across Europe and beyond leaves us with some very difficult choices as to how to legislate. Mean
well, as my noble friend Lord Hanson said, the government is taking
serious action about dangerous and inconsiderate cycling, and also
about confiscating bikes when they are used for crime.
I have sympathy with what the Noble Baronesses says and we are doing something about it. and we are doing something about it.
14:58
Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Third Oral Question.
Paper. Robert I beg leave to ask the
question. -- I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
96% of identified buildings have started or completed remediation. We have been clear that those
14:59
Lord Rooker (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
responsible must make swift progress. We will update on the remediation plan this summer. I thank my noble friend for that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my noble friend for that answer. Many blocks still contain
answer. Many blocks still contain the same panels as Grenfell. Can we ensure that companies identified in
the Grenfell Report is using dishonest strategies and making
dishonest strategies and making false claims, such as King span are not involved in any replacement
not involved in any replacement work. The companies, the report said, manipulated test data and manipulative the market. And the
manipulative the market. And the Minister and others will have read
14:59
Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Minister and others will have read the exposure of the crooks running this. Why are these people not behind bars?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, the Cabinet office announced investigations into seven
announced investigations into seven organisations, a few of them noble Lord mentioned. These organisations
Lord mentioned. These organisations
named in the Grenfell Enquiry Report. The Cabinet office is considering options under this act.
considering options under this act. This is independent. Further actions outside the department's regime has
15:00
Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
outside the department's regime has
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Public Accounts Committee reported 3 million people are still living in unsafe buildings, unable to sell their properties and move on with their life, facing high
insurance premiums and service charges and in some cases facing
charges and in some cases facing But the Department of the Minister said this ordeal will not be completed until 2035. 10 years away. These are leaseholders. Innocent
15:01
Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
These are leaseholders. Innocent victims of negligence and as the noble Lord said of greed. Don't they
My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with expertise and makes a very important
point. This government has taken decisive action to address the building safety issues so residents do not need to wait a day longer than necessary to feel safe at home.
We are working closely with industry, local authorities and residents to accelerate remediation efforts while ensuring those responsible for unsafe buildings
cover the costs. On insurance, work To reduce insurance premiums for leaseholders.
On lending we have seen improvements for leaseholders. Who previously were unable to sell or remortgage. We remain vigilant
and will continue to hold the major lenders to account following their commitment to lend on properties even if remediation has not yet completed.
15:02
The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
The noble Lord will be aware of
the divergent opinions on remediation standards under what is known as 99-80. In particular the
known as 99-80. In particular the
metrics of proportionality and risk, which still leave residential blocks such as in Bethnal Green and in Greenwich and thousands of others
with combustible elements which should not have been included under the building regulations applicable
at the time of construction. Would he indicate what the department is doing to address the long-term
degradation referred to by Lord
Young of Cookham? But also the basic factor of failure to meet construction standards in regulation
at the time of construction? What is happening about that?
15:03
Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Initially the noble Lord, in relation to our work as set out in the remediation plan, we intend by
the end of 2029 all high rise buildings with unsafe cladding in the scheme would have been remediated. We intend that every
building of more than 11 m with unsafe cladding will either have been remediated, have a completion
date or the landlord will be liable for severe penalties. In relation to construction, on debris 26, the government published the Green Paper
which set out proposals for reforms of the construction regime.
The
Green Paper is a significant step
Green Paper is a significant step towards a regime that has safety at its heart. We welcome the engagement from across the sector.
15:03
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
With regard to tenants of social
housing, the noble Lord the Minister referenced the remediation
acceleration scheme. There was supposed to be a report specifically for social housing in the spring.
Which has yet to be published. I would like the noble Lord the Minister to tell the House what
Minister to tell the House what
plans the government has to help registered social landlords, associations and councils, so they have the funding to remediate their
properties so that social housing
I have excellent news for the noble lady.
Fresh from the spending review, we can confirm over £1
billion of fresh investment between 2026-27 and 2029-30, accelerating the remediation by giving providers equal access to government funding
equal access to government funding and private owners. It will support providers of social housing to supply more affordable homes and improve the living conditions of
improve the living conditions of tenants. We recognise social landlords face barriers to accelerating remediation of building safety risk, including access to funding.
15:05
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Is the Minister aware that the situation is even worse in Scotland?
Money allocated under the Barnett consequentials precisely for this purpose has been diverted into
purpose has been diverted into
futile legal cases, added costs of ferries. Will the Minister talk with
his colleagues in the Treasury to make sure that money allocated for this purpose is earmarked in the future?
15:05
Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I will take my noble friend's
request forward. I'm happy to talk
to colleagues across government departments. Let me reassure him that I am always happy to talk to the government.
15:06
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Last Saturday was the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. We send our thoughts and
prayers to the bereaved, survivors and the communities of North Kensington. May I ask the noble Lord the Minister when the £85 million earmarked for the regeneration of
the estate following the disaster is expected to be delivered? If it is
all? all?
15:06
Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, let me also echoes my sentiments in relation to the victims of the tragedy. The government is committed to taking
And we have accepted all the findings of the enquiry. We will
take action on all 58 recommendations to build a more robust and trusted system to deliver safe quality homes. On the issue of funding, I will write to the noble
lady specifically. lady specifically.
15:07
Lord Sikka (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
On June 15 in 2017, the Metropolitan police began a criminal investigation into the Grenfell
Tower fire. How many individuals and corporations have been charged and
prosecuted in the last eight years?
prosecuted in the last eight years?
15:07
Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I hope my noble friend can understand that this is still a live investigation. So it would be remiss to comment on a live
investigation. Let me reassure my noble friend that as the Met police
said, this will take time. It is one of the largest, most legally complex investigations ever conducted by the Met Police. 180 officers and staff
are dedicated to the investigation. We support the police in their important work and let me reassure the noble Lord that in relation to
funding, the Home Office will
provide the Met Police with up to £6.6 million in 2025-26 to support the costs of the investigation.
15:08
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I add my tribute to the bereaved families of the Grenfell Tower campaign. Campaigning for so long to have their voices heard and also to the firefighters and emergency workers on the scene. The public
enquiry report was damning about the
role of central government in deregulating and indeed privatising
fire safety building control. The
cosy relationship also with the construction industry. Can the Minister reassure us today this
policy of deregulation will never happen again?
15:08
Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, my noble friend makes
an excellent point. Let me echo my thoughts in terms of the tragedy and
the emergency services personnel.
Just to be clear, companies must be held to account for their role in
the tragedy. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet office announced that the government will launch investigations into the seven
organisations which link back to the original question. Let me be clear
that it is totally wrong that construction manufacturers have
faced such little accountability.
That is why we have adopted every part of the findings and we will take forward all 58 recommendations to build a more robust and trusted
system to deliver safe quality homes for everybody. for everybody.
15:09
Oral questions: Funding for international vaccine programmes, such as GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance
-
Copy Link
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the
Order Paper.
15:09
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The UK has long been a strong
supporter of the vaccine alliance.
With £1.65 billion allocated to the current strategy, covering 2021- 2025. We have provided more than 5
billion since 2000. It has enabled the organisation to vaccinate over one million children and save over
80 million lies. The outcomes of the Spending Review are being used to
inform how the budget will be used. The Foreign Secretary and I look forward to attending the summit on
15:11
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
June 25.
June 25. What we categorise as aid is also a form of national security spending.
In the case of biosecurity this is reinforced by the fact that the National Risk Register identifies pandemics as the greatest risk we face in the UK today. The Strategic
face in the UK today. The Strategic Defence Review identifies engineering biology and new pathogens as a clear and present
pathogens as a clear and present risk. Against that backdrop, and the
United States proposal of defunding the organisation, will my noble friend agree that renewing our support for the vaccine alliance
support for the vaccine alliance would not only be a form of
philanthropy, but also a pragmatic investment in art national security? investment in art national security?
15:11
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think my noble friend put that incredibly well. This is about
security. I wouldn't put it in terms of philanthropy. I would put it in terms of partnership with countries
who do benefit from the ability to vaccinate at scale and in a good
value for money way. I would also point out that countries do not just
stay as a recipient of vaccines but actually progress. Look at India,
Indonesia, they are now donors, having been recipients. Such has been the success of this approach.
15:11
Lord Fowler (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
The noble lady is facing tough decisions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Crossbench. My Lords, I wonder if the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I wonder if the
Minister agrees and I very much appreciate the answer that she has given, but does she agree with me that there is too much satisfaction
that there is too much satisfaction showed by financial spokes people
showed by financial spokes people with reduction of overseas aid given that the certain outcome is more illness and more death, particularly
15:12
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
among women and small children. I am not sure which financial
spokes people he is talking about. But certainly on behalf the
government the decision to reduce spending was taken to invest more in defence and that is a decision I support. It was the right decision to take at that point in time. It is
our hope that in time as the economy improves we can increase spending,
because we do understand the long- term benefits of enabling countries
And become safer, more secure and more prosperous, able to stand on their own two feet.
This is what countries are telling us repeatedly. countries are telling us repeatedly. They want to be partners with us and move on from being recipients of aid.
15:13
Baroness Sugg (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
The noble lady is facing tough decisions about where substantial cuts to international development
fall. I hope she will look favourably on this alliance for the
reasons set out. But more broadly, is the noble lady able to say when the details will be cut -- published
following the Spending Review?
15:13
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think the noble lady for the
question and acknowledge her word -- work in international development over many years and she has remained a strong advocate ever since and I
thank her for that. We will publish
the more detailed decisions we are
currently taking shortly. We will also be consulting over the summer with partners, stakeholders and
countries to make sure we are getting this as right as we can. As she says, there are constrained
financial circumstances.
15:14
Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Crossbench.
announcements for cuts and less priority on gender as the Minister
priority on gender as the Minister
stated, the government was challenged by the community to demonstrate how it was meeting its obligations under statutory equality
tests. The government replied last
week, and I can inform the House the government said they do not apply, because those impacted are not UK citizens. Can the Minister assure me and the rest of the House that when
it comes to vaccine availability for children, a child in need of a
vaccine in Malawi is just as needy as that of a child in Manchester and qualities are universal and they qualities are universal and they don't for this government end at the channel?
15:15
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The noble Lord I think is
somewhat over interpreting what has been said. We have been clear that
we will prioritise humanitarian health and the climate. He will understand because of his work in this area that when you talk about
health, principally beneficiaries are quite rightly women and
children. We will make sure that a
child wherever they live can access
what they need and this alliance is
a good way of delivering this.
We will make our decisions and do the impact assessment and unlike the previous government, we will publish the conclusions of the assessment.
We want to be as transparent as
15:15
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Is the government aware that we have a vaccine crisis in this
country? Seriously, it started during Covid-19. Measles, mumps and
rubella are vitally important. We
are below the safety threshold in many parts of the UK. So, can the
noble Lady the Minister give some indication of what the government is doing to reverse these trends?
15:16
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I would be straying somewhat beyond my remit to talk about
vaccine hesitancy in the UK. I would just point out that pathogens do not
respect the barriers, and actually, it is in the interest of health
security in this country to make
sure that having children vaccinated becomes the norm, where ever those children are growing up. children are growing up.
15:16
Lord Trees (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
Nearly every minute a child dies
from malaria somewhere in the world. That death toll is easily remedied
by the application of vaccination. Vaccines, which we have partially
produced in the UK in our industries, in our research institutes and in academia. Vaccines
that have been partially subsidised
an application -- in our application
by Gavi. Can I ask the Minister has the government estimated the
positive economic impact of a successful Gavi replenishment can
have on the investment in and growth
have on the investment in and growth by -- growth in pharmaceutical industries?
15:17
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
That is an important point. Looking at the economics of this, we know that every pound invested in
Gavi, there is a return of about £54 in terms of life saved. He is right
to remind us that we are leaders in vaccine -- devising vaccines and vaccine manufacture. There will
without a doubt be a benefit from
supporting Gavi further and others in the UK. That is good and it is
important we support that work. But the principal aim of this must be, it must always be about health security and supporting developing
countries in making sure their populations are vaccinated for their good and for everybody else's, and
they can use that partnership to develop and support their own vaccination programmes in time.
15:18
Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I think there is widespread agreement across the house on these
programs. As the noble Lady pointed out in her initial answer, the previous government committed 5.6
billion between 2021 and 2025, supporting Gavi to immunise
something like 300 million children and saving lives from vaccine
preventable diseases. This is an invaluable programme. Perhaps the
noble Lady would set out in generality what role the government thinks we should play in global
thinks we should play in global vaccine availability? vaccine availability?
15:19
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
He is right. I cannot give a number this afternoon because the replenishment is taking place next week and I will be attending
alongside the Foreign Secretary when he will be making the announcement
that he talked about. I do pay tribute to the previous government for investing in Gavi and supporting
it. I'm proud it was something that was started under a Labour
government and continued under successive Conservative covenants.
It is a wonderful initiative. It is a wonderful initiative.
15:19
Lord Boateng (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The success of Gavi which I have seen myself as a former ambassador of Gavi in both Canada and Tanzania
has been based on partnership -- Ghana. That partnership is strained
by the recruitment, by our National Health Service, of doctors and
clinicians from Nigeria, from Ghana,
from throughout the government -- Commonwealth. It is undermining the
services in those countries. If we are going to continue to recruit from those countries, will the government please give some
consideration to making direct budgetary funding available to the
health departments in the countries
health departments in the countries where Gavi is working? Speaker Mac we work very closely with our partner governments.
We need to
partner governments. We need to respect the fact that they don't just need vaccination partnerships but the need to have a sustainable
but the need to have a sustainable workforce strategy themselves to deliver the healthcare they need. We will continue to work the -- work
will continue to work the -- work closely with them. I know the
closely with them. I know the Secretary of State has his eye on
this as well. I have every confidence that we will be able to proceed in a way that my noble friend would support.
15:21
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, that concludes Oral
Questions for today.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thought it would be helpful before we move on to 1/3 reading of
before we move on to 1/3 reading of the Holocaust Memorial Bill to move through the usual courtesies and
through the usual courtesies and procedures. I'm aware that some
noble Lords who may wish to speak...
noble Lords who may wish to speak... It is customary for contributions to be focused on brief thanks. I would
15:21
Business of the House
-
Copy Link
also ask colleagues to minimise the number of contributions and keep speeches very concise. As set out on page 152 of the Companion, any
remarks on the bill should be brief and should not seek to reopen debate
and should not seek to reopen debate of the previous stages of the bill.
of the previous stages of the bill. -- On previous stages of the bill. Hope noble Lords respect this. I have asked the government whips on have asked the government whips on the bench to do as necessary.
15:22
Legislation: Holocaust Memorial Bill - third reading
-
Copy Link
Holocaust Memorial Bill. Ceramic
a bid to move that this bill now be read 1/3 time. read 1/3 time.
15:22
Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The question is that this bill
now be read 1/3 time. -- a third time. All of those in favour say,
"Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. have it.
15:22
Bill do now pass Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
A bid to move that this bill do now past.
now past. It's my great privilege to steer this bill through the rose. I
thank noble Lords who have taken so much time to scrutinise the bill. I
hope I have demonstrated my personal
commitment through my engagement with noble Lords on all sides of the House. The government is moving a
step closer to delivering on the long-standing commitment to build a National Holocaust memorial and learning centre next to Parliament
where it rightly belongs.
This commitment has cross-party support and endorsement of every living pro
Minister as well as the support of leading representatives of the
Jewish community, other faith and community leaders, survivors and the wider public. The most important
group of supporters is without doubt
the Holocaust survivors who have dedicated their lives to sharing the testimony so that the truth of what happened in the darkest, most
appalling period of history is understood and remembered. I was delighted to see a Holocaust survivor who I met in February who
was a firm supporter of the memorial to receive an MBE on the King's
birthday.
We must ensure there is a permanent memorial to honour the men, women and children murdered
during the Holocaust so that there
testimony can live on for decades and centuries to come. I will be brief. The bill has been amended to
include a new clause on the purpose of the learning centre. As I said at
report stage, I'm sympathetic to the intentions of this amendment but it will now be for the other place to consider the amendment and respond.
I'd like to thank Ernest -- Baroness
got -- Baroness Scott.
Noble Lords have spoken beautifully through the passage of the bill. I'd like to thank Lord Pickles for his
unwavering support. I can't mention every single civil servant but I'd
like to thank everyone by the scene.
like to thank everyone by the scene.
I would like to finish by quoting a
Holocaust survivor. I quote. " With education comes remembrance. This
memorial will give people something to remove. When we no longer have survivors among us, this memorial will help to ensure that their
experiences are never forgotten.
We can create the next generation of
witnesses. Lily has since sadly passed in October 2024 at the age of
100. We now need to get this memorial and learning centre built so we can indeed create the next
generation of witnesses." A bid to move.
15:25
Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
The question is that this bill do now past.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Minister for his courtesy during the passage of this bill. I thank Baroness Deech for her
bill. I thank Baroness Deech for her leadership. I thank all those who point out the risks and drawbacks of the choice the government has made
about the location of the learning
15:26
Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
centre and expressed hope that our reflection -- upon reflection, the government might make a different
**** Possible New Speaker ****
choice over time. One has to congratulate the
Minister and Department on their
patience and persistence, and indeed
patience and persistence, and indeed perhaps on the record. Rarely can a bill achieve so much damage. To
bill achieve so much damage. To security, conservation etc. Damage
security, conservation etc. Damage to the beauty of the locality and to the understanding of anti-Semitism
the understanding of anti-Semitism and Jewish history, to interrupt
and Jewish history, to interrupt community relations.
Once we are
free of the fears of this government that any alternative are somehow
giving in to the anti-Semitism which
the party was accused of a few years ago, and this is simply not the case, we will go forward with the planning process that might yet
rescue this botched plan. It is not too late to tweak it. It is not too
late to build not a monument of
death but one that preserves and understands Jewish life. At a time
when a new version of desire to destroy Jewish life in the Middle
East and elsewhere is playing out as we speak, we could have a learning
centre that extended the achievement of survivors of the Holocaust in
building what was a safe haven for Jews, a land of their own.
It is
ironic that this government is so respectful of 6 million deaths but so cavalier for the fate of 7
million of their descendants in Israel right now. There is indeed
much to be learned not just close to Parliament but inside our debates.
We who understand what is at stake will continue to press our case. The
fight is not over.
15:28
Lord Pickles (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank the noble minister for
the enormous courtesy, the enormous patience and being willing to go
that extra mile in order to ensure
that everybody gets a fair chance. Are very encouraged by his remarks
with regards to the amendment of the noble Lord -- I am a very
encouraged. I think it is a sensible one and I think what we need is
something to ensure it is absolutely
clear this cannot be a museum of
genocide.
The noble minister spoke
about survivors and to me, it's represented by just one survivor.
Sir Ben was an enormous inspiration.
I'm sorry he is no longer with us
and he is no longer saying how delighted his wife and his children and grandchildren will see this
wonderful memorial. Particularly grateful to my noble friend Baroness
Scott for the way in which she
showed patience. I thank the noble Lords who had responsibility for the
memorial and the learning centre and
The model into the house.
It showed
it was actually quite an attractive model. There has been some misinformation, I'm sure
unintentional, about designs and things. In particular, I want to
express my gratitude to the
architect within the agricultural
architectural -- the architectural
practice who died of cancer and left behind a young family and why. I
hope that family will recognise of the last project that he was
involved in was a project of global importance and will come back and
see it with pride.
May his memory be
15:31
Lord Robathan (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
May I congratulate and thank the Minister? Throughout the report in
committee stage he showed tremendous courtesy. I also thank Baroness Deech for her contribution. As
somebody that cares hugely about the Jewish Holocaust, the site for the learning centre is wrong. It will be cramped and it is not worthy of what
we wish to commemorate. What I would
say to the noble minister and others is I personally do not believe it will be built because they will be
so many problems once you start destroying the gardens to do this but I congratulate the Minister and
the Chief Whip on his word and I will let him carry on.
will let him carry on.
15:32
Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I agree with the noble Lord that has just spoken. I also agree with Baroness Walmsley in her tribute to
Baroness Deech, for all her work in
this bill, right up to 1:15 this morning. And all the work she put in at second reading and in committee
in the Moses room. My Lords, I don't want to be disrespectful to the two
frontbenchers. But following the
noble Lord just now, I have to say that I could argue that both front
benches are like ostriches and have
got their heads in the sand.
But I
am getting a long frown from my
chief whip. I will not progress that
argument further. But I ask members
of the House to have a thought about that. Because of the consequences of this bill, they are so adverse, and
this bill, they are so adverse, and
so destructive, and I can only hope that the noble Lord on the Conservative benches is right and this bill will be lost.
15:33
Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I should declare my interest as
president of the historic buildings Society. I congratulate the government and all those who took part in the bill. It was a learning
process. I have over the last 50
years earned my professional
qualifications, worked as a professional and worked in other things and the theme of my life has been land, land usage, law and
planning. And I have to say to the House that the more the bill
progressed, the more I became convinced that this proposal was over development and even in the wrong place.
I don't wish to say any
more, other than with sadness at this bill, the Holocaust Memorial
Bill, will no doubt shortly be going
on the statute. In my view it is not
properly named. It is the Victoria Gardens destruction bill. Gardens destruction bill.
15:34
Lord West of Spithead (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My thoughts are that when they work deeply in the basement, can
they please not use army or naval
divers to do the work there and make sure the money is paid for with
someone else?
15:35
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, it is a pleasure to rise at the third reading of this
important bill. I will not restate our position at length. But the Official Opposition supports the
bill. Which will take us another step closer to delivering on might
noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton's historic commitment to build a lasting national memorial to the Holocaust.
We have made a solemn commitment never to forget the horrors of the Holocaust. To work to make sure that
it will never happen again.
Holocaust education is an essential
part of our efforts to make good on
those promises. It has been the policy of successive Conservative governments that we need a National Holocaust Memorial and learning
centre. This has the support of the
education organisations, including the Holocaust Centre North, the National Holocaust Museum, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and D
educational trust. We were very
pleased that the noble Lord 's amendments were successful at report
stage. We do feel strongly that the amendment not only improves the bill but actually it is helpful to the
government.
It is designed to ensure intentions of successive governments
are honoured once the memorial and learning centre has been est. We
hope the noble Lord the Minister can reassure us today, though we have heard no reassurance, that the government will carefully consider
the amendment. Can the noble Lord perhaps go further and tell the House whether he will be making a case to his colleagues in government that this amendment should be
accepted? Finally, I would like to
thank the noble Lord the Minister for his continued engagement throughout the progress of this
bill.
It is a controversial piece of legislation. I am grateful to him
for his approach when working with the Official Opposition of the
frontbench. I would also like to thank his officials, the House
authorities who have supported an extremely long report stage on this
bill and all noble lords who have contributed to the scrutiny process
of this legislation. And on something very personal, I thank the
15:38
Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
opposition office who ably supported me throughout the passage of this
me throughout the passage of this My Lords, I rise very briefly to say that I am not going to respond to all the contributions by noble Lord.
I think there are still some outstanding concerns. Let me reassure them that subject to the
passing of this bill in the house, and going into statute, there will be a process for people to put their
be a process for people to put their representations and views and IDs forward about future planning.
I
look forward to meeting with the noble Lord and looking at his amendment and the technicality and
amendment and the technicality and wording. Let me finally make one
last point to the noble Lord, and I
thought I would take it as a cement when he described me as an ostrich. The noble Lord may not know that the fastest bird on land, with speeds of
up to 70 km/h, I wish we had that speed in the passage of this bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is this bill now passes. As many as are of that opinion, say "Content". Of the
contrary, "Not content". The
15:38
Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - committee stage (day 5) - part one
-
Copy Link
contents have it. The children's
15:39
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is the House again
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is the House again resolved itself into a committee upon the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The
contrary, "Not content". The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Clause 10, amendment 107, my lord. I rise to speak to the amendment in my name and opened this important group of amendments on regional
group of amendments on regional care. We are hearing about the
care. We are hearing about the stresses and pressures on local authorities in relation to the cost
authorities in relation to the cost of children's services. The establishment of regional care was a key recommendation of the
independent review into social care,
carried out by the honourable member for Workington, Josh MacAlister.
I
To the MP for the work he did on this review, which in many ways was groundbreaking and he put a huge
amount of effort into it. He is to be applauded for that. I look forward to hearing the amendments from other noble lords, who I am
sure are keen to raise important issues related to the RCC. My amendment is straightforward. It
seeks to clarify the role of the independent care boards, the ICB, in
the RCC arrangements. In my experience as an MP for a number of
years, and visiting many care homes and talking to many practitioners in this field, every child in residential care will almost certainly have mental health needs
and very often physical health needs as well.
The Minister will be aware
15:42
Amendment:107D Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
of the serious concerns that have
been expressed by a number of organisations that the reform of ICBs will lead to changes in the
ICBs will lead to changes in the funding allocations and this could in turn compromise and undermine
in turn compromise and undermine their effectiveness. My amendment has made it crystal clear that ICBs
has made it crystal clear that ICBs must be included in the development and delivery and governance of the
and delivery and governance of the ICC -- of the arrangements.
Members
will be aware of the concerns expressed by the national network of designated healthcare professions,
designated healthcare professions, including NHS England, regarding the health workforce in their ability to
health workforce in their ability to implement the clauses in this bill.
Indeed in March NHS he reported all
current caseload reviews suggest child safeguarding expertise is already fully committed and at full
capacity. I very much hope that the
Minister will take that on board. Because these concerns certainly
have intensified following recent
announcements and as well as the abolition of NHS England, ICBs will be required to reduce operating costs by 50%.
Furthermore, all NHS
providers are being asked to reduce corporate costs by the same
percentage. I support that in principle as I am sure everyone on
these benches do because we want to eliminate waste and have more effective management and we want to see efficiencies. What I would ask
the Minister is a simple question. Surely safeguarding is a frontline
service. Safeguarding at the moment typically sits within corporate services of most NHS provider
trusts. Furthermore, and the
Minister is aware of this, the model blueprint actually asks ICBs to test and explore options to streamline and transfer some of the
safeguarding activities away from
the boards.
These changes in accountability, do they require
Secondary Legislation in the future? Can I ask the Minister, why when this is such an important frontline
this is such an important frontline
Why is it categorised as part of corporate services? Maybe we should ask that question because it does
not make sense to me. I would also like to raise a number of points as well because we are talking about local authorities and in particular
about county councils and putting more responsibilities into their hands.
I think many of us find that
to be a positive move. But there is
a great deal of change going on in local government. The Minister will be aware of this because I mentioned this the other day that in Norfolk
for example, there is a debate going on about government reorganisation and there is every possibility we will go from the current county council and the district to maybe
one unitary authority with the county council carrying out all competencies throughout the district
or maybe two or three unitary
authorities in Norfolk.
I suggest to the Minister that although reorganisation is going to make
savings in the longer term and drive
efficiencies and cost reductions, in the short term there will be a lot
of disruption, dislocation and a lot of redundancies of key staff which
What measures will the government take to ensure that local
authorities can cope with these changes coming down very fast, many
changes contained in this bill? I
would like to put it to the Minister that there may well be because of
these changes in the bill, be significant implications for
staffing across these different
areas.
I would like the Minister to reassure the house that there will
be the capacity for funding of ICBs to be full participants. I beg to
move.
15:46
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Line 45. Amendment proposed,
15:46
Baroness Longfield (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Line 45. Amendment proposed, clause 10, line 32, insert words as printed on the Marshalled List.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
printed on the Marshalled List. I rise to speak to amendments 108
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak to amendments 108 1082 116 in my name -- 108 to 116 in
1082 116 in my name -- 108 to 116 in
1082 116 in my name -- 108 to 116 in my name. I welcome the significant increase in investment in children's
social care. The social care. The distance social care. The distance from social care. The distance from home that some children are being placed
that some children are being placed in in care has been an issue of
in in care has been an issue of concern of mine for some time.
Local
authorities are facing challenges in delivering places close to home in recent years due to increase in demand, rising costs, cards to early
intervention, funding, workforce challenges, leading to what can only
be seen as a broken care market. Children are too often moved to
homes unable to meet all their needs
homes unable to meet all their needs
or far away from those who matter the most to them due to a shortage of appropriate options. Between 2013 and 2024, the number of children
living 20 miles from home increased
living 20 miles from home increased
by 60%.
In 2024, more than a fifth
of children in care and half of those living in residential care were living more than 20 miles from
home. Research from the charity highlighted that children living in private children's home where 2.5
private children's home where 2.5
times more likely to be living a fair distance from their
communities. We talked about the negative impact of being separated from communities and what that can
bring. And exacerbating adversity in
a whole range of different issues.
The move to regional care cooperatives is one I think is
welcome and it's an opportunity for better planning, but there is a risk that without effective mitigation,
the proposal to regionalise the delivery of children's homes in care
could lead to children being referred from their support networks
but within the region. I know that is not what anyone wants. That's why I'm tabling these amendments which
would provide an important mitigation to stop children from being moved far away from their support networks, but still within
the region.
I would be grateful if the Minister would consider these changes to provide children in care the surety they can stay close to
those they have relationships with and support networks when this is in their best interest.
15:49
Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, following on from that,
I would like to wish to support those amendments directed specifically at ensuring placement
of children close to home, both in
this group and in the next group. Simply, state intervention in the
life of a family should if possible make things better, not worse.
Recent figures from the Department of Education show that one in 10 children looked after experience
three or more placements in a year, described as high placement instability.
There is already in a
section 22C in the children's act
and accommodation for children. --
And accommodation for children. When
a child is accommodated away from home and away from parents and away
from a familiar area, some parents become unable or unwilling to provide further support and they
disengage, or at least they give up on active engagement. However, there will still remain a need for
interaction between the local authority and parents. Parents who
retain parental responsibility.
Even if they do not do so, they should be
encouraged to remain involved and see themselves as able to remain involved. That is likely to be
reassuring for the child. However, parents and wider family members cannot be expected to maintain involvement unless the placement of
the child is reasonably accessible to them. Phone and digital contact
are no real substitute. I suspect the Minister might say that the
obligation under section 22 C is already referred to in the bill. I would support the suggestion that it
should be emphasised and reinforced
by these amendments.
I also support amendment 170B, that of the noble
Baroness Cash to ensure the bill does not detract from the duty in
section 22C7 of the Children Act. section 22C7 of the Children Act.
15:52
Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to speak to amendment
116B, 177B, C and D in this group tabled in my name. I'm grateful to
Lady Longfield and two noble Lords who have already spoken. I agree wholeheartedly with what has been
said so far. The intention behind these amendments is to address the
issues of attachment and trauma -- attachment disruption and trauma
that can ensue from children being
housed too far from home. Those who have spoken have addressed this also.
We know we can immunise --
minimise the damage. In a probing
manner, I have tabled amendments to
invite the noble Baroness the Minister to reflect on whether there
is some way in which these concerns, as expressed today in the House, could be accommodated in this legislation. 116B Is a duty to
collect sufficiency data. It
addresses the basic idea that you cannot plan what you can't measure.
We know from the McAllister Review and from many other organisations
which support RCCs that there are concerns about current provision already and we need to think about
making sure there is strategic visibility so that RCCs working
together know how many foster carers, residential carers and emergency places are needed and
emergency places are needed and
where investment is urgent.
Josh McAllister was clear that the data
should urge government is to consider that viewpoint of their
own. This amendment would give legislative force to his
recommendation and it would allow available, readily available data to
be collected so we can target spending wisely, empower local leaders who are responsible for
assigning the places and avoid
waste. 117 B builds on the previous
proposal requiring the RCCs to
publish an annual report. Really basic governance issue of transparency and accountability, but allowing the local authorities,
providers, Parliament and most importantly children and their families to know whether the system
is in fact working.
In placement decisions we know because there has
been a lot of coverage of this, which are currently shaped by what
is available at the moment. Many of us have concerns about supply driven
situation by various commercial providers. This amendment would help reverse some of that by making the
data transparent. It will also
ensure that RCCs are open and
responsive to their stakeholders and to Ofsted ensuring that young people and foster carers are accommodated
rather than commercial providers.
This would be a public report that would really encourage good
governance. This is a follow-on from previous provisions. I've said it
already, I support the amendments proposed by fellow noble Lords
today, and these proposals are to invite the government to consider
what way the best accommodation
what way the best accommodation
takes place. This would help RCCs to invest early and local provision and
reduce worry about responsive private options which have been driving children to be accommodated
out of their local areas and all the
concerns raised in relation to that.
Parties in this house want reliable care for children. Finally, 117D
puts focus on outcomes for children.
On this one, I would really emphasise, because it ties with the
stated objectives of this bill, which is entitled Children's Well-
being. It cannot be right that RCCs would be introduced without the
requirement to use the data showing whether or not they are working for
the children, the very children they are intended to provide for. MedConnect to critical questions.
--
MedConnect to critical questions. --
two. Did we have enough places? What really matters and what's going to make a difference is whether those
children are safe, settled and supported to thrive, hopefully in
proximity to their own families or kinship that may be available to them. And this amendment would allow
the RCCs to link their planning with real-world results, help local
government and local leaders to learn what works so there can be
continuous improvement. I believe that these amendments are proportionate and sensible measures
which meet the state and purpose of
which meet the state and purpose of the bill and about -- and I beg for government support.
government support.
15:58
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to speak to amendment 170 in my name. I'd like to thank my noble friends Baroness Bennett and
Lord Russell for adding their names
to my amendment. I think this is a very important group. So many times
in discussions on this bill and merge generally we have talked about the dangers of children being placed
far away from home -- more generally. This is why this is such
a critical group of amendments. I'm supportive of everything that has been said so far in the amendments
that have been put forward in relation to trying to prevent children from being placed far from
home when there are any other viable alternatives.
My amendment, the intentions are quite simple. Is to ensure that those making decisions
take into account the wishes and
feelings of children. I do very much welcome the government was my ambition to be a child-centred government and I support the
important steps taking -- taking in
this bill to strengthen the system. I do think there is a more this bill could do to be truly child -centred.
I think at the moment needs to do
more to embed real consideration of children's wishes and feelings, hence this amendment and indeed my amendment, which was discussed on an
earlier occasion around children's wishes and feelings being respected
in relation to family decision- making.
In 1991, the UK ratified the
United Nations conventions on --
United Nations Convention on the
right of the child. It recognises that children's -- children are
experts in their own lives. And gives the opportunity to express
their views which is a critical factor in building trust and keeping
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Specifically on the amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Specifically on the amendment about the care system related to accommodation for children in care,
accommodation for children in care, particularly in the context of Regional Care Cooperatives that we are talking about, I know many local
are talking about, I know many local authorities recognise the value of experience when making strategic
experience when making strategic decisions and that the government
has already taken steps to engage with children as it thinks about
with children as it thinks about future policies.
But surely it cannot be right that children and, their voices are consigned to "such
their voices are consigned to "such other persons " that the Secretary of State considers appropriate, as
of State considers appropriate, as those most directly affected, surely
Should be named on the face of the bill? That is what this is about. I think it is a modest request. I hope
the government will look sympathetically on this amendment. I do believe that every child should be confident that they will be be confident that they will be involved in decisions that affect their lives.
16:02
Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I welcome this bill. It was a cause of great sadness that the late
Baroness Massey wasn't here to participate. It is a cause of sadness that if she had been here,
she would have had her name on this amendment rather than me, with more
power and justification behind it. Indeed at the time of her passing, she was working with a group of us
in this House to try to find ways of having the voices of children heard more regularly in the day to day
work of this house, in particular with some of our committees.
That is work which has yet to be completed.
We must carry that on. I think what
the Josh MacAlister review showed is while we have a plethora of
different organisations trying to
look after the needs of the young people we are talking about, in a variety of different ways, with an
enormous amount of data about what they are doing and not doing, the fact that we had to have a large-
scale review, which required tremendous resources and was carried
out very effectively in order to collate and understand the data, and spend as much time understanding
what it wasn't telling us as what it
was telling us is telling in itself.
I particularly support the amendments of the noble Baroness
amendments of the noble Baroness
Cash. In order to try to improve a situation which has developed over the last 20, 30 years, which at the
moment is causing local government across the country huge difficulties, because of the statutory duties which we have
heaped upon it in legislation after legislation, with the best of
intent, what we have got is a system which really is not working. We do
have in this bill an opportunity to
try to learn the lessons of trying to do the right thing, but clearly
going about it in the wrong way.
We have a chance in this bill to try to learn from that and do it in a
better way. I particularly took the point about the needs of the first
of all children being listened to, but second that in trying to provide
the right services for these young people, that we are actually driven by the demand they require to make
their lives better. Rather than the
inadequacy of the current range of supply which is hugely varied, both
in terms of coverage, but also in terms of the type of delivery and
indeed the good or bad effect of the delivery.
For all those reasons I do support this group of amendments. I
implore the government and all of us to learn the lessons of the past and try to do better in the future.
16:05
Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Hi rise to support amendment 117
in the name of my noble friend Baroness Tyler and myself and
others. The decision as to where a child is cared for in the system is
a crucial decision in the life of a child. We should be listening to children with care experience. It
may affect their ability, as we have heard, to keep contact with wider
family and friends and other factors
were mentioned. It will make a difference to their ability to keep contact with a teacher who they
might trust.
I think that can be quite important in the life of a child. It can otherwise be very
disruptive to their education if they are a very long way away from where they previously went to school. As we know, children with care experience usually have less
chance to get good educational qualifications than other children.
That has an effect on their whole life chances. As my noble friend
says, it cannot be left to the
Secretary of State under the title of such other persons.
The category of those most directly affected by these regulations must be named on
the face of the bill. It is vital children have the confidence they
will be heard. I would say the slogan nothing about us without us
is apt in this context. is apt in this context.
16:06
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
I will stand up now, my lord. Having attached might name to the amendment, I will focus chiefly on
amendment, I will focus chiefly on
that. The noble Baroness has stolen my starting line as my final line, nothing about us without us. I think I first used that phrase in a debate on similar amendments in the Health
on similar amendments in the Health
House and the country is coming to realise we have to listen to children far more. I will just in this context the site an interesting
court case in the last week.
The Court of Appeal decided a 14-year- old who had been tricked by his parents after appearing to be going
to Ghana, he took his parents to court and the Court of Appeal ruled he should have the right to come
back to Britain as he wanted to do. I think that is an interesting court case. It shows generally how the
legal system is starting to listen
more to children. I think it is important the legislation does and that it is on the face of the bill.
I think it is clear this will raise issues I will come back to in a later group of amendments. But the basic point about the Regional Care
Cooperatives is they are going to take decision-making further away
from local authorities. Indeed some of the people that have been looking
at this, studying this, the Care Review evidence group for example
said care will need to be taken that these structural reforms do not dilute local accountability
mechanisms. I think making sure that the children are heard in the making
of regulations is in some way a counterbalance to that risk which quite a lot of experts identified by
the taking of this approach.
the taking of this approach. the taking of this approach.
16:08
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I rise to speak, if I can find the right page 2 amendments
116 and 117 in my name. As we have
heard the proposals to create Regional Care Cooperatives came from
the Independent Review into children's social care. They are the
ones that we support. However we are
also aware that there are a number of regions already using informal cooperation agreements. So I do question whether we actually need more legislation to make this
happen.
Maybe the noble Baroness the Minister when she is summarising can
comment on this. The Secretary of State is taking the power to direct areas to create one of three models
of cooperation. It is important that
we understand how this will work in practice. Because presumably if
areas are not adopted in this approach voluntarily, there would be
significant barriers and potentially
good reasons for doing so. Could the Minister clarify a few points when
she closes? The Local Government Association has stated its support for the more narrow requirements of
the Regional Care Cooperatives as being used by the Pathfinder areas,
namely on "strategic planning and placement for children with more
complex needs ".
However the bill has stated that Regional Care
Cooperatives will be responsible for commissioning the provision of accommodation for children being looked after by the local authority.
There is a worry about mission creep
and a confusion over responsibilities which I have tried to address through my amendment. And
my noble friend through her
amendment. Could the noble lady also comment on some of the concerns expressed by organisations such as
Barnardos that this model will squeeze out some of the smaller providers, increasing even further
the dependence on independent providers, many of whom in the
private sector as we know have a combination of very high profitability and high debt level?
Can she also confirm the data for the Pathfinders and when they will
be publicly available either by
evaluation or any other data? Does the Department have an idea that
they can share in public of the likely size of each of the areas? The two pilot sites, Greater Manchester and the south-east, are
both very large with about 3 million
people within them.
Is this the size that the government expects to be
typical? Amendment 116 removes a power equivalent to a Henry VIII
power from the bill. A subsection of clause 10 defines strategic
accommodation functions as assessing current and future requirements for
the accommodation of children being looked after by the local authority. Developing and publishing strategies
for meeting those requirements, commissioning the provision of accommodation for children being
looked after by the local authority, recruiting local authority foster parents and supporting them, developing or facilitating the
development of new provision for the accommodation of children being
looked after by the local authority, and any other functions related to a local authority in their duties
under sections 22 a, C and G under the recommendations of the Secretary
of State.
A new section gives the Secretary of State a power akin to a
Henry VIII power to add to the above list of strategic accommodation
functions by regulations. In justifying the power of the Department has said the department
has tried to retrieve the right balance between confining the scope
of the powers through primary provisions and leaving necessary
matters of detail to regulations. This is the first time the Secretary of State has sought to bring local authorities together to collaborate
in the delivery of strategic accommodation functions.
Regional
cooperation arrangements, known as care cooperatives, are currently
being tested by Pathfinders in two
local authority regions. This is my emphasis and not that of the Department. When the Pathfinders are
evaluated, the Secretary of State may need to prescribe additional
functions. There may also be a need for additional functions to be specified in the future, depending on the needs of a particular area
and to keep pace with the change in
and to keep pace with the change in
social care placement in the market.
The power has been limited to one that enables additional functions to be added to the list in the future. It does not enable the Secretary of
State to amend or remove any of the functions already listed in the clause and so it is not a Henry VIII
**** Possible New Speaker ****
power. My amendment is a probing amendment as this feels like another example of the government
example of the government introducing legislation before it is ready. Why not wait until the Pathfinders are evaluated to be
clear what additional strategic functions might be needed? Maybe the
functions might be needed? Maybe the noble Baroness can inform the House if the department is aware of any gaps in the current strategic powers, which have been identified
powers, which have been identified in areas using this approach
in areas using this approach already.
It would be good to understand whether the government
understand whether the government had any particular powers in mind that might be needed, or whether this is a belt and braces just in case power, without anything
case power, without anything
It's obviously important that we have an independent assessment of
their effectiveness and impact, and whether they are achieving the goals
of the government. And perhaps even more importantly the needs of children. There may be other ways of
achieving this and if so, it would be helpful to understand what those are.
More specifically, my amendment
aims to bring -- bring a spotlight
to use of unregistered provision. It will anticipate and commission
capacity in a more effective and cost-effective way. One outcome of
this would be a drop or complete removal of the use of unregistered
provision, something which I know the local authorities are keen to see, as are many noble Lords across
the house. My amendment 119 ZA 1196
to test the government's appetite
for a more radical overhaul of the way children's spaces are
commissioned.
At its heart, it seeks
to align the interests of children with the interests of the provider
and indeed the Commissioner, which
is not the case today, and I think this is at the root of many problems
we face in this area. I know this has been adopted in at least one local authority, so I have some confidence it can work in practice.
I won't go through every point in the list of principles, but it is worth clarifying a few of them.
Firstly, point A is key. The provider knows the revenue is
secure, they can accept a lower average cost per placement because
effectively they will always have 100% utilisation of their capacity.
And I apologise for talking about accommodation for children in these terms. This also gives clarity to
the local authority of their cost. It removes the incentive for the
provider to hang onto a child who might be ready to leave the home,
for financial reasons. This feels like a really fundamental shift.
It
avoids what must be -- might be described as price gouging when local authorities need a placement
local authorities need a placement
in a hurry. It is also clear about the need for children to be placed
close to home when it is safe to do so. Something which has obviously got widespread support across the
house. It builds on capacity for sadly inevitable emergency
placement, and it embeds provision of speech and language and clinical
of speech and language and clinical
psychology provision.
It creates flexibility to require the provider
to offer edge of care support as an alternative to residential
provision. Unless we can align the incentive for providers with what is
best for children and in a way that gives visibility and control back to
the local authority, I fear that regional care cooperatives will not
deliver on their promise. The noble Baroness the Minister may say that this level prescription is not
needed on the face of the bill, but if that is the case and she agrees with these principles, can she set
out how the government plans to implement them and hold to account those local authorities who don't
follow this good practice two
turning to the amendments 108 to 116, these rightly emphasise the importance of children being placed
importance of children being placed
as close to their roots as possible.
We know that where this does not
happen, it's more distressing for children, more likely for a placement to break down, and for a
child to go missing. This problem is particularly acute for children in London and other major cities, where
London and other major cities, where
property costs may create a provision prohibitive. Amendments in the name of Baroness Cash ring
clarity and rigour to all partners
in the regional cooperative to ensure that the act in the best
interests of the child in terms of retaining important relationships in
their lives.
As the noble Lady set out so ably, the combination of a
duty to collect sufficiency data, to publish it, to use it, and to have a
focus on outcomes all seem to me a minimum that we should expect in
these situations. I absolutely agree
with the noble Baroness lady Tyler's amendment 117 about the importance
of the voice of the child, I theme I will return to several times during
the clauses that we debated today. Finally, turning to my noble friend
Lord Bellingham's amendment 107 D, I
absolutely support this and the important concerns he raised about how the restructuring of the Integrated Care Boards will impact
their capacity to contribute fully
to the regional care cooperatives which are so vital for their
success.
To move amendments 116 A,
117A and 119ZA. 117A and 119ZA.
16:21
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, turning to the
amendments in group 1, before I do that, I just want to be clear, as many noble Lords have recognised,
that the measures in clause 10, together with those we will be
coming to later in clauses 12 to 18 are part of an overarching strategy
to fix the market for placements for
looked after children. The review conducted by my Honourable friend Josh McAllister which quite rightly
several noble Lords have referenced together with the report from the
Competition And Markets Authority were explicit that the placement
market is dysfunctional, and that some private providers are making excessive profits for placements for
our most vulnerable children.
We are now taking concerted action to address this, including through
measures in this bill but also a wide range of non-legislative
measures as well, to deliver a broader range of providers in the market so that local authorities
have more options when finding the right place for children in their
care. The right homes in the right parts of the country so that children don't have to move miles
from their communities and support networks, which many noble Lords have referenced in this debate
already.
And that these homes are delivered at sustainable cost to the
taxpayer by providers who are no longer making excessive profits.
It's been a failure to address the dysfunction in the system, which has
led to many of the issues that noble
Lords are rightly identifying today.
We will respond to these more broadly in the action we are taking
to fix that dysfunctional market, hopefully. Turning to speak to
amendments 108 to 116 in the name of my noble friend Baroness Laing field
which seek to amend the definition
of strategic accommodation functions to ensure it meets the current and
future needs of looked after children.
Of course, this and the contribution of my noble friend
exactly get to the crux of the problems, which we are trying to
solve here. My noble friend is
solve here. My noble friend is
Children being too far away from home, to because pressures,
inappropriate placements - those are all things that this provision and
the other elements of strategy are aimed at addressing. And I will also
address amendments -- amendment 119A from the noble Lady Baroness Barran
which sets out precedents that would
have to be adhered to when commissioning accommodation for looked after children.
She is right
that the provisions in this clause relate to the direction powers for
the Secretary of State. In circumstances where local
authorities either refuse to take part in regional arrangements or perhaps were regional arrangements
have been set up and there are local authorities that might not have
managed to be part of any of those regional arrangements, because I
certainly think that it is already the case that authorities are trying
to bring themselves together into regional arrangements precisely to
be able to solve some of the issues that we have outlined.
The government completely agrees there
must be sufficient accommodation for all children who are looked after by
all children who are looked after by
their local authority, and in the future that this accommodation must meet their needs and provide appropriate support and that it
should allow them to live as close to home as possible when that is in their interest. That is precisely
the reason for trying to ensure that the market operates more effectively. But it is also the case that there are existing legal
requirements on local authorities to the effect of some of the
understandable calls made in these
amendments.
Local authorities already have a general statutory
duty under section 22 G of the
children act 1989 to take steps so far as is reasonable to ensure there is sufficient accommodation within
the area to meet the needs of looked after children. There are also under
a duty via sections 22 and 22C of the same act to look after the needs
of looked after children to ensure
it is consistent with the child's welfare and with due consideration to the child's age and understanding, as well as their wishes and feelings.
Finally, they
also have a statutory duty under
sections of the 99 -- 1989 act to provide for children to live close
to their home unless it is against the child's welfare or not
reasonably practical. The problem is
not that there is not legal recognition of these issues and the need for them to be taken into consideration in providing
sufficient accommodation and placements for children. Is that the
market has prevented local authorities from being able to do
that and from being able to fulfil their statutory requirements.
And that is why regional care
cooperatives, which in the
legislation echoed regional care
cooperation arrangements -- are called... These are responsible for recruiting foster parents and commissioning care places. As recommended by both the review
conducted by Josh McAllister and the report from the Competition and
Markets Authority, they will support local authorities to carry out their strategic accommodation functions,
but as I've suggested, these functions are not new and they are already in law, including the duty
to take steps as is reasonably practical to ensure sufficient accommodation for looked after
children.
Any decision-making responsibility for where individual children are placed, however, will
continue to rest with local
authorities. Turning now to amendment 116A in the name of the
noble Lady Baroness Barran which would prevent the Secretary of State
adding to a local authority 's strategic accommodation functions for regional care cooperatives, I
would like to reassure the noble Lady of the safeguards in place
regarding the power to add to the list of strategic accommodation functions to be exercised through regional care cooperatives.
I've
lost track of whether or not she was accusing the government of currently
having a Henry VIII power within current legislation. I will go back
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and check. I thank the noble Lady for giving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the noble Lady for giving way. I was aware that my remarks may
way. I was aware that my remarks may not have been clear. In that department's own memorandum, describes this power as being akin
describes this power as being akin to a Henry VIII power.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to a Henry VIII power. , well I will certainly take advice and look carefully at that. I
advice and look carefully at that. I
advice and look carefully at that. I can assure Your Lordships' House the appropriate committee, whose name
appropriate committee, whose name currently escapes me, has of course looked in detail at the dedicated
looked in detail at the dedicated provisions within the legislation. We will be responding to the
Committee in covering of any issues that might be of the sort of concern
that the noble Lady raises.
But I
hope to provide some further reassurance on that. Firstly, the scope of regulations is limited to
those local authorities functions covered by specific sections of the
Children Act 1989. Namely, section
22A, the duty to do the duty to accommodate looked after children.
Section 22G, the duty to ensure
sufficient accommodation for the coveted and. The Secretary of State
cannot add to strategic accommodation functions without first consulting local authorities
and other appropriate persons.
Further, if relations were to be
made, this would be done via the affirmative procedure providing
This is far from the fears around
the open ended ability to have you
and to the scope, but I do think that, in these circumstances, it probably does make sense to be able,
subject to the consultation and the
affirmative procedure, to be able to change those regulations in the
future. Not least dependent on the evaluation, which I will come to a
bit later.
Turning to amendment 116B, tabled by the noble Lady
Baroness Cass, which would require regional care cooperative to assess
sufficiency of placements in the area and publish and implement a plan to address this, as I explained
earlier, regional care cooperatives
will assist local authorities precisely by adding future accommodation needs full of looked
after children across the region by publishing sufficiency strategies,
by recruiting commissioners as set out in this clause, but I do take
her point about data, and later, I
will come to a bit more detail as to what data the Department is
collecting and what data there will be an expectation of local authorities collecting and using to
inform the regional care cooperatives.
Individual local
authorities will retain, as I said earlier, their statutory duty to take steps to ensure there is
sufficient accommodation for looked after accommodation within the area,
so far as is reasonably practical. There are already legal requirements for local authorities to promote
cooperation with relevant partners, including health in relation to
improving children's well-being, and further, there are already duties on
local authorities to promote contact between looked after children and
their relatives including siblings, friends, and other connected people unless it is not reasonably practical or consistent with
welfare.
Turning to amendment 117,
tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Tyler and supported by other noble
Lords, it seeks to ensure that children who are or who have been
looked after our consulted by the Secretary of State before making regulations under this provision. I
can wholly understand the reason why the noble Lady and other noble Lords
wanted to ensure that the consistent theme that we needed to have in this bill about listening to the voices
of children and young people are considered in relation to these
provisions.
I think we can all agree that, when young people's perspectives are heard, decision-
making is more meaningful and it is more effective. Whether or not that
is in relation to strategic decision-making or whether or not,
absolutely crucially, it is into decisions being made about that child and where they might be
placed. This clause does already require the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities and,
as the noble Lady pointed out, the
rather legal term any other person
they consider appropriate for making regulations under this provision.
That of course can include looked
after and previously looked after children, and perhaps I could commit
to the noble Lady to ensuring that the consultation that will precede
the making of regulations under this provision, we will ensure that children and young people's voices are heard as part of that
consultation because I think it is a
very fair expectation that that
should happen. Also, of course, as I have suggested, local authorities to retain the responsibility of individual children here must
ascertain the wishes and feelings of a looked after child before making a
decision in relation to them.
Of
course, the challenge here is to make sure that, in ascertaining those wishes, it isn't just about
the very narrow options for placement or, in some cases,
practically no options for placement, but the current market has driven us to. It is enabling a
real choice, both for local
authorities and for children and young people about the range of appropriate placements that might be available for them. We are therefore
confident that the news of children in care and children previously
looked after our already considered under this provision, and as I say,
I will commit to ensuring that we make that a reality in the
consultation.
Turning now to
amendment 1178 tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Barran which would require Ofsted to include regional care cooperatives within local authority inspections. Firstly, it
is important to be clear as I have
already said twice that local authorities already have legal responsibility for strategic accommodation functions for looked
after children. Regional care cooperatives will be there to bring those local authorities with their
legal functions together for the
purpose of providing a more strategic and strong countervailing
power potentially to enable the
dysfunction currently on the market to be addressed for the benefit of
children and the sufficiency of the placements that are available to
them.
But local authorities will ultimately remain accountable for
those functions. And that is why Ofsted already expect local
authority children's services and these functions, and as the legal and practical responsibilities
remain with local authorities, we don't believe it is necessary for Ofsted to inspect regional care
cooperatives separately. There is an issue here about whether or not how
we make inspection as appropriate
and focused as possible without reverting to simply seeing
inspection as a way to cover all the issues all the organisations that might be delivering or assisting the
delivery of functions.
The
government believes that this is an appropriate and focused way to ensure that Ofsted has a view and
inability to inspect these functions
without duplicating that through another inspection of regional care
cooperatives. Registered provision is inspected separately by Ofsted in
line with the enforcement policy for they will issue to providers that
are operating unlawfully and can also visit services that they believe to be operating without
registration, but by its nature, and registered provision cannot be
inspected, and I think there are
other provisions in this bill and other things that the government is doing to help overcome that
particular issue, but I think there is the appropriate coverage for
provision by Ofsted in this bill.
Turning to amendment 117B which states that the introduction of
regional care cooperatives doesn't affect local authorities duties
under the children act 1989, I just
want to reassure the lady again that nothing measures the duties placed on those local authorities in that
act. As I said earlier, the role of cooperatives is about assisting local authorities by analysing
future accommodation needs, by publishing sufficiency strategies,
recruiting and supporting foster parents and by commissioning care
places for children.
They have no role in deciding on placements for individual children. That duty will continue to be on local authorities,
and this measure would not allow this placement duty to be given to regional care cooperatives through
violations in the future. Turning to amendment 117D, also tabled by the noble Lady Baroness cash, these
amendments would require regional
care cooperatives to report various data at least quarterly and require
that they assure the noble Lady.
There are important requirements upon local authorities to report data on looked after children.
Those
will be unaffected by the
legislation. I do take her point about improving data collection, but
also, the Department collect a variety of data relating to children
looked after. That includes numbers of children looked after by local authority, their characteristics
including gender age and ethnicity, the reasons why they are looked after, the legal status, the type of placement they are in, the distance
that they are placed in, and their stability. On the important point about outcomes, the department also
publishes data on their vending rates and health outcomes, data on missing children and why children
cease to be looked after, as well as
data on unaccounted asylum seeking children, and of course, we do also have data about the educational
**** Possible New Speaker ****
well. I thank the noble Minister for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the noble Minister for giving way. I had actually looked at all the data currently collected, and I am grateful to the summary
and I am grateful to the summary given to the house just now, but the amendments tabled around understanding where these children
understanding where these children are going and how those placements
are going and how those placements work out, the specific placement with the need and planning for
with the need and planning for future needs can be made.
It is also specifically directed at the numbers of places and the children who go
of places and the children who go into those, and I appreciate that
into those, and I appreciate that burdening any party with more data collection is never attractive, but given that this is about children
given that this is about children being taken from home, placed with
strangers which, even as an adult, that doesn't bear thinking about, waking in the morning and coming
downstairs in a strange home.
I really implore the government to give some consideration to the basic
humanity of this. This has been
supported by numerous charities and cross-party support in this house.
The honourable Labour MP has an independent review, and there is a
consensus that what I'm not hearing,
and perhaps I am missing it, around why wouldn't we seek this data so that we can improve the outcomes for these children?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I am always willing to
allow noble Lords to intervene but I was actually coming to another paragraph in my speaking note which
paragraph in my speaking note which I hope addresses the point that she makes. The government is not
makes. The government is not suggesting that the current analysis or collection of data is sufficient.
or collection of data is sufficient. That is where we intend to improve our data on placements as we set out in keeping children safe, helping
in keeping children safe, helping families thrive.
This will give
families thrive. This will give local authorities better information as she suggests to assess needs and
as she suggests to assess needs and the longer term demand for placements, and you support the delivery of the functions that we are asking regional care
are asking regional care cooperatives to do under clause 10, and it will also be published on.uk,
so I don't know whether a knot that assures her that the government does have some humanity, but I take her
point, and that is why I was suggesting that I come to the
reassurance, I hope, that the government does want to ensure that
we have better data, including to be
able to address the issues around
outcomes that she identified, and that is why also, we will be bringing forward a national data programme that will address the gap
in national and regional data, particularly around the underlying costs of children social care
placements, but we will continue to think about how we can improve the
data that is available to us.
Turning now to 107D in the name of the noble Lord Lord Bellingham which
would require local authorities to perform regional care cooperative to
include local Integrated Care Boards in the development and governance of
in the development and governance of
In fact, the noble Lord was rather more concerned in proposing this
amendment about the ongoing role of Integrated Care Boards in respect of safeguarding. I will come to that in
safeguarding. I will come to that in
a moment.
The response to the specifics of his amendment, I will say that the Government understands the importance to include health partners, in regional cooperation
arrangements, to improve looked
after children's outcomes. Regional cooperation arrangements are arrangements between local authorities to assist with
discharging the existing specific functions towards looked after children. Local authorities, as part of those regional cooperation
arrangements must continue to adhere
to the duties. There is an existing
legal requirement, section 10 of the children at 2004, which specifies that local authorities must make arrangements to promote the
cooperation with relevant partners, including local Integrated Care Boards, to improve the well-being of children within its area.
So far as
is reasonably practicable. That will apply to regional care cooperatives when carrying out functions, on
behalf of local authorities. We do
think it is important that ICBs, in their important role with respect to safeguarding are included in this
way. The noble Lord raised specific questions about the reorganisation
questions about the reorganisation
A crucial statutory role in safeguarding children, protecting vulnerable children from harm and supporting the welfare of all children through vital strategic and expert interventions. The children
at 2004 sets out the role of ICBs,
the role of police and local authorities, statutory safeguarding partners.
These partners are under a
legal duty to work together, to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area, through
multiagency safeguarding arrangements. The statutory guidance working together to provide greater clarity on roles, responsibilities
and expectations of safeguarding arrangements. There is, in the
changes that have been proposed for in Integrated Care Boards, no change to this duty. We are currently working across government and with sector organisations to understand
the impact of the proposed health reforms and we will continue to work, with local areas as they
transform children's local, children's social care system.
We
will continue to work with our colleagues in health in order to ensure that children's interests are
and safeguarding in particular is maintained during the course of those changes. Finally, I tend to
amendment 506 C, in the name of the noble Lord, which seeks to delay the commencement of these clauses until
the Secretary of State has published an evaluation of the current regional care cooperative, Pathfinders. And he also raises a
point about local government, reorganisation. I can assure the noble Lord and I think he raised this in a previous question, as
well.
My colleagues, in the
well. My colleagues, in the
Department, in the MHCLG assured me that there are important transitional arrangements in place during local government
reorganisation, to enable key
functions, such as with respect to children to continue. I would also point out that the whole point of that regional care call to live is
that they aim to make things easier for local authorities, by calling
some of the arrangements, necessary.
On the point about evaluating the regional care cooperatives though.
Raised by the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, the department has commissioned an independent
evaluation of the Pathfinders macro. In partnership with the University of Oxford, research and practice Dr
Clare Baker are expecting their
first full draft report, in June, so, now. The evaluation aim is to assess the implementation and
delivery of the regional care Pathfinders and to assess their long-term impact on improving the commissioning and placement of
children and their outcomes. Regular findings will be used to ensure that
future investment is targeted correctly and policies are developed
in the most effective way.
Regular outputs from findings will be published in the gov.uk, including mandatory reports. A final report will be published at the end of the
evaluation in March 2029. There will be regular learning, dissemination of findings, two key stakeholders to
feed into the development of the
program. Given the nature of that evaluation I'm not convinced that
waiting until the end of what will be a lengthy evaluation, the most appropriate way to address the issues that currently face the care
issues that currently face the care
market.
Although it is the case that
in clause 66. Four, we are clear
that the bill will come into force on such a day as appointed by the Secretary of State may by regulations and clause 66. Five
allows different commencement dates for different areas and different purposes. There are already
provisions in the bill which would permit the Secretary of State to delay implementation of this clause, on regional cooperation arrangements. I do however very much
hope that that won't be necessary. I think as all noble Lords have outlined, there are very
considerable reasons we will need to
improve the sufficiency of placements.
We need to fix a market that is broken and in order to
ensure that children who are so desperately needing appropriate placements and sufficient placements are able to get them. I hope for all
of those reasons noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
16:52
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I apologise for not being present
Of the discussion of these amendments. One issue that I have
been worried about, many years ago and I would be surprised if it did not happen still with the fact that once a child moves from the local
authority, of its area to a local authority somewhere else, the sending local authority loses complete contact with anything that happens to the child. Even though as
I understand it it retains reserved
responsibility. I wonder if there is anything that can be done to make
sure that each local authority, that where the child comes from and that where the child goes to are actually in touch and discussing what
happens.
16:53
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My noble and learned friend, as usual, makes an important point about the application of the law, in
this particular case. I think I am right, as she suggests that responsibility, legal accountability and responsibility remains with the
authority placing the child. Of course, that doesn't mean that in
practical terms they shouldn't be engaging and I would have thought
that that would have been practice. I do think it is also important that there is clarity about where the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
responsibility stays. That of course goes further care cooperatives as well. I'm very grateful to the Minister
16:53
Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm very grateful to the Minister for the extremely comprehensive
for the extremely comprehensive response she has given the House, lasting a while. She covered a lot
of ground. I certainly agree with what she had to say about the wider strategy of trying to fix the
current placement market and above all make sure that the right homes for the right place, for children,
around the country. She certainly gave me some comfort on the role of
the RCC, being able to help local
authorities, work with them and take pressure off them.
I'm also grateful that she mentioned working and looking at the consequences of the
abolition of NHS England. On the role of ICBs, I wasn't actually, I
role of ICBs, I wasn't actually, I
should be aware of the section 10, I was on that committee, many years ago. And I remember, the clauses
around a multiagency safeguarding. The other bodies that are involved
in this process. I'm very grateful to the Minister and I am sure that other noble colleagues here, will
look very carefully what she said
and if need be, I for one, will want to discuss further with her and look
very carefully, in more detail and maybe come back at report stage.
In the meantime I thank Karen also seek leave to withdraw my moment.
16:55
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Duncan of Springbank (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Emma Ma by leave were drawn.
Amendment 108... En bloc. Not moved.
That moves us to Barras barn.
Baroness Cash, 106 B not moved. Baroness Tyler of Enfield, 107, not
moved. Baroness Barran, 117 A not
moved. En bloc, not moved. And that brings us to clause 10 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the
16:55
-
Copy Link
contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. That brings us onto the substantive clause 10,
onto the substantive clause 10,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg leave 101 118. Many are accommodated in adult hospitals.
16:56
Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Duncan of Springbank (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
They shouldn't be. I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They shouldn't be. I beg to move. The question is, 118, after clause 10 insert the new clause as
16:56
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
printed on the marshalled List. ... I want to speak on the same
subject that he did about and
subject that he did about and registered accommodation. Caught me
unawares. I got the wrong notes. On amendment 114, in my name, in this group. I felt it was appropriate to
group. I felt it was appropriate to make the point, in that amendment, because it really is nothing short of a scandal. Some of the most
of a scandal.
Some of the most vulnerable children are regularly placed in illegal, unregistered
children homes. In these settings had the least amount of scrutiny and of course, as a result, children are
at increased risk of harm. Children living, in registered children's
homes, benefit from the safeguarding of that regulation brings. Ofsted
inspected at least once a year and an independent person every month, to check that children are kept
safe. As anybody has a right to expect. Children living in unregistered children's homes do not have the safety nets.
There is also no process for assessing the quality
of their care, or the suitability of the adult providing that care. As my noble friend the Minister said, in the last group of amendments,
unregistered means no inspections and surely this is a situation that
can't be allowed to continue. Children aged 16 to 17 in
residential care are treated very differently from their slightly
younger peers. In 2021 the previous government introduced provisions through secondary legislation to prohibit unregulated accommodation, for children in care, age 15 and under, but not for those aged 16 or
under, but not for those aged 16 or
17.
Two years later, the previous government introduced what they deemed the public standards of a supported accommodation for children in care and care leavers. These statutory instruments are to some
extent encouraged and increasingly shameful practice of keeping children in unsafe hostels, bed and
breakfast, shared homes and in some cases caravan parks. All of those settings leave them without the
support they need and leave them vulnerable to habitual criminals, drug gangs and sexual exploitation. An issue you have been hearing all
An issue you have been hearing all
too much about in the last two days.
The changes that followed in 2023, three supported accommodation, for 16 and 17-year-olds, included no
requirement to provide these children, in care, with any care at all. It is important to remember they are still children. Up to the
age of 18. How many parents, I would ask, would be unconcerned that their own 16 or 17 year old, leaving home,
never mind moving to such totally unacceptable accommodation. I think it is appropriate to ask, why do
they even exist, such places are as unregistered. No requirement for
qualified staff, or managers to be trained, or even present in the
accommodation.
No requirement for monthly obligations, as with registered homes. The statistics from March last year show that after 50% of 16 and 17-year-olds, in care, in England, above 800,000 were
living in this what might be described as careless, often
accommodation. Many North have argued against this lack of care for
16 or 17-year-olds. The changes were introduced in 2021, telling me it
was one of the recommendations of
the Mac Allister report, that the use of unregistered home should be brought to an end.
It hasn't happened and perhaps other noble Baroness Barran, who was the
Minister responsible at the time ought to have something to say why she regarded such accommodation for
16 and 17-year-olds to be appropriate. Too often and for too long, a 16 and 17-year-olds, in care
have been left to feel abandoned. This amendment would give them
support and the care that they so desperately need. I suggest absolutely deserve, delivering the
state as their coparent. While the bill introduces a new enforcement
powers, from legal providers.
These alone are unlikely to drive the
systemic change that is urgently needed. Without the national strategy to limit these illegal
settings, I suggest children will
remain a serious risk. This is not only a safeguarding failure, it is a financial and moral failure. Without a clear commitment from government to phase out unregistered provision,
children will continue to be placed in these unsafe, inappropriate
settings. Wells has already taken steps to end the use of unregistered accommodation. I suggest there is no justification for England to be left
justification for England to be left
17:01
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to support amendment 119
to look after children or those on the edge of care to have access to boarding school places where
appropriate. The principles of this amendment are pretty much exactly
the same as my amendment 82 for children going into care. The difference between them is that the
financial benefits are possibly stronger for non-kinship care, for
example, kinship carers who care for children under special guardianship
orders and child amendment orders and are not entitled to the same financial support as foster carers.
I don't want to repeat word for word everything I said before on amendment 82, particularly as both
noble ministers opposite were in their seats at the time, but I will give a very brief summary. Noble
Lords participating in this bill
know what a huge task to confront carers when taking on children more often than not from broken homes and
carrying the emotional scars of the unhappiness that has emanated from this breakdown. This is why I am
keen to give so much more oxygen to the prospect of offering boarding school places to children on the
edge of care.
I gave the example of the report was carried out by the
local authority when I was a minister responsible for this area.
I think one of the most important pieces of data that came from this was that the 52 children were
trapped during the three or so years this study was carried out over, 33
of them came off the at risk
register, which is the most tremendous results, and I suspect not many other examples and particular types of care delivering
such a significant improvement on
the welfare of those children.
There are two other advantages, which one is the financial advantage because the costs are substantially lower
than that of the foster care or care home route, and also, the
educational outcomes were better for the children in the study than the national figures. So, this is one of
those rare moments when a policy can actually deal with three problems at
once and not cost any more money. That is why I am very hopeful that the government will consider the amendment. We heard also in
amendment 82 the experience in
Liverpool, and North story has that his career has been spent on
education, and again, I am very keen to bring cross-party support to this so I was very encouraged that he was
**** Possible New Speaker ****
supported. I thank the Lord for giving way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Lord for giving way. With cross-party support, he indicates support but I did want to
indicates support but I did want to clarify a point he makes in his amendment. He said a political state
amendment. He said a political state in the local authority area. Can he tell us that those schools exist in every local authority area, and if
**** Possible New Speaker ****
every local authority area, and if they don't, how then would this be put into practice? There are around 35 state
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There are around 35 state boarding schools in the country, but there are also a number of private boarding schools who were also ready
to support, which is why I mention
to support, which is why I mention the real springboard scholarships and bursaries that remain, so I completely accept the noble Lords intervention that children need to
intervention that children need to be kept, wherever possible, near their original homes, but I think this was where we need some flexibility actually. We mustn't
make the perfect enemy of the good,
and if there is a good boarding school place which is reasonably accessible to the child, but more
particularly to the foster care or kinship carer, then that is what matters, but I take on board what
the noble Lord says.
At the time, the noble Baroness, when summing up
on amendment 82 did speak particularly around the ability of
setting, and the noble Lord is right, and in that Norfolk study, it showed that there was a very strong
correlation between the improvements in the child's well-being and the
length of tenure in the study. It
showed 10 years of continuity made a tremendous difference. So, I do hope that you will consider this
amendment, and I beg to me.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak to amendment 129 in my name and to which the noble
in my name and to which the noble Lord has had his name, and first of all, I wanted to add my very strong
17:06
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
all, I wanted to add my very strong support to amendment 144 in the name
of the noble Lord and to say I am sorry that I didn't manage to add my
name to it. It is such an important issue. I was shocked, to be honest, when I read a report from the
Children's Commissioner which said that, on last September, there were
775 children in unregistered homes, including children under the age of
10, children who had spent over 10 years in these homes, and children in entirely and appropriate
settings, such as caravans, and staggeringly, the average cost was
over 1500 today with an estimated total annual cost to authorities of
over 400 million.
As the Children's Commissioner said, and I very much agree with her, the use of these
homes is an absolute national scandal. It is vulnerable children
which are being failed. We wouldn't
allow it for our own children and we shouldn't allow it for those whom the state is the corporate parent,
so I strongly support the phasing out of unregistered accommodation.
My amendment 129 is very closely linked to the discussion we had in
group one about children being placed far from home.
It is to amend
the duty to prevent children in care being moved far from home and that is not in their best interests. And
of course, we have heard a lot of the argument in the previous
grouping, but I want to plant a few specifics. In recent years, there
has been a shocking rise in the number of children in care who are
moved far away from their support networks and communities. Last year, more than 1/5 of all children living
more than 20 miles away from home.
It may not sound that far, but that
is a very long way away from people's local support family and support networks. And in addition,
more than 3000 children in care were living more than 100 miles from
home. That is 4% of all children in care, and while over 800 children and the care of English local authorities were living in Scotland
and Wales, and while I said there
may be reasons why children have safeguarding reasons to prevent them
from exploitation or harm, or to move them to wider family networks,
far too often, it is simply because of a lack of appropriate local options, and as highlighted by the
charity in the campaign gone too
far, being moved far from their family schools can have a really significant and long-term adverse
impact on their relationships, mental health, well-being, sense of identity and things we were
discussing in our last session on relationships.
Clearly local
authorities have recent charities, and that is why we have had a discussion we have had about
reasonable care cooperatives, but particularly ensuring there is a
right number and type of homes to
meet the needs of children in care. So, in my view, the current sufficiency duty is not fit for
purpose, and there is a lack of accountability and oversight about the extent to which sufficiency has
been fulfilled, and that is the reason for bringing this amendment which seeks to strengthen this duty
by requiring local authorities to plan and deliver provision and take
all reasonable steps to ensure that children in care remain living within or near to the noble authority and why that is so
important.
It does build on the Welsh government and I think it is
something that we would really very much benefit from taking forward.
17:10
Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to support amendment 119,
moved by my noble friend Lord Agnew,
and he very persuasively spoke for it. I did read the noble Baroness
it. I did read the noble Baroness
the Ministers response on amendment 82 which would simply have made it compulsory for children in kinship
care to be offered such place. I agree with her answer in pretty much all respects. She recognises the positive impact boarding schools can
have, but they should not be the
default for all children living in kinship care.
She cited the importance of stability in education and friendships to well-being and
educational outcomes. Moving schools
would be potentially highly detrimental, but may I ask the Minister, could she work with me and
my noble friend Lord Agnew to work this legislation to remove any sense
of default? My Amis and Peter make this option available to all as this is currently not the case. The
arguments and evidence for making the boarding school option available to both children in kinship care and
children in local authority care while these amendments overlap significantly, my noble friend
eloquently made the case for
amendment 82 when I was unable to be here, so I will not repeat it here.
17:12
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to speak to
amendment 130 4B in my name and to support a number of amendments in this group. This is an amendment as
I appreciate that the government has
an agenda in terms of planning, so
it may be that this bill isn't the right vehicle, but I did just want to pick up on the proposal from the
government's policy statements green paper keeping children safe and helping families thrive, that the Minister has all ready mentioned.
In
here, it states that there are providers to set up homes more easily and where they are most
needed. Specifically, it will consider legislative options or further changes to support the
delivery of small children's homes. We know that we have seen them move
away from larger homes with statistics showing that homes registered within the previous year
were three places on average, and for places was the average for suspended children's homes as of
suspended children's homes as of
March 2024.
It has been demonstrated that we need more capacity and the children are being placed in unsuitable accommodation, and I very
much support the amendment and
amendment 114 which tries to deal
with regulated homes, and as was
said, it is quite hard to believe that these claims exist, but exist
they do, and that is a capacity issue and is something that we will
have to deal with. So, I appreciate that the government announced
investment into the children's Home Estates last week, and that is welcome and a good thing, but there are additional measures that could
deal with capacity and that relates to planning regulations.
The CMA
2022 study which has already been mentioned found that one of the main
barriers to open new homes is planning permission. The authors heard they repeated concerns about
failed planning applications often due to local opposition which, in
their words, appears to be based on inaccurate assumptions about children's homes and children, and
because we have now moved into
smaller homes, the issue was further, cater by the fact that these are the exact same type of
properties that families are searching for, so as a result, when providers face delays due to the
planning process, even if they have been successful in getting permission, they very often lose the property because planning isn't a
consideration.
So, consequently, the CMA suggested that the government should review planning requirements
and consider whether smaller children's homes which can accommodate less than a specified
number of residents at any one time should be required to go through the planning system. They believe that
this could be a helpful corrective to the market by increasing the number of children's homes being opened, so really, my
straightforward question to the Minister is whether this is something the government is still
considering as suggested by the policy statement of last year, and
if so, would it be possible to give any guidance as to what other legislation they think might be more
The CMO predicted that using planning restrictions that were not only lead to an increase but the spread of homes.
On that note I
Support for Baroness Cash's amendments and other amendments
which would help tackle the problem of regional inequalities. And ensure that children's placements are more evenly distributed throughout the
country. Just to reiterate what others have said, there is that very
particular cruelty to taking children away from their support networks. And everything and everyone and I think as Baroness Tyler said in last week's debate,
life is hard enough for these kids and stacking the cards seems grossly
unfair.
Finally on this group, amendment 165 seems eminently sensible. And that will help children to stop them falling through the cracks. It is so
sensible it is one of those things you are quite surprised to learn that it hasn't happened already.
that it hasn't happened already.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I put my name to amendment 129, I'm very happy to do. Baroness Tyler
I'm very happy to do. Baroness Tyler has made a very strong case for the sensitivity of doing something similar to make it clear that putting children beyond a certain
putting children beyond a certain geographic distance from normal base
geographic distance from normal base is detrimental to the well-being and health in every way possible. I put
health in every way possible. I put my name to amendment 144 in the name of Lord Watson.
I think all of us agree and have heard that what is
agree and have heard that what is going on is unconscionable. And I think the question, as was put very
think the question, as was put very aptly is what action are we going to take to do something about it. The
take to do something about it. The fact that it exists is bad enough. I think we do need to have a clear
think we do need to have a clear plan to do something about it.
I will focus my remarks primarily on
165 in my name. I thank the noble Lord Young for putting this down and
17:18
Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
Baroness Bennett. This is to do with
temporary accommodation and the effect that being moved into temporary accommodation has on young
temporary accommodation has on young children. And this is a topic which the All-Party Parliamentary Group for temporary accommodation, which
for temporary accommodation, which is headed by Dame Siobhan McDonagh
has long campaigned for. And in
has long campaigned for. And in fact, on 13 May, they met with
Minister Daly from the Department of
Minister Daly from the Department of education, and other Ministers from
education, and other Ministers from local government, specifically to explore what can be done about this issue.
The issue, as it says are very clearly, the exclamatory
statement to this amendment, this clause will identify a notification
system, requiring local authorities to alert schools and GPs when a child is placed in temporary
accommodation. And in order to explain why is that important, this
is a direct quote from a teacher in Lewisham, about this phenomenon. "
On the ground, the impact of temporary accommodation, and
children,. We only hear by accident,
only by us of being nosy and in the
morning, being late, tired or hungry.
That is how we find out and then we do our best to support them.
" We have a situation at the moment where there is a lot of
inconsistency on what is happening when a child is removed with their
family into temporary accommodation.
Sometimes, in a very different area to where they were before, which clearly is disruptive to both education and to their health. And I
education and to their health. And I
understand that the upshot of that meeting was positive.
I think we still need to get colleagues in the Department of Health on side.
Because there are some complications in several different levels to try
to get this to work. I think there
are three particular areas which, if this amendment is to be successful need to be done better. The first is a local authorities. I think there
is a sort of move within the LGA, to acknowledge further councils to be
compassionate councils. And there is agreement that in principle local authorities should be doing this
notification, on behalf of the child.
They should be sending the receiving authority the notification, a point that was
raised by the noble Baroness, Butler-Sloss, in the last group.
That often takes place but it is not always taken place, which clearly it should. The LGA does actually have a
very good and clear guidance on this. However, their guidance does not mention schools or general practices specifically, at all. So
perhaps this is an area that could be looked at. The second is to do
with technology. While government, in all forms, including a local
government can spend vast amounts of money on technology.
Technology doesn't always do what you think it
should be able to do. And many local authorities and naturally do not have the ability, in their current
systems to send notifications
easily. For example Manchester, which you would have thought is one of the larger and more sophisticated
metropolitan authorities actually has to do this individually, by email. There is no way of pushing a Button and are just getting this done. And, in the previous
government, the central government
did ensure that the providers of technology, to local government,
were able to change their data systems, so that they included rough
sleeper assessment.
Where there is a will there is a way. This can be
done. We hope that his Majesty's government can do something to ensure that the housing system has a
notification system embedded within it, to make this notification are much more straightforward than it currently is. And the last point is
to do with getting to guidance implemented. At the moment, training across schools and primary care provision is a very varied and I do
not think there is necessarily an understanding, either by the schools from which the children are being
moved, or the schools to which they are being moved to of the importance
of having that dialogue and the same is true of the GP practices.
So for all those reasons, my Lords, I do hope that the Minister will be able
to give some indication whether the initial impression that was given
and the meeting with the two Ministers in May of the government being receptive to this is still the case and perhaps the noble Lady the
case and perhaps the noble Lady the Minister will be able to update us
Minister will be able to update us Happened since then.
17:23
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
Is a boarding school, I do think a boarding school can be a very
sensible place to send children. I
would not want to to be required for all children, I think that would be most unsuitable. I do think boarding
school should be inside the thoughts of those wondering where to put a child. It might be it would be possible to keep the child with a particular member of the family if
that family did not have that child 12 months of the year.
Which for
anybody who is been a mother, everybody understands that
situation, indeed father's as well. I feel particularly strongly about the amendments 144, 165,
particularly strongly about
unregulated accommodation. If one reads a section 17 of the Children
Act 1989 there is an obligation on the local authority under 16, 17, to
promote the welfare of the child. I cannot believe that local authorities who send children to unregulated places are actually
complying appropriately with the law. I wonder if any local authority
has ever thought about it.
Unregulated accommodation, which is
being set out so well, already, isn't in fact checked. And that is
extraordinary. The idea that 16, 17-year-olds are not being checked, as to how they are getting on, bearing in mind it has already been
said, that they are still technically children. They are
certainly at a very vulnerable age, particularly if they are in care. The other point is even adult
accommodation seems to be very unsuitable. Who are they going to meet in adult accommodation. And although they may be checked, do not
know how much checking there is.
I do hope the Minister will listen to these particular matters very
strongly.
17:25
Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to speak to the amendment
170 tabled in my name and also to express my support. My support to the other sensible amendments in
the other sensible amendments in
this group. They are all individual,
why wouldn't we, in my view. I do implore the Government to consider these gaps that have been so
carefully thought through and
proposed, before the House, today. If committee stage serves any purpose it must be to collaborate and work for the benefit of the
children we are talking about.
And I won't pass the points I made in the
first group, today. Data point under amendment 170 drives at the same
point. I ask the noble Baroness, the
Minister, to think carefully. I almost had anticipated that the
previous answer would address the data required already, under the
Children Act. I very carefully
focused this amendment on the gaps, where the data isn't already required. That is to address
efficiency in care homes, over all. I've just added it seems to me that
there is a body of science, around attachment and trauma which now
supports emphatically supports the
case for providing secure and stable
environments for young people, including young adults, actually.
Because the brain isn't fully
developed until well into the '20s. We know from the very timely in this debate, in the wake of the Greening
gang story and the report, the Casey
report, just published, that when children haven't been securely
attached, have been moved in and out of care, they are at their most vulnerable. They are the most susceptible and vulnerable to being
preyed on. The most easily seduced by any kindness, whatsoever and the
wolf in sheep's clothing, is particularly dangerous scenario.
I
do think it is really time that we found and dispense with unregulated
accommodation. Very grateful to the
Baroness for her comments, her
**** Possible New Speaker ****
extensive experience on that. I speak to amendment 165, to which I've added my name. In the
which I've added my name. In the spirit of brevity, Lord Lucas I
spirit of brevity, Lord Lucas I would also like to support 118, 144
17:28
Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
and Lord Russell of Liverpool. As a
teacher I can only quote another member, it is so sensible you are
surprised it is not law already.
17:28
Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Amendment one six five, which replicates an amendment that was taken in the other place which got very safe strong support. The
background is that there are more and more homeless people being accepted under the homeless
legislation and placed in temporary accommodation. By the nature of that
legislation, most have families and
have children. A child in temporary accommodation is obviously NLS advertises position than a child
coming from a stable background. We need to make sure that child gets access to the services that he or
she is entitled to, before hopefully, not too long they are placed in a suitable long-term
accommodation.
The amendment simply requires the local authority to
notify the GP and the school of the child's circumstances. As I think Baroness Anderson said, it should be
good practice. If I was the head of
a primary school, I would actually want to know which of my pupils were integral accommodation. If I was a
GP, I would also want to know which of my chocolate patients were integral accommodation. A GP is meant to treat the patient, as well
as the illness. There are real risks of children being offloaded by the
school, because the head simply
didn't know that that child was in a temporary accommodation.
They had decided to stay at the same school from which they were moved and the
bus just takes longer to get there. Likewise if they are not registered
with a GP, they may decide on prescriptions and all the other universal services that they are
universal services that they are
entitled to. It simply seeks the establishment as Lord Russell said, before notification protocol. After
the debate, Lord Russell referred to this, admitting that the Minister is
concerned. Looking at the record of that meeting, it did seem there were
game changers at the simply couldn't happen.
Yes, there are some temp technical issues that need addressing. Addressing the
technology used by local authorities, rather than manually.
Given the title of the bill will be the children's Bill, it does seem to be that this is something the Minister could smile upon and
perhaps agree to. If necessary with
17:31
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
I will be really brief, but just
to declare my involvement with the contemporary accommodation. Just one
stat to feed into our debate here,
in the year to September 2024, 80 children who were in temporary accommodation died, and if you look
at the figures going back to the
database from 2019 to 2024, children who died in temporary accommodation
was listed as a causal factor in
their death in 74 cases. That obviously speaks to the GP issue,
but also, many awards, and I can feel a few in that chamber take part
in the learn with the Lord's education's programme, and I know we
have many new members of the house and I want to take this chance to commend to those members about what
a great product it is, and we are
taking news about the House of Lords around the country into schools, but it is also a chance to speak to Head
Teachers, sharing with them about what we are doing in their Lordships
house and get a reaction, and I haven't got permission so I won't
identify this too clearly, but in the Midlands, I was speaking to a Head Teacher at a school in a
deprived area and I told her about this amendment and she went yes! I
think that many people might think that the school will already know,
but children and parents may well
feel that this is a cause of shame, and it may go to great lengths to
try to actually hide that fact, so it is really important that the school, as well as the GP, is
notified.
Since we have in having an outbreak of agreement, I want to
briefly comment on amendment 119
about the boarding school places and expressed my reservations about that
amendment. It was only last month that Joyce ovarian, the therapist
who wrote the trauma of the
privileged child reflected on the impact of boarding schools on
British society, and we might all reflect on its impact on politics on another day, but she identified
issues with bereavement, captivity and Association with boarding
schools.
I am sure the boarding schools today will say it is
different now to what it was like in the old days, but what I would say is that we are talking about an
institutional environment, which is
what a boarding school is by definition. It's not a home environment. I wouldn't say that
there would never be a case where a boarding school might be inappropriate for a child. There may
be cases where that is the best option available, given the overall
circumstances, but I think I have trouble with the idea of offering it to all looked after children at
secondary age.
I don't think that is the appropriate approach.
the appropriate approach.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I support amendment 180 4B in the name of Baroness Anderson which builds on the government's own
commitment in keeping children safe, helping families thrive, to look at options to reform the process, to
17:34
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
enable providers to more easily set up homes where they are most needed and support the delivery of small
children homes, and picking up on another issues which noble house of raising this group of amendments, that paper also noted the lack of
appropriate and affordable homes in the right places for children means we are seeing a worrying trend in
the rise of the use of unregistered vision. The CMA's 2022 report did
outline a number of the system and
recommended that the government do what my noble friend suggested in
this amendment to look at small children's homes and domestic houses should be removed.
The CMA concluded
that planning permissions would lead to both an increasing number and
better geographical spread of a children's home so the government
has accepted these and said it is considering options. I would be grateful in hearing from the
Minister on how government thinking has looked at planning reforms in
this area, and if she can outline where they may be intending to take
their actions.
17:36
Baroness Meacher (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
It seems to me that the last place that somebody should go if
they are a looked after child and are already displaced is to a
boarding school. They are shunted to one place and rejected again and
then shunted to another, so very strongly, I would be concerned the looked after children should not be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sent to a boarding school. I want to speak to several
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I want to speak to several amendments, to 170, to 172 143B on planning. I have to declare my
17:36
Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
planning. I have to declare my interest as a former chief of state where I spoke repeatedly about the
issues with sufficiency in many
parts of taking action to enable homes in the places where they were
needed. I support my noble friend Baroness Evans just said, so I won't
need to cover the same points around planning. I will say that the most
acute need is partly around the most expensive areas for obvious reasons, and partly around the children with
the highest needs for whom it is most difficult to configure, to recruit, train, to get open where we
need it when children are there, so that planning for high needs, and I
would stress that the capacity planning should pay attention to the
high needs children whose care accounts for a startlingly large
proportion of the total spend on
care.
And whose needs in the main predictable, if not from birth but from very early in life. There is a
high level of certainty of that being needed all the way through their childhood, many of them will
sadly also be in care homes in their
adult lives. So, that focus, that urgency of doing everything that can
be done to think intelligently far
in advance to enable homes to open so that, at the point, at the age that children need them, we have to
move within a reasonable distance of home.
I also have to re-ensure the
noble Lady that the existence of
children in unregistered accommodation is a serious concern for OFSTED and we spent a
significant amount of our resource on putting pressure on those
accepting placements to register as children's homes as they should. And I will speak very briefly on a
couple of other points. The boarding proposal, I do support that for
those for whom it is genuinely the
right place. It is a way to create stability and a strong partnership with foster parents to make something more stable and enduring
in certain cases.
The principle that it should be considered is an
important one. And I will also support amendment 165 which, as
others have said, it seems so
obvious that one can't imagine that it isn't happening absolutely
**** Possible New Speaker ****
everywhere already. I rose to support the amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rose to support the amendment 119 in the name of my friend Lord Agnew in relation to the
availability of important places, and I do so to former South London boys he was rather unexpectedly sent
boys he was rather unexpectedly sent away to a boarding school without
17:39
Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
considerable financial help. Pretty much every child I have ever spoken
to who is in care, when I asked them as I tend to do when I meet such a
child, what is the biggest issue facing them, they replied the lack of a constant adult in their lives.
A revolving door of people responsible for them. This leads to trust issues which can stay with
them for their lives. In a boarding
school, a child has house master or mistress. I accept it may not be
appropriate to all children, but I do agree that children should be
offered it and it can be a very inexpensive way of looking after these children as well, and I have
seen the benefit of this in many cases and young people who are
experiencing boarding, and I would also support the points made by the
noble Lord Lord Watson and others about unregistered settings and the points about children being sent
**** Possible New Speaker ****
away many miles from their home. I agree that all these amendments
17:41
Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I agree that all these amendments would enhance the life chances and life opportunities of looked after
life opportunities of looked after children and should be seriously considered. I don't think, in the
21st-century, the word unregistered or unregulated should ever enter
into our dialogue, into our
vocabulary. It is not acceptable for our schools, for our children,
whether it is an unregulated school or unregulated home, it should not exist, and I agree entirely, I wish
I had signed the amendment.
He is actually right to call it
scandalous. Have a look at the BBC panorama programme of two or three
years ago where they looked after children in unregulated schools.
Never mind caravans, some of them were being housed in barges. Imagine
that in the winter. An unregulated provision is never inspected,
anything can go on in them, the children aren't safe, and we just should not allow that to happen. And
of course, OFSTED don't inspect them either. We are to our children to give them something better than
that, and I agree with my friend Baroness Tyler.
We can't do that overnight, but we can make a stand
and say we are not going to have children in unregistered provision
and we will phase it out, and that will be a testimony to the current
government. I turned to Baroness Tyler which I signed, I gave my name
to, and everything she says that
amendment ties into the amendment, they are very similar to what they say. I want to turn to the amendment
of 119. I think that Baroness Meacher and Baroness Bennett are
looking at a stereotypical view of boarding schools.
I would like to
take you both to Liverpool College which was an independent school, is
now an academy where the local authority by inlet after children
places, and those children not only get accommodation of high quality, they get adults who properly look
after them. They get sport, they get clubs, they get activities, they get
outdoor pursuits, and what's more, they go to the school and get
fantastic results. Now, I do agree that not every boarding school would
be suitable, but if it is a choice between being on a barge or a
caravan or some other damp some of the unregistered schools are, and I
think a boarding school might be a better prospect not might be, would
be a better prospect.
I really
hadn't thought about the link between schools and GPs and looked after children moving into a
particular area, and presumably, any digital age, we are about to move to a new registration system linked to
NHS numbers. That has a real
opportunity for us to be very joint up, and when children move into
those areas, the doctor will be notified, the school will be notified, and it can only benefit
the child as well. I like the idea from Baroness Cass about a national plan to ensure that we get to the
same position we are in currently, so I hope the Minister, we can't
wave a magic wand and expect this to happen overnight, but I think all of
us in this chamber want the same things, we want the best possible opportunities for children.
Registered schools, proper provision, properly inspected and we
also want our children to be as close to their local county and
their family and friends as
17:45
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
This has been an excellent debate on a range of specific amendments,
all of which either seek to improve
the residential provision for young people, or in the case of amendment 165 require notification if a child is placed in temporary
accommodation. I think this group has been named the why wouldn't we
has been named the why wouldn't we
group? Starting with amendment 165, I would absolutely agree with those in noble Lords who put their name to
that amendment and others who spoke
on it.
But in ensuring that the
school and the GP are notified of the household, including a child being placed in temporary accommodation is vital. I remember speaking, I visited a primary school, in Oldham, where they had a
child in temporary accommodation and discovered that she had a three-hour
journey, each way, with several
buses to get to school, because they did not want to change the school
that they were acts. In fact, the
description that my noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham gave of children being at risk of being off
old, sounded exactly like what might have happened with this child, had the school not known, because all
too often buses did not run, on time.
Being off rolled. They need to
The parents and the child's best efforts, they might be late, or they might be very tired in class. And to
think about how they can best support them. I had thought less about the GP side of things, but the examples that the noble Lady
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle gave were very stark reminders of just how important those things are
too. I'm very much looking forward to the Minister's response to the
amendment, in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Anderson, the planning regulations in relation to
small children's homes.
There is very little in practice to distinguish them from many family
homes and this could unblock some of their capacity and cost constraints that local authorities face today
and which are a block to achieving some of the crucial aspirations that
we all have, for children in care. I
am also very supportive of amendment
119, in the name of Lord Agnew. My noble friend set out the difference in outcomes, for children in care
who benefited from a boarding school place.
And I hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will give this amendment serious consideration. Also I thought a very
constructive proposal, very practical way forward, my noble
friend, Lord Farmer offered. My noble friend Baroness Cash, with the
hair amendment 170 rightly proposes that there should be a national
capacity plan and was clear that her amendment needs to address gaps that exist, in the legislation,
currently. With a real focus on which actions could be taken centrally, to avoid the need to
place children, far from home.
Something which of course the amendment 129 in the name of
Baroness Tyler also addresses. I will also be interested in the noble
Baroness of the Ministers response
to my noble friend, Lord Lucas is amendment, that children should not
be placed in adult homes, or hostels, for all of the reasons that my noble friend resisted setting
out, but which we can all imagine. I
also look forward to the Minister's reply in amendments 144 in the name of her noble friend Lord Watson of
Ivor Gary regarding the use of
unregulated provision provision for 1716 and 17-year-olds.
The noble
Lady would have heard the strength of feeling across the House on this
point. Of course, underlying this is the need to create more capacity, which is why my noble friend of
Baroness Sanderson's amendment and that of my noble friend, Lord Agnew
are so important. Can I close, just by congratulating and agreeing with the noble Lady, Baron of in it for
slipping in and amendment, which I did not know was in the scope of the legislation. But which I put my name
to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak to amendments, new clauses tabled on accommodation capacity insurance residential care,
capacity insurance residential care, seeking to improve the capacity and of course most importantly the quality of provision for children
quality of provision for children and young people. I really do welcome this debate. It has been a breach debate. Time constraints will
breach debate. Time constraints will be put upon us, there have been a
be put upon us, there have been a lot of excellent points made.
Trying to pick out the main ones that hold
the whole group. Together. First of all, speaking to amendment 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord
tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, venting local authorities from accommodating looked after
children in homes or hostels where
children in homes or hostels where young people are over the age of 18 Orsola. The placement of children
under 16, in settings other than children's homes and foster care, or other limited regulatory settings as, as we have heard, has been
21.
In April 2023 regulations were introduced for supported accommodation, the 16 and 17-year-
olds, setting national standards and registration requirements for providers. These regulations have
been put in place to ensure 16 and 17-year-olds can be placed in Ofsted regulated good quality
accommodation. If a provider is
registered, local authorities and
accommodate these older children that, in the accommodation, which may also be used for over 18's. The local authority will consider this
when deciding on the suitability of accommodation for the child.
Looked
17:53
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
after 16 to 17-year-olds will
continue, of course, to reside in foster placements of children's homes, if this best suits their
homes, if this best suits their needs. I will come back to that
point, with further amendments. Turning to amendment 119,-I thank
the noble Lord, Lord Agnew for tabling this amendment, on boarding school places. I can recognise he is
school places. I can recognise he is determined to put more oxygen into
determined to put more oxygen into this space.
This is obviously the second time in just a few days that
second time in just a few days that we have been discussing this. And of course at the Government wants to ensure that all children are given the best possible opportunities to succeed. It recognises how
succeed. It recognises how transformational, for some young people boarding schools have been
and can be in the future. We do not
believe, as I lead up before that they should be the default for all looked after children. Stable, I
will impress us again, stable educational placements are crucial for ensuring consistency in their
lives and for their well-being and educational outcomes.
It is absolutely critical that we treat
the children individually and listen
to their expressions of what they would like to happen. We must
minimise disruption, but having said that, where a boarding school placement is in the best interest of
the child, we want to make sure that
we have that opportunity. Can I just repeat, this is why the government continues to support the Royal
National children's Springboard foundations, broadening educational
pathways program. Which provides placement matching and brokerage services to Children In Need and
looked after children, in a state
boarding and independent schools.
It is a discussion, I know we will
continue to have, but I do acknowledge the comments from noble
Lords and Lady Bennett and in particular, that the sum young
people this may not be appropriate and we have to make sure that we are honest and in that assessment when
looking at the best provision. Can I
reassure the noble Lord, Lord Farmer
that Baroness Berridge did do an honourable job in your absence, on
the last committee day.
Turning to amendment one two nine tabled by the
noble Baroness, Lady Tyler -- 129. Local authority sufficiency duty to
include consideration as well as the
include consideration as well as the
Aryan spoken to by Lord Storey and this runs throughout the theme of
these amendments, in this group. The amendments implicitly support the government's focus on sufficiency,
including regional cooperation is
welcome. However, the existing duties are local in providing
accommodation for looked after children already include consideration for proximity to the
child's home.
And so an amendment, for this purpose is not deemed to be
The amendment could lead to
increased use of out of area placements, ironically, because the duty to ensure sufficiency of placement is no longer focused on that area. Of course this will not
align with the local authority's duty to provide accommodation,
within their area, where this is
within their area, where this is
, we have heard this in the previous group. The amendment is not necessary to facilitate greater collaborative partnership working, or to improve sufficiency.
The
government reforms around the measure and cooperatives we have
heard. Establishing effective,
regional partnerships are going to be so important. And of course the aim is always to assist local
authorities, with their work, in this area. To ensure that they keep
working with individual children, not conflicting with their needs. Can I turn to amendment 144, tabled
by my noble friend, Lord Watson. I
have huge respect for the comments made by my noble friend, but also by all of the other contributions to
the discussions, this afternoon.
We
re-acknowledge that there is still inappropriate, unregulated
placements, out there and they are
still being used. And what we have to do and why the Government is so focused on investing in this area,
is to make sure that we come to a point where we end these practices
and that can lead to so many unfavourable outcomes for young
people. By way of trying to
reassure, of course we know that practice isn't necessarily keeping
up.
Placement of under 16's informally, unregulated accommodation was banned in
September 21. In 2023, the regulations were introduced and set
out, setting national standards and registration requirements for supported accommodation, which is an
option for 16 to 17-year-olds. All looked after children under the age of 18 are now required to be in Ofsted, or otherwise regulated
accommodation. In the majority of all looked after children continued
to reside in foster placements, or children's homes. Where this is the
best option to meet their needs.
The amendment actually removes the opportunity for 16 to 17-year-olds to develop their independence in a
safe and supportive environment, which we believe is not appropriate. I base those comments, from talking
to young people, in my local authority area who have come into
the care system very late, in their childhood and where the
accommodation is appropriate, regulated, they believe that this is the appropriate place for them to
be. I think we need to respect that voice, coming from a young people,
themselves.
I do want to stress that this is the basis of clause 13. In
the bill. Believing the Ofsted needs additional enforcement powers and measures to help bring this into
being. Giving Ofsted the power to impose monetary penalties, for
breaches of the Care Standards Act,
including four persons not registering their children's social care establishment, is absolutely
paramount. Registration is vital and ensures that children are safe and staff are checked. They have the right level of oversight, through
regular inspections.
There are far
too many vulnerable children living in settings where there is no oversight and between April 2023
between April 2020 3 March 2024, Ofsted investigated 1,000
unregistered settings which gives us the scale of the problem, indeed we have to deal with. Ofsted can
already prosecute people who run unregistered children's services.
However, this is a resource intensive process and can take a very long time. The changes in
legislation that we are seeking to bring in give Ofsted alternative faster enforcement powers, to tackle
unregistered settings.
This power also extends to new provider oversight legislation, with Ofsted
being able to find provider groups who do not comply and improve
who do not comply and improve
We understand that some local authorities need to place a child quickly, and we are often talking
about crisis situations. Too often, crises that seem to come to a head
on a Friday afternoon from experience. This leads to some very
difficult decisions being made. And we have to be clear that all providers of accommodation for
children should be registered with Ofsted to avoid the unfortunate
Ofsted to avoid the unfortunate
circumstances we have heard, and we are helping local authorities meet
their sufficiency's in fostering hubs and providing additional
funding for children's homes.
So, I hope I have given some reassurance
around that, but we are not
complacent in anyway, shape or form about this vital area that we are
seeking to address through the bill.
Amendment 165 table by Lord Russell concerning the notification system for when a child is placed into temporary accommodation and
supported by Lord Young, Lord
Hampton and Baroness Bennett, it is fair to say as has been outlined
that the government is supportive of the principles behind this amendment, and I want to assure the noble Lord the government is
considering options for notification system can work legally and
operationally.
As we have heard, the
responsible ministers across the Department have met with Dame
Siobhan to discuss the design of the protocol and the list of public
bodies, and officials are currently working through these matters in
detail. I can't be more specific about that, but I do want to ensure
about that, but I do want to ensure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that this has been taken seriously. With Minister Georgia Gould, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With Minister Georgia Gould, the pursestrings will be looser.
pursestrings will be looser.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You may say that. But from personal experience again, there is
personal experience again, there is no reason why local areas cannot put these arrangements in place, and if
I tell you about circumstances with agencies, and I'm sure this doesn't
agencies, and I'm sure this doesn't happen now, where police have gone into a situation of domestic
into a situation of domestic violence and not even known that there were children hiding under the beds upstairs. This is the sort of
beds upstairs.
This is the sort of shocking results of lack of joined up this of agencies not speaking to
each other, and I think provisions in this bill will go a long way to making sure this becomes normal. The
culture shift is normal to tell school if one of the young people
has a change of circumstances that could affect them in so many different ways, so I am delighted
that government ministers are coming together and we await the outcome
with interest. Amendment 170 tabled
by lady cash concerns the publication of a national capacity plan for children's homes intending
to highlight the issue of distance placements.
I would like to begin by highlighting the government's commitment to supporting local authorities to meet duties through a
range of reforms that will boost the capacity and better meet the needs
capacity and better meet the needs
of children in their areas, and we
have added to the discussions around this amendment. Whilst the amendment would require the Secretary of
State's manual, it would also take
significant local authority resource to collect, collate and submit additional information on an annual basis to inform the plan, all at a
time when the resources for children's services are rightly focused on implementing reforms to
actively improve services.
There are a range of complex contributing
factors across the sector and social care system that can lead to the use
of distant placements which the government is addressing through those reforms in the bill, an
investment in fostering kinship care and local authority children's homes. And absolutely paramount in
these decisions is the issue of
risk. Risk to the safety of a young person, and distance is a necessary
factor when considering their
placements. Finally, I turned to
amendment 130 4B, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Sanderson,
seeking to introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to carry out a review on the distinction and the
planning regime between children's homes and domestic dwelling houses and consider whether this should be
removed.
I would like to reassure the noble Lady the Department for
Education and the Minister for Housing and local government continue to work together in this
important area. In the last two years, it has been clarified by a
joint Ministerial statements that
planning should not restrict the timely delivery of children's homes, and we have changed the National Planning Policy Framework to make it
explicit that planning authorities must plan to meet the needs of
looked after children. In terms of keeping children safe, helping funds
thrive, we will continue to make progress on further changes that
support the delivery of children's homes where they are needed, and
this includes data protection and
analysis in terms of translating the data and working out how it needs to
be used which is often overlooked, but from experience, dealing with an
application for a small home in the
water used to represent, and we went out for intensive consultation with residents living around that home,
and I am pleased to say that after some scepticism and reservation, when we went through it carefully,
when they met the people in the home and understood how many children
would be there, it went through and it was an enormous success, and they
came and asked how they could actually help support the children in the home through their local
connections.
So, there are reasons to be optimistic. But there is a
great deal to do which is why, as I
have said before, we had this bill before us, and I thank everyone for their comments, but I hope the
reasons I have outlined in these remarks that noble Lords and Baronesses will withdraw the
amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am very grateful to the noble
Baroness for that comprehensive reply. I do think the most important
reply. I do think the most important amendment in this group was 144. As Lord Storey said, we should not be
18:09
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Lord Storey said, we should not be looking at placing children in
unregulated accommodation. We are taking powers in this bill to deal
with unregulated schools. I hope we do that a great deal better than we have in the past. The idea that we are putting children into
unregulated homes or as we address later, unregulated alternative
provisions is really not acceptable. And the same local authorities that
are making these placements, we are
giving power to override parental judgement as to the best interests
of the child.
We really need to get our thinking straight in this area. Unregulated accommodation is not
acceptable. Particularly when we talk about children charging at the level that they are, and we ought to
be doing something in this bill to
do something clear about that. I am glad that the government says there is name to end this practice, and
that it should be something that is
done away with. I think we need a stronger commitment than that. I was
glad to hear the support for boarding schools.
I had a miserable
time at my boarding school, and I
would rather have been in bell march frankly in terms of the quality of
accommodation. But I have seen the hugely transformational effect it
can have when it works well in terms of choosing the right child for the
right school. I hope my noble friend will pursue her campaign when it
comes to the planning Bill. Yes, we
comes to the planning Bill. Yes, we
need to be sharper than we are.
And I hope that Lord Russell will pursue
165. It is so clearly achievable, so
we are moving towards a consistent thing for people because it ought to
have been done, and my noble friend lady cash was told that it would be
a burden on local authorities to collect the data. I do hope that the Department for Education will wander
down the road to her friends at the
science department. And look what
they are doing with AI because that sort of function and data collection
is so much quicker, so much cheaper, so much easier if you design the
right systems.
And it oughtn't be a matter of cost. It ought to be a
matter of course. Lastly, the response which was disappointing to
response which was disappointing to
my own amendment, I can't personally see that it is ever going to be
right to place a 17-year-old in an
adult hostel. Children take a long time to grow up. The 17-year-old is
not in a position to be with trouble
25-year-olds as their principal companions, so I will look again at
the noble Baronesses reply, but for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. The amendment is not moved. 119
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The amendment is not moved. 119 ZA. Not moved. Clause 11, amendment
119 A.
18:13
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
119 A. Clause 11 epitomises both the responsibility and the privilege
responsibility and the privilege that we all share as lawmakers in ensuring that the law works as well
as possible for those children who are extraordinarily vulnerable
through no fault of their own, and I would just like to put on record my gratitude to the family justice
observatory and the foundation for their expertise and their meticulous
work in this area. And also, to homes to inspire the Shaw trust and
Somerset county council for allowing me to visit a home where up to 2
children deprived of their liberty can live so that I could understand these issues better.
Children
deprived of their liberty is face severe and immediate risks from
their own actions or the actions of others. They typically face six different types of restrictions, are
under constant supervision, and two thirds experience restraint. The
majority live on their own. Currently, under section 25 of the
children active 1989, children in care can be placed in registered
secure accommodation. And when this isn't possible, local authorities
can apply to the High Court for a deprivation of liberty order through
their inherent jurisdiction.
This often leaves to crisis driven placements in unsuitable settings
and does not address the harmful effects of restraint and isolation
and is clearly intended as a measure
Deprivation of liberty cases through the courts have increased from 102
in 2017, to 1280 in 2024. Recent data shows that applications to deprive a child of their liberty
through the High Court are 10 times more common now than through secure accommodation orders. Worryingly,
over 10% of children attend the hearing. Some aren't even aware of the reason they are deprived of
their liberty, because they have deprivation of liberty order, an 89% of parents have no legal
representation at any hearing at the
deprivation of liberty hearing order place.
These are children who are
silent. Two thirds of children
deprived of their liberty in July and August of Two thirds of children deprived of their liberty in July and August 2022 was still subject to
a deprivation of to order, almost 6
months later. So not only are they silent and silenced, but they are
for a long time. The bill amends the
section allowing children to be
deprived of their liberty, other than the secure children's home.
The intention is that this will
eventually reduce reliance through the High Court's and jurisdiction as
local authorities lack a better
option for children. This alternative accommodation could allow children to have access to placements which can provide care and treatment, while depriving them of their liberty. And of course
these are children require high quality care, from a range of professionals, to have long-term
stable and lasting relationships, in
order to recover and thrive. But there is a risk that children will not end up receiving high quality care and treatment unless there are strong safeguards about the standard
of their care.
My amendment seeks to introduce safeguards ensuring that
children are deprived of their liberty, really only as a last
resort. And the focus remains on their long-term outcomes. They also seek to address recommendations are
made by the delegated powers for regulatory reform committee in relation to the regulatory powers in
this act. Amendments of 121 and 122,
in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester would ensure only registered children's homes can be
used as relevant accommodation.
And
that this is reflected in the establishment statement of purpose. We heard rightly, in the last group,
the pressure to remove the use of unregistered children's homes. Here
we have children deprived of their liberty, placed in unregistered
homes. And this would clarify the
government's attention, which I would applaud, only to place children in accommodation which is suitable, to provide them with a
good standard of care. So it is crucial that these are children, in particular are not placed in
unregistered accommodation, which we
know it happens all too often, because of the need for many of them or the perception that many of them
must be held on their own.
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that governments intention,
in this regard and the impact that it might have on other children, with the risk that actually pushes
more of those children into our
registered homes. Amendment 123, in my name, seeks to bring regular oversight, from the director of children's services, to children
subject, a deprivation of liberty order. To avoid children being deprived of their liberty, for a day longer than is necessary. As I noted
in my opening remarks, about two thirds of children are still deprived of their liberty, six months after an order was seared.
This amendment 123 seeks to put a bit of grit in the system to make sure these children do not get
forgotten and there is an intentional decision to keep them
deprived of their liberty. Amendment 124, again in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, introduces additional protections, for all
looked after children, in deprived
liberty. In the existing act 1989
provisions in section 1, 22 C and 31 eight A, the children's homes regulations will clearly set
principles of care and this bill is an opportunity to update these
principles, drawing on the family justice observatory principles of
care, developed by experts of child and add a wealth of welfare, to form a guiding framework, for how to meet
the needs of children with complex needs and circumstances.
So could
the noble Baroness the Minister say what the government's plans are to update the principles of care, in the children's homes regulations.
The separate parts of the amendment aims to achieve the following. Two K
and my amendment 120, also in the
name of my noble friend, Lord Farmer
relate to the children secure accommodation regulations of 1991. And currently include important safeguards, which apply to children
being deprived of their liberty, through section 25 of the children's act, in secure accommodation.
The
safeguards include the requirement for the Secretary of State to authorise the placement of a child,
authorise the placement of a child,
under 13. The youngest child placed last year, in receipt of a deprivation of liberty order was seven. So the Secretary of State
would have to authorise placement of a child, under 13, maximum period
for orders, would need to be
authorised. And requirements for people and there will be requirements for people to be
appointed to review the keeping of the child, for the purposes of their
welfare.
This amendment ensures that the 1991 regulations will apply to children deprived of their liberty,
through the government scheme. It ensures that the regulations will first be consulted on, to update standards and requirements, in line with the latest evidence and
research. Given that the youngest child deprived of their liberty,
last year, was only seven years old, it does seem reasonable that the same scrutiny by the Secretary of
State should apply to these children, as those health and secure
accommodation, as well as the wider points, in relation to the maximum period that a child can be held and
the review.
Two B ensures that they
are only used as a last resort. There are concerns that these orders
could unintentionally make it easier for local authorities to deprive
children of their liberty, as they
, for this to be granted. Every
effort should be made to avoid the use of deprivation of liberty orders, whenever a child, with the better supported, cared for by
family and in the community. Two C ensures the children placed only in
high quality accommodation.
This will take into account how close accommodation is, to the child's home and the presence of other
children, both of which combat isolation. The average distance from
home, the children subject to a deprivation of liberty order is currently 56 miles. Two D makes it
Is to enable recovery. Receiving high quality care gives children a
better chance of having a sustained improvement in their circumstances, in the long term. Ensuring that
local authorities prepare a recovery plan helps to prevent children being
deprived of their liberty, only for the purposes of short-term risk management.
So again, perhaps the noble Lady the Minister can set out the government's intentions, in this area and reflect on these
amendments. My amendment 127 and stresses the imperative of providing a therapeutic treatment, for a child
is subject to a deprivation of liberty order. We understand that these children might need a multidisciplinary therapy and
support and not meet the standard offer. So joint funding agreements
would be needed to ensure appropriate, timely access, to
Amendment Amendment 132, Amendment 132, in Amendment 132, in my Amendment 132, in my name, Amendment 132, in my name, that Amendment 132, in my name, that of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester and the noble
Lord, Lord Storey seek to improve the oversight of the children are deprived of their liberty.
This new clause expands the legal duties of the Independent reviewing Officer,
building upon a section 25 B of the Children Act 1989 and regulation 45. Three of the care planning placement and case review England regulations
of 2010. Independent reviewing officers are required, overseeing and scrutinise the care plan, for
the child. The aim is to ensure there is sufficient oversight, which
is independent of local authority
and these orders. Reporting to the children and families Court advisory and support service, would add a further level of scrutiny and a
systemwide picture of implementation.
The noble Lady the Minister agree that we need robust
mechanisms for oversight of these orders and if so, will she accept
this amendment? Turning to amendment
119 A in my name. This seeks to establish the principle that children should always be held in the least restrictive environment
There are children with complex learning disabilities and mental health problems, that are currently in residential special schools. If
residential special schools were allowed to deprive a child in their care of their liberty, it would allow them to stay in that setting,
rather than being moved miles away to a secure children's home, or an assessment and treatment unit,
outcomes are much poorer.
Of course, any application for a deprivation of liberty order would still need the approval of the courts and the same criteria would apply. Amendment 119
B is a probing amendment to understand that the government's
definition of likely to injure themselves, or others and how this
threshold is applied. Amendment 120
A simply clarifies the child's right to access to education, while
deprived of their liberty. Can the noble Baroness the Minister confirmed this is the case and how the legislation currently addresses this.
She will be aware that this is
a core element of the Nuffield family principle of care. The current legislation doesn't include
this, perhaps the government would
accept my amendment. Finally, in my amendment 143 C, reflects the recommendation of the DPRRC, the
extension of the powers deferred by
section 2 and seven of the children act, relevant accommodation, should be subject to the draft affirmative
procedure. The department has argued that it has apply the negative
resolution procedure to its extended powers, to be consistent with the original legislation.
This was of
course passed before the creation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory
It is worth considering that in contrast the regulations relating to agency workers, agency social
workers, that we were debating clause 19 are subject to the draft affirmative procedure stop surely the issues here are more worthy of
parliamentary scrutiny. These powers cover the maximum length of time
that a child may be deprived of their liberty, with or without the intervention of the courts. In the words of the DPRRC, this, "Seems to
us to be an issue that merits a high level of parliamentary scrutiny, particularly as there is nothing on
the face of the primary legislation to limit the length and period which may be specified, in regulations.
"
The powers extend to the specific types of accommodation that can be
used. The descriptions of the children to whom this legislation can be applied and how it may be
applied. If we were starting afresh, there is no way the government would be recommending that in these regulations and be subject to the
negative resolution procedure. The DPRRC wrote that in our view, a power to extend the descriptions of children to whom this section
applies is equivalent to a Henry VIII power and therefore merit the level of parliamentary scrutiny,
appropriate to such a power.
A much overused phrase is the most vulnerable in our society, but I think children deprived of their
liberty warrant that label. I am going to move the amendments standing in my name.
18:30
Deputy Chair of Committees.
-
Copy Link
Amendment proposed, clause 11, page 16, line 19, after local
authority, insert all who has a PhD P and is in receipt of residential care.
18:30
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to speak to amendment 131
in my name and I won't quite say it
is a pleasure to follow and terribly important contribution of Baroness Barran, it was a terribly important contribution. I very much agree with
what the noble Lady said. I think the issue she has outlined, children as young as seven, two thirds
continuing at six months. It is usually disturbing. My amendment
addresses a particular issue concerning children's deprivation of
liberty orders and children in care.
As I said to the noble ladies, the
Ministers, when we had, they kindly had a briefing on the bill. This actually arises from a campaign in
2023, called the home instead of
Hancox campaign. And this really had come from a small group of people,
an operator of provision of transport for children, secure
transport for children, secure
Who were calling for a ban on the automatic use of handcuffs, the
automatic use of handcuffs. Some privatised providers of transport
were using on children subject to
liberty orders or it was described as on the edges of care, they were
being put in handcuffs to be transported.
These are not children who have been accused of any crime,
these are very vulnerable children
who are being subjected to something
that I think any of us would find traumatic. And this reflects testimony that was given in 2021 to the Human Rights Committee in both houses, the inquiry on protecting
the rights in care settings, the
welfare beam testified as I have just said many providers of secure transportation services for children
on the edge of care were using handcuffs as standard and I quote from their testimony the practice is
unregulated.
There is no obligation on these providers to report the use
of those handcuffs and as a result of that campaign I and a number of
other people, members of both houses wrote to the Government inquiring what was happening and the response
we got was we will look into it and
this has progressed since then and so I particularly wanted to put down this amendment to draw attention to
this amendment to draw attention to
the issue. I have not adjusted the transport because I really want to know what is happening in other settings for these children as well, not just transport, which is why I
have seen in all of these settings I put the amendment down.
This is
perhaps much more limited and I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government is planning to
do something about this, it feels there is no reason to doubt this is continuing and to stop it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak to amendment 126 which is in my name on this group.
which is in my name on this group. This amendment would later issue for children who are under a High Court
children who are under a High Court deprivation of order but who are not also looked after children under the
18:33
Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Children Act. 96% approximately of those children under the High Court
deprivation of order are also looked
after under the Children Act. And they may end about the High Court as there is a shortage of section 25
secure accommodation, only in section 25 accommodation under the
Children Act can a looked after child be stripped of their liberty and that is currently a secure
children's home, so they are also under that High Court .for the local
authority to restrict their liberty in non-section 25 type accommodation and it seems by the move to this it
may be relevant accommodation they will regularise in law their
situation.
Which is 96% of the young
people currently under that inherent jurisdiction deprivation of order,
but there are currently 4% of children under a High Court deprivation of order who are not
also looked after under the Children
Act and I do want to thank the president of the family division because I believe it is his work in
the family Justice Observatory when
the High Court dolls as we called them started being used as a jurisdiction and I think it is only due to that work that we know that
within that group we have this little group, the 4%, who are not
also looked after at, so even an amended section 25 of the Children
Act only refers to looked after having their liberty being
restricted from what will now be known as relevant accommodation.
They would still I believe be left under the High Court jurisdiction
with fewer safeguarding is. This is
the whole purpose of clause 11 from
a statutory system of protections and safeguards. This 4% of around
about 1280 children last year are often children coming out of the
mental health estate. And they have been taken into hospital for their own protection and for treatment and
they are discharged and for health reasons their home is no longer suitable. In my view they are not
going to pass the threshold test
under the Children Act 1989 to be a looked after child.
The threshold test, philosophically, and in practice, is about harm either care
or neglect of the adults or the fact that you are out of control. Neither
of those circumstances seem in most cases to apply to a young person who
has gone into the mental health estate and then is discharged, so
whilst I recognise the imperfections of the current drafting of amendment
126, for instance it may trigger other protections of the Children
Act if we deem these children to be looked after children.
I chose that mechanism to try to bring them under
the safeguards that we will have four children under section 25 who
are looked after children and not leave them, still, to be under the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court. I do hope that serves to be a mechanism for the Noble Lady and what is the situation for that small
group of children. I think it was envisaged by Sir Nicholas McFarlane
that he would get data through the network so that we would come to Parliament, legislate, and take this
in to a statute law out of the inherent jurisdiction, but it seems to me that from amendment 126 that
unless we do something for this small group of children it is going
to have to required the Nuffield Foundation because there will be a
need for this type of deprivation of order under the inherent jurisdiction for the group of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
children I have just outlined. Lady Berridge, as I have said, is
18:38
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lady Berridge, as I have said, is entirely sensible for me and my voice. I did not myself know about
voice. I did not myself know about this group and it does scheme wrong
in principle that they should not be treated in exactly the same way as all other children in this
particularly vulnerable group, as the Baroness Barran has pointed out, they are, quite obviously, the most
noble of all children. I need to
declare an interest, I am a patron of the Atlas and unit in Exeter
which is hysterical accommodation.
But what I am really standing up for
on this is not only to understand and support in principle what the Noble Lady the Baroness Barran has
said, but to express some concerns.
And I will just take, as an example, clause amendment 120. If this child
under 13, and that is a very sad circumstance, to have a child under
13, if this child under 13 is
actually under an order of the court, the Secretary of State would not be able to deal with it.
Further
than suggesting that the court order
should be reversed. And I think it is important that looking at these
amendments one has to bear in mind it appears that deprivation of may
be able to be made without the introduction of the court but
insofar as the court is concerned
And And the And the Minister And the Minister knows And the Minister knows perfectly build but it does seem to me we have to be a little bit careful about the
extent of the use, the suggested use of these amendments.
I entirely understand what this entails and I
think it is entirely laudable as intended, but we just need to be
very careful in what circumstances and will there be a court-ordered?
My recollection was in the past that the section 25 orders were also made
in the family proceedings Court and not a word has been said about that now and it may be that does not
happen any longer, but certainly there continues to be orders under
the inherent jurisdiction, so I just
**** Possible New Speaker ****
make this warning to your Lordships. The Noble Lord has often seen in this chamber that it is a pleasure
this chamber that it is a pleasure to follow the Noble Lord and noble
to follow the Noble Lord and noble Baroness and I see it is a pleasure
18:41
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Baroness and I see it is a pleasure watching says, the experience of
And And to And to think And to think of And to think of our And to think of our debates. And to think of our debates. I And to think of our debates. I want
And there is a robust framework for
And there is a robust framework for
reviewing the deprivation of and the deprivation of orders are used in other accommodation arrangements the
safeguards may not be there, so
there needs to be additional safeguards including the type of
setting, the reasons placed and
where possible independent advocacy for all children with a deprivation
of order being considered in place.
And clause 11 of the bill provides a statutory framework for people
deprived of liberty in accommodation other than a secure children's home
to amendment section 25 of the act
1989. The parity of children homes in terms of access to legal about
the current position for parents and anyone of responsibility in these
cases is that they are only entitled to means tested aid. Such means tests are very restrictive and research by the Law Society has demonstrated that even those living
in poverty can feel the financial
eligibility test for legal aid.
Many parents are, therefore, left to navigate these complex legal
proceedings on their own, and as someone that has significant hearing for children it could lead to a child being put into a placement
that is many miles away from their home environment and their local
network of support, mirroring the
arguments that we heard in the last group of amendments. Additionally,
deprivation of orders are increasingly being used to place children in unregistered accommodation due to the lack of
secure children's homes.
According
to figures published by the family Court statistics quarter, there were 1280 applications to the High Court
for deprivation of orders for children in 2024 and of these 132
were from children under 12 years of age. The total figure represents
120% increase since the 2021 figures
which, themselves, reflected a fourfold increase since 20 a
fourfold increase since 2018, again, according to the Law Society. And by way of comparison, there were 261
applications for secure accommodation for children in 2024.
The baroness Berridge mentioned the Nuffield Foundation. The Nuffield family Justice Observatory found
that almost 90% of parents and carers were not legally represented in any hearings and applications
made under the High Court inherent jurisdiction for deprivation of
orders. From such importance to these families involved, that is,
surely, in worrying figure and one that I suggest is just unacceptable.
Surely on a basic human rights for no child to be deprived of their liberty, particularly into an
Parents having access to advice and legal representation.
There should
always be access to non-means tested legal it for parents and carers, in these cases amendment 500 and 6B would provide for that.
18:45
Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I speak really as someone that has had to make these orders and in
doing so I recognise these amendments are of great importance.
Shining light on the deprivation of
jurisdiction, which has persisted in England, at least in England and
Wales, for perhaps too long. In an article in the Observer just one year ago there was trenchant
criticism for the former president
of the family division so James Lumley. He wrote, "When the system is routinely locking of vulnerable children in highly inappropriate
settings because they are too difficult to look after, something
is clearly going very, very wrong.
" He described this as a moral failure
by the state and society. As has been explained, the existing statutory provision. You
accommodation orders made under section 25 of the Children Act now
covers only if you of those with complex needs and those requiring accommodation because they have to
be protected from exploitation or
That is because secure accommodation
is a term which describes only registered children's homes, specifically approved by the
Secretary of State which, as we have heard, there are only a limited and
increasingly insufficient number available.
With the severe shortage
of places in the rising need for accommodation for those whose welfare requires some restriction of
liberty, that need has had to be met
by applications to the High Court with authorisation under the court's
inherent jurisdiction. As places cannot be found in suitable registered homes which are section
25 compliant, the High Court then has to consider whether an unregistered placement is in the child's best interest. All too
often, the local authority in the
proceedings and the court have to struggle when considering what is available.
The court's face usually
with a short-term crisis or planned for in the short-term and limited services available, battling to keep
services available, battling to keep
the child safe. And in doing so, one is usually presented with only one unsatisfactory option. As the
McAllister report says, courts do not take such decisions lightly. Deprivation and liberty orders are
often made following a nationwide search for homes and often after the
child has experienced multiple own breakdowns. The harrowing circumstances set out in these High
Court judgements are a window into the dysfunction of the care system.
In practice, if it is justified, the
court has to look at the distance from home, adequacy of provision,
adequacy of staffing, and the nature and level in the workable
restrictions required. I take one slight issue with something the
noble Baroness said. Children do participate in my experience, at
least in some hearings. They sometimes attend in person, but has
we all know, they are often placed far too far away, certainly for the court dealing with it, and
sometimes, they attend remotely.
In my experience, one his children who
are depressed, traumatised and often
very worried. In those circumstances, the court is not
looking for what is available and for what is trying to keep the child
safe. The shortage of provision and the use of deprivation have been
known about for a long time and have been the subject of strong criticism
from the higher judiciary who have
seen what was meant only to be a last resort to become the norm,
described by the Supreme Court as an imperfect stopgap.
The judiciary
have felt this made that their concerns appear to be unheeded by governments and Parliament. They
were also concerned that the courts
were having to do what the state really should have been doing without the course for the court in
most cases. This scale of the problem has been lighted by the
family justice observatory whose
work has been referred to as this debate, but also by others, including the BBC and responsible
journalists elsewhere. I recognise that clause 11 of the bill creates a
new statutory regime, and the concept of relevant accommodation, extending the places in which
children can be contrived.
Much of what I have heard from the ministers
on the government frontbench today has been really very reassuring, and
a recognition that the government are getting to grips. Of course it
remains to be seen whether what can be achieved will be a sufficient response to the difficulties created
by these orders, and the independent
reviews calling for more innovative types of provision and care for children. But I would support the
amendments to approve what the bill
intends to achieve, in particular amendment 134 which would require it to be stated that a deprivation of
liberty has to be a last resort.
Amendments 128 and 127 expressly
provided for education and for therapy. Amendment 123 provided for
regular reviews, not reviews by the court which is what happens at the
moment, but by the authorities who are responsible for that deprivation
of liberty, and there is much to be
said also for amendment 132, and I
will also support amendment 560 providing for the availability of
legal aid. I did question amendment 122 would achieve, simply because we
are where we are and because of the
Shaw to edge of children's homes in which there are now only 13, which is of course forced reliance on unregistered placements which are
often expensive.
I think the answer
to my question is that the expectation is that there will be improved registration of homes and
an extension of availability of homes to address what the noble
Baroness called the underlying need
to increase capacity. I would also ask in respect of the government
amendment, I think 128, what this
will mean for placements. There are awful stories of children from Devon and Cornwall having to be placed in
Scotland.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is an honour to follow Lord Meston whose wisdom and experience
Meston whose wisdom and experience of court processes have been very
of court processes have been very valuable to the Committee stage of this bill. I rise to speak to
18:53
Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
this bill. I rise to speak to amendment 133 in my name. I have
also added my name to amendment 120. Amendment 133 is information required to be published by local authority which includes information
about the authorities arrangements for enabling children subject to
deprivation of liberty orders to maintain strengthen and build family
and social relationships. This bill picks up much of the intent of Josh
MacAlister's independent review of children's social care, but one of
its key emphasis, the importance of relationships could feature more properly throughout.
Josh's review
drew on experts by experience board,
informing his recommendations, young people and adults who have been through the care system. They said
in the forward that this review was
their chance to reshape the system by placing relationships front and centre. I was on the design group on
that review and this emphasis came through again and again in evidence,
hence the first paragraph of the report which states that what we
need is a system that puts lifelong loving relationships at the heart of
the care system.
It calls for a reset that starts with recognising
that it is loving relationships that hold the solutions overcoming
adversary. An earlier group of amendments focusing on care leavers,
my noble friend said that we need to
make sure that a committed relationship which comes to the four
in the family group decision-making process do not fall through the cracks in children's care pathway as
they walk along it. If the local authority intentionally helps a
child or young person to maintain them from day one, these relationships will not only be there
when the child leaves but they have the potential to transform the whole
experience of being in care.
Baroness talks about the lifelong
links model imported from California and thoroughly adapted and tested
with the Department for Education
for children and friends which ensures children have a lasting support network of relatives and others who care about them
throughout their time in the care
system. I have recommended it for children in youth custody and wider
system with whom children deprived of their liberty are an overlapping
cohort. We can overestimate the strength of the pool towards blood
connections without the corporate parents gentle hands on the tiller of this area.
Many young people in
or leaving care go looking on the internet and social media for family
members and not all of them will be
beneficial relationships. While I would like lifelong links to be included in regulations and guidance
as an offer to all children in care, care leaders and those deprived of
their liberty as the Minister said is being evaluated. Whatever its future, local authorities should be
required to be intentional and
systematic about relationships. Children in care, especially when they are in trouble in care
desperately need to feel that they belong somewhere.
Mark Riddell in
the government's national adviser
for care leavers tells how his turnaround moment when he was around
14 years old in the Scottish care system and had just trashed the
children's home where he lived after several failed placements. Here been called to the manager's office and
packed his black bag to be moved on again. The first and the manager
said to him was what that bag for? Mark said it is all my stuff. You're
going to kick me out the manager told him we can sort out the damage but you are not leaving.
This is
your home. Knowing that he belong somewhere and that people were committed to him regardless of his
behaviour put him down and he is now a voice for government. Young people deprived of their liberty need a
profound sense of belonging. Relationships with dedicated and
compassionate staff are essential but they also need to know that they
have not been abandoned by their families, friends and other things.
They exist on the web and we must not let that be torn apart by the problematic experience of being
deprived of their liberty.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A couple of questions. As we have said, we found this a very humbling
said, we found this a very humbling and very disturbing group, which I
18:59
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
and very disturbing group, which I think is the word that Lord Meston used, shining a light on very little
18:59
Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
understood area, and highlighting some very disturbing details, and it
18:59
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
was an area that I knew far too little about. I think it has just
been knocked receiving anything like the transparency that it should. The two points I wanted to make a run
two points I wanted to make a run amendment 127 about ensuring local
amendment 127 about ensuring local authorities to provide therapeutic
authorities to provide therapeutic treatment for the children who are subject to a deprivation liberty order. It did remind me of all the
order. It did remind me of all the detailed scrutiny that myself and other noble Lords in the passage of
other noble Lords in the passage of the mental health bill in the first few months of the year, and one of
few months of the year, and one of the things that was particular in my
mind was that the bill included four core principles for making decisions about detaining people into the
mental-health bill, and one of them was that it would be a therapeutic benefit.
I think it was Baroness
Berridge who told us that quite a
few of the children would be subject to these deprivation of liberty orders and it would be part of their
severe mental-health problems, and it did strike me that there are parallels between the two bills, in
the same way that we have said in the mental health bill that attention must be of therapeutic
benefit. I do think it makes this
amendment, 127, about finding therapeutic treatment for children
Final point relates to amendment 132, think it is very sensible to expand the legal duties of the
officer for reasons we have heard
and Independent reviewing Officer I think is important.
It is not quite the same as having advocacy and certainly another key figure that
Mental Health Bill toiled over for many a long evening was ensuring the
16, 18-year-olds were detained under the act and they all had access to some form of advocacy on their
behalf. It does seem to me that just hearing the debate we have had that
perhaps putting it in the form of a question to the Noble Lady the Minister, what is the current arrangement? What currency does the
Government have to ensure this so deeply vulnerable children do actually have the advocacy that they
**** Possible New Speaker ****
need. I rise to add my name to the number of amendments in this group
19:01
The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
Copy Link
-
and I think could probably be all of them. I gather the Noble Lord site
19:02
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
very grateful to the work of the family Justice Observatory who have been quoted several times. Actually
19:02
The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
Copy Link
-
been quoted several times. Actually ignoring all the careful facts and figures I had prepared for this evening because most of them have
evening because most of them have already been given by other Noble Lord and it is a principle here we do not repeat what has already been said. Rather, I would like to stick
to the broad principles and the moral case and to be brief. Having been struck by the number of parallels of the situation of last resort that I work with for many
resort that I work with for many decades now, around families who are
made homeless.
Homelessness should be rare, short, and on repeated, and socially deprivation order for a child. It should not be something
child. It should not be something that happens very often it should only ever happen though once and it should be the shortest possible time and I think a number of amendments
and I think a number of amendments in this group would help to ensure that is the case. Again, when I have
that is the case. Again, when I have been dealing with services for those what matters is the quality of
service and I put some amendments down in the renters reform bill all around that.
Some of these amendments in the group to make sure
that children that are deprived of liberty have good, solid provision of services for them. And finally,
of services for them. And finally,
again, dealing with hope -- my homelessness, tracking across boundaries to get to school, but
here also is important that some amendments in this group would tease out that where you must deprive a
child of their liberty you do it as close to where they live as
possible, as close to where they belong.
And I will just echo the words of one of the noble Lords, I was really struck and impressed by
the Noble Lord Pharma reminding us about love, about relationships, about belonging. If these big
picture issues matter, they must be the foundation stones on which we
build some of our most deprived
**** Possible New Speaker ****
children in our society. I realise quite often that we are
19:04
Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I realise quite often that we are very privileged in this House that
very privileged in this House that when there is a bill we get showered with briefings from all sorts of
organisations and, of course, we go, oh my goodness, I did not understand
this, I did not know about that. And when we come to debate in the chamber we get real expertise as we
heard from Lord Preston and the Baroness Butler-Sloss who bring that
added understanding and information
and I think it was Baroness Bennett we mentioned earlier in the Lord's session and they said we have got
real people who are experts in the field and when you listen to them you go wow and not in this debate.
So, when I looked at the briefing from the Nuffield Foundation I was
just absolutely shocked. It was not something in my understanding, it
was not something I particularly knew about. And then when you read
the briefing, the Bishop of
Manchester says, I do not want to repeat the figures but perhaps they
do need to be repeated because they are quite shocking, really. That the number of children that have been
deprived through the High Court is rising and it is rising and it is
rising.
In 2024 it had gone about 1,800%. And these were meant to be a
last resort measures actually 10 times as many applications to deprive children of their liberty in
the High Court, the applications for secure accommodation orders between
July and March 2023, and we have
talked a lot about the voice of the child. It has sort of been a mantra
in this part of the bill, the voice of the child, and yet only 10% of children were present at that
hearing considering their case, so
where was the voice of the child? And the other figure that quote alarmed me was that 89% of parents
and carers were not represented at hearings.
Now, of course, these children are not only the most
vulnerable children, they are also,
in most cases, very difficult
children to manage and to support. And you need highly trained and
professional people to be able to do that, and, sadly, that number of
people are not always available. My question to the Minister would be
the final part of this briefing was
that costs are escalating, not that costs are everything, but outcomes
are not improving, you would think if costs are going up the averages would be improving.
I just finally
want to deal with one point finally want to deal with 1.5 Baroness Bennett because it quite surprised
me that she talks about children in handcuffs and the reason we are
surprised about that is that one of our MPs sent a letter around seeing
if we have achieved anything it is to stop the use of handcuffs on children, so I was quite shocked to
children, so I was quite shocked to
hear that. However I got this wrong
and where this is happening we need to find out and I really looking forward to the Minister's response on this.
I added my name to
amendment 132 of Manchester in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
expanding the legal duties. I would like to speak to amendment 119 to 124 very briefly
and we have touched on some very important points. And I think there is something that still needs to be crystallised and, as others have
crystallised and, as others have said, these are some of the most troubled children in that system and
troubled children in that system and also the ones whose care is the most
also the ones whose care is the most expensive of all.
Such specialised arrangements have to be made. And we have touched on the tensions here
have touched on the tensions here between local authorities, the health service, and the justice system. One of the reasons for the increase in the number of orders
19:08
Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
increase in the number of orders here is the reduction in the number
of just as secure bids and also mental health beds. And we have this
terrible Acura around children who the health system deems to have, for example, untreatable personality
disorders, but for whom they very
clearly do need to be looked after somewhere both they and others can
be kept safe to have everything that
we can do to improve their lives and to help make life work for them on a
permanent basis in a healthy and
humane way.
This is an enormous challenge and I would very much like to hear the Minister explain how the health functions of Government are
also going to be tied in to making
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the deprivation of scheme work. As others have said during the
19:09
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
19:09
Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
As others have said during the course of this important debate, close 11 is a division for some of the most vulnerable children in the country and the importance of ensuring that adequate court and necessary safeguards are available
19:10
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
to them. The measures in close 11
brought forward by the Government seeks to bring all children who would otherwise be deprived of their liberty under the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court into a statutory scheme where they will benefit from enhanced safeguards and
benefit from enhanced safeguards and protections. And I will say more in
response to specific amendments about those safeguards and protections. It provides a statutory
protections. It provides a statutory framework to authorise the deprivation of of looked after in provision other than a secure
provision other than a secure children's home where they are not in places and they cannot meet all
in places and they cannot meet all of the needs of the cohort.
Noble Lords will be aware of the pressing need to ensure that these children
need to ensure that these children are provided with sufficient suitable placements to meet their various needs, and that includes in
Scotland which brings me to the
Government amendments 125 and 128. These and movement will allow local authorities and others in Scotland
to seek authorisation to deprive children of their liberty in relevant accommodation in England. As noble Lords will be aware, relevant accommodation will have the
primary purpose of care and treatment.
It will also be capable
of being used to deprive a child of
his or her liberty. If required, in connection provision of care treatment. We are also making a consequential change to amend that
language from restrict to deprive to ensure consistency with existing amendments to section 25 of the
amendments to section 25 of the
Children Act 1989 provided by clause 11. These amendments will ensure Scottish local authorities are able to access all forms of accommodation
to enable a child that has been deprived of their liberty in a placement that best that meets their
needs.
Turning to the specific
amendments, firstly to amendment 1198 tabled by the Noble Lady
Baroness Barran. This amendment looks to address important issues around how best to support and protect another vulnerable group of children by seeking for children
that have an education Health and Care Act plan and are in residential schools to be deprived of liberty in
those settings under this legislation. Of course, the primary purpose of a residential school is
to educate the children living there. Each child's EHCP will have
specialist requirements to meet the child's educational needs in
contrast, section 25 is specifically placing looking after children,
specific accommodation where there is a need to avoid absconding or injury to the child or another
person due to complex drama.
Clause 11 will not require any child to
move from a residential school that is meeting the child's needs. Deprivation of is required for a
child living in a residential school, mechanisms other than
subsection 25 can be considered. For older children, that might include an application to the court of
an application to the court of
protection. Turning to amendment
119B, which seeks to remove India from the clause, but as the Noble Lady spells out is probing what is meant by the terms within the criteria under section 25 of the
Children Act.
I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that injury
in this context we consider to have a wide meaning. Which includes physical, mental, or emotional
injury. The criteria under section 25 is long-standing, and has been
well tested by the courts. Perhaps I
could confirm further noble and it
Lady Butler-Sloss that section 25 orders are issued by the family courts. I am confident given the
long-standing and well tested procedures in section 25 that it
will continue to ensure that children that are deprived of their liberty will keep them safe where appropriate and necessary.
Turning
appropriate and necessary. Turning
to amendment 120 AF. To ensure education access for children in the new relevant accommodation outlined
in clause 11, I agree with the Noble Lady that access to education for our most vulnerable children is of
the utmost importance to ensure that
they are able to thrive and do well in life. That is why there is substantial existing legislation in
this regard. Sitting at the legal duties of local authorities to
promote children's educational attainment and include educational needs within care plans, as well as regulatory requirements for
children's homes to meet children's educational needs.
The intention
behind relevant accommodation which will be registered children's homes
is to focus on ensuring that the child obtains the relevant treatment they need which may involve
depriving them of their liberty, and where they may also be able to have, for example, continued access to the
community, including for education. And, of course, it is more likely to
be able to provide the closeness to the community and to their homes,
which several noble Lords have quite rightly said yes and important right
and need of children that needs to be continued.
Turning to amendments
121 and 122, which seeks to ensure that all relevant accommodation
providers are registered with Ofsted as children's homes and for this to be reflected in their statements of
purpose. This is of paramount
This amendment will not be necessary to ensure this is the case. People
will be required to register with Ofsted as they will provide care and
accommodation and meet the definition of a children's home in section 1 of the care standards act
2000.
It is already a requirement for someone who is carrying on a
children's home to be registered. Turning to amendments 120, 123 and
124 which raise important points regarding the approval process for
children under 13, review points for orders made under this section, and
a number of specific additional safeguards for children subject to orders made under section 25 in either secure or relevant
accommodation. There is, I agree, a
need for clear safeguards to ensure that children are only deprived of their liberty where it is necessary.
That is why the Secretary of State already has powers to make
regulations in relation to secure accommodation and the same powers will be available to the Secretary
of State for relevant accommodation. We will set out maximum periods for
which a deprivation of liberty can
be authorised, and make it clear the Secretary of State approval will be required where a child is under 13
as is already the case in secure accommodation given their additional
vulnerability. We do believe it would be practical to make the
requirements that this amendment seeks not within primary legislation, but within regulations,
but certainly, I want to place on record our commitment to ensuring
the equivalent levels of protection in these regulations, and also, that
we do that by learning from research already underway to engage with the sector in the development of
regulations and guidance to ensure that they are expertly informed and
meet the needs of children.
As secure children's homes and relevant accommodation are different forms of
provision, we will consider what is best required for each type of
accommodation. Deprivation of liberty must be a method of last resort used where required to keep
children safe. This is an accepted principle in the courts, so setting
this out in primary legislation
would be disproportionate. It is of paramount importance that any restrictions placed on a child are appropriate and applied for no
longer than absolutely necessary with robust plans to ensure children are not stuck in the cycle of
crisis.
In relation to children's
recovery plans, there are a number of existing duties on local
authorities including the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child looked after by them, and that placement decisions are
informed by a care plan including a therapeutic model of care. We are
conducting a test and learn project
this year in the south-east regional product to know how an assessment of
a multidisciplinary team can assist with care and treatment planning for children for their placement
journeys with the aim of providing stability or repatriations homes if
appropriate.
Turning to amendment 127 which seeks to place a legal
duty on authorities to provide therapeutic treatment for children
placed in secure accommodation, that is secure children's home, there are
a number of existing legal duties and requirements in relation to
appropriate care provision. This ensures that looking after children
have access to necessary physical and mental healthcare including therapeutic treatment where
appropriate, and I do note the name
about the availability of
appropriate provision, so in addition, NHS England has statutory responsibility for the commissioning
of health services or facilities for children in secure accommodation.
The duty means children in secure settings are able to access high quality healthcare services. Turning
to a member 22 for a child's case where a local authority does not implement a recovery plan for a
child deprived of their liberty under section 25, or looked after
children must have a way to make
sure missions are made and care plans are followed effectively. We
already have a statutory power to refer to where they feel that is
necessary.
Turning to amendment 126
in the name of the Lady Berridge which seeks to assure that all children who are deprived of their liberty under the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court become looked after as a result. Local authorities must take positive
actions were child is demonstrating that they are at risk, including
requiring a deprivation of liberty. This may include putting in place a child protection plan or applying
for a care order concerns are
substantiated. As the noble Lady said, nothing found that 96.6 % of
children on a deprivation of liberty order under the inherent jurisdiction of the court already
incur the time.
Whether child is not
in care, they may have disabilities that means the deprivation of liberty order is needed to keep them
safe. In these cases, seeking to consider these orders may not be
needed or appropriate. Furthermore,
the child act is clear that the inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised if the same result can be
achieved through the statutory frameworks. It is due to a deprivation of liberty order being made under the inherent jurisdiction
which would bypass legal frameworks that enable a child to become looked
after.
However, I am not wholly sure
that I fully addressed the detail of the points made by the noble Lady in
her contribution, and I will therefore look again at what she has
**** Possible New Speaker ****
said and look to write to her. It may just be the position that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It may just be the position that we are left with the residual group of children who are still going to need the inherent jurisdiction, so
need the inherent jurisdiction, so it might be that the jurisdiction just doesn't reach quite far enough
at the moment, so we can clarify that in the letter. I will clarify
that in the letter. I will clarify it in the letter. Turning to
it in the letter. Turning to amendment 131, table by Baroness
amendment 131, table by Baroness Bennett around the important matter of the use of restraint on children in care and subject to deprivation
in care and subject to deprivation of liberty orders, it is vital that
of liberty orders, it is vital that children are safe and restraint is only used where appropriate, including when they are moving between settings and services.
We
take these concerns very seriously. We will consider guidance on
restraint in due course. I think the question about children being
handcuffed remains and I will endeavour to get more detail about
that and to come back to the noble Lady. Providers in conjunction with
authorities are under an obligation to use the minimum appropriate
restriction to keep that child safe.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm just wondering if the government is making sure that we
are providing some sort of reporting mechanism to keep track of things
for so they may be cases where this is necessary, but there should be some sort of annual report on this
some sort of annual report on this so we can see what the direction of travel is and see if there is a problem that needs to be tackled.
problem that needs to be tackled.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
problem that needs to be tackled. I was actually coming to that. My hope that is something that will be satisfactory in relation to that
satisfactory in relation to that reporting mechanism. Ofsted manage incidents of restraint on a case-
incidents of restraint on a case- by-case basis under their inspection framework. The children's homes
regulations face a requirement on homes to record any incidents of
restraint, and for the registered person to inform Ofsted of any incident in relation to a child that they consider to be serious.
We
think that Ofsted inspectors are best placed to scrutinise individual
incidents of restraint and the circumstances around them, and to
ensure that care providers are minimising its use. We are not clear
that a yearly report aggregating
that data would add in that particular case, although it would create an additional burden and risk distraction from this important
work. It would be significantly less effective in safeguarding children
and recording the incidents in the Ofsted approach which is currently
being used.
Turning to amendment 133
tabled by Lord Farmer seeking to promote family and other social
relationships for children subject to deprivation of liberty orders publishing local authority plans to
support children in this regard. As
mentioned in respect of the noble
lady baroness, I want to reiterate the government's agreement that
wherever possible, it is vital for a child's welfare to have positive
family and social relationships. Given the children act 1989 and
supporting guidance already seeks to ensure family and other relationships for looked after
children are promoted while keeping children safe, and this forms part of the inspections of local
authorities, so I'm not sure it is appropriate or necessary to increase the burden on local authorities by
mandating them to publish that information.
I do recognise the points made by the noble Lord, or it
may have been someone else on his behalf talking about the effectiveness of the lifelong links
programme, and I think we reference that previously, and I can see the
benefits that can come from it. Turning to the amendment labelled by
Baroness Barran seeks regulations
made under section 25 of the children act 1989, ensuring regulations on this matter are
subject to the correct scrutiny. I agree that it is important.
And she
has raised the delegated powers and regulatory reports in which this was
raised. We are grateful to the committee for their scrutiny. We are carefully considering their
recommendations, and we will respond in due course on that. Turning to
amendment 500 and 6B in the name of
Lord Watson, this seeks to delay commencement until regulations are
made to ensure that non-means tested things will not deprive people of
liberty under section 25 of the children act.
I can assure my noble friend that where an application is
made to deprive a child of the result of any measure that this
brings forward, those children will
be viable for representation using what will be applied to all children
under section 25. This means that children will be able to access
legal aid without needing to satisfy means testing. I hope that noble
Lords think that I have provided
some of the detail requested, all of the detail requested in these
amendments.
And on that basis, I beg
to move, and I hope that Lords will be able to withdraw theirs.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If I can ask the noble Lady what may be a rather silly question, but
may be a rather silly question, but my experience with the secure accommodation is that every child
accommodation is that every child needs at least two carers. Some
needs at least two carers. Some children even need three. I'm just wondering how I care home, the
wondering how I care home, the children's residential home is actually going to manage the child
actually going to manage the child deprived of liberty because it will be an extreme case, and the child will be unbelievably difficult to
will be unbelievably difficult to look after.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
look after. We believe that it is possible to find those sorts of homes supported
find those sorts of homes supported by the use of technology to help
maintain things for children,
certainly needing a certain level of staffing as the noble Lady says. We
believe it is possible and for many
children preferable to be kept, to be living in those kinds of accommodations as opposed to the
alternative, which is to be deprived of their liberty and to the inherent
jurisdiction of the courts, and actually, some of that type of
accommodation, it may well be more suitable for things like maintaining contact, having education, being
contact, having education, being
19:30
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to echo the Noble Lord story. I think it was the House
of Lords first mentioned with the
expertise that was shared very generously by your Lordships. I also
would like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her
comprehensive response. And I think she addressed all that is going to come back in relation to the Noble
Lady Baroness Bennett's amendment on the use of handcuffs and the specific gaps in relation to
children who are not looked after
retirement Noble Friend, Baroness Berridge.
And I think she also give
a positive response to the Noble Lord, so so far so good. In relation
Lord, so so far so good. In relation
to my amendments, I think that there were some genuinely positive and
helpful responses. I think there was a category, for example in relation
to 119 category, for example in relation to 1198 and 119B. There was
a category of response that I understand and the Noble Lady is
telling the truth that these already
exist, whether it be in relation to children receiving education,
therapeutic support, or, indeed, that they are in a registered accommodation, but, actually, she
knows as well as I do that is not working in real life, so I guess it
may be the problem is a difficult one to solve, but it still needs to
be solved because children are not getting an education, though I would
agree with the community they have a better chance of doing so.
We know that the children have frequently
been in unregistered accommodation, and as I said in my remarks they
often do not meet the criteria for them to provide therapeutic support.
And I also felt something distinctly promising about in relation to 143,
so I live in hope. The two amendments that I wanted to just
touch on briefly amendment one, two,
four, which she said, I think, that she agreed for the need for clear safeguards, and the same powers
would be available to the secretary
of state as exists today for secure accommodation, but those powers
would be set out in regulation, so I
think that was the bit where, if I have understood correctly, I stopped feeling comfortable, because obviously regulations could be reversed and I do not see why you would not want the same safeguards
for these children on the face of
legislation as for those in secure accommodation, but I will reread what she said if I have
misunderstood.
And, similarly, in
relation to my amendment 132, the Independent reviewing Officer, the
Noble Lady said that those powers already exist, and my amendment
explicitly extends and strengthens those powers, so I would be grateful
if she could perhaps reflect on her
comments in relation to 132. Because we do need proper scrutiny and
oversight and we do need therapy and care for these children and they do
need to be in the right accommodation, but with that, I beg
19:35
Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Bull (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
leave to withdraw the amendment in my name. Wye is a geologist pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment, by leave, with one.
Amendment, by leave, with one. Amendment 119 beta one were 29 not moved. Not moved en bloc. Amendment
moved. Not moved en bloc. Amendment 125, moved formally. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not
"Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.
content", The contents have it.
Amendment 126, not moved. Amendment
127, Baroness Barran, not moved. Amendment 128, moved formally. The question is that amendment 128 be agreed to. As many as are of that
opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. The question is
contents have it. The question is that clause 11 as amendments stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
contents have it. Amendments 129 and one Amendments 129 and 130, not moved en bloc, Baroness Tyler.
Not
moved. Amendment 131, not moved.
Amendment 132 Baroness Barran, not
moved. Amendment 133, Lord Farmer, not moved. Amendment 134, Baroness Barran, not moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that the House resumes. We will then move on
House resumes. We will then move on to the Foreign Office statement and therefore not return to the children's wellbeing and Bill before
**** Possible New Speaker ****
2015. The question is that the House be
19:37
-
Copy Link
resumed in committee not continue until 2015. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the
contrary, "Not content", The
19:37
Statement: Gibraltar agreement
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, questions My Lords, questions on My Lords, questions on the statement made in the House of
statement made in the House of Commons on Thursday, 12th of June,
on the Gibraltar agreement.
19:37
Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I will just give the House a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will just give the House a
moment to reset itself. My Lords, the Rock of Gibraltar has now been
the Rock of Gibraltar has now been British for over 300 years. In 2002, 99% of Gibraltarians rejected the
notion of shared sovereignty with Spain. That reaffirmed their allegiance in no uncertain terms to
allegiance in no uncertain terms to Britain. It is against this background that we must consider the government's agreement on Gibraltar. To test whether it puts the interests of Gibraltarians and, of course, our own national interests,
course, our own national interests, first.
We are clear that nothing
first. We are clear that nothing agreed can be compromised or infringe on the sovereignty and constitutional arrangements of
constitutional arrangements of Gibraltar which should remain British. The deal was to ensure that we are able to operate our military
base on the rock as we have done until now in order to safeguard our defensive capabilities. But we are
also clear that the deal must be backed by the Government of Gibraltar and, crucially, Gibraltar's people to support their interests. It must also address the
concerns about the actions of Spain
that has prevented the free flow of goods across-the-board offer is a bit is vitally important that these
houses have time to carefully and properly scrutinise the deal that
the Government has reached over Gibraltar.
I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will join me in
recognising the importance of proper oversight scrutiny if this is to be regarded as a legitimate and proper arrangement. Could the noble
Baroness the Minister therefore confirm when the House will actually
get to see the full details of the deal and the treaty, given the importance of the issue, Bill the noble Baroness commit to making time available for a full discussion of
this matter? One of the reasons I
feel it is so vital that we in these houses are able to properly scrutinise the treaty is because I
seriously question the government's ability to negotiate a good deal on behalf of the UK.
I need only
mention I am sure that they will
state in this case but she got as an example of poor negotiations. While this agreement may not be as
gracious as Che got, it is, nonetheless, moving forward. We have
seen numerous concessions made to Madrid which, potentially, threaten core principles that should underpin any agreement. One of the most
significant is the end of Gibraltar's long-standing of free rein regime, a central and persistent demand from Spain.
Despite clear and repeated
objections from both the UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar, the agreement will also
commit Spanish police officers to operate at Gibraltar's airport.
Furthermore, passengers arriving from the UK will now be subject to
dual checks, first Gibraltarians authorities and then by Spanish officials acting on behalf of the
EU. And the Foreign Secretary in The Other Place was in paeans to point
out this is not your fault I joining Schengen. Yet, apparently, Spanish border officials would be able to stop any British citizen entering Gibraltar as the previous days have
exceeded the 90 day shared limit, even if they have no intention of
travelling to Spencer Matt so could
I ask the Noble Lady if this is in fact true.
What other circumstances will Spanish officials be able to deny entry to British citizens into Gibraltar? To take another example,
the passport requirements for entering Gibraltar are different
from those required to enter the EU. To enter Gibraltar, the British citizen only needs a passport valid
for the length of their stay in Gibraltar. To enter the EU, you need one valid for three months. Willie
British subject, jet therefore, with a passport valid for say two months.
Meet by Gibraltarians officials but then refused entry by Spanish
officials? The Foreign Secretary in The Other Place stated that the vital military base would be
unaffected by this agreement.
But what about service personnel
arriving at the airport? Will they need to be checked and approved by the Spanish as much and that might
sound a little far-fetched, but
there was a fascinating report in the Telegraph only this morning about a military exercise involving British paratroopers, parachuting into the Swedish island of Gotland
to reinforce our Swedish NATO partners. Well and good, you might
think. What is the first thing those troops had to do upon landing? They
had to report to a mobile border control van to clear immigration control.
Now, luckily, this was only an exercise, as I am not entirely
convinced that a hostile Russian invasion force would happily wait
around for bureaucratic formalities to be concluded before, in fact, opening fire. My Lords, these are
concessions that risk demolished
diminishing travel to status as a distinct jurisdiction. I must ask the noble Baroness the Minister does she accept that a good negotiation involves standard firm and
principles not merely acquiescing to
the demands of the other side? Because from where we stand it seems that a great many of our priorities
have been sidelined and far too many of our red lines quietly raised by
this Government.
So, could the noble Baroness the Minister confirm whether the red line that the last Government set out with the Government of Gibraltar have been met or whether during the
negotiations and since Labour took office last year there have been any divergence from them? And the
Foreign Secretary in The Other Place made great play on the insertion of
clause explicitly protecting our sovereignty. Yet despite the Prime
Minister of Spain, welcoming disagreement, concluding by saying all of this without announcing
Spanish claims to the estimates and the return of Gibraltar.
Could the
Noble Lady tell us who is right? The Foreign Secretary or the Spanish
prime minister? My Lords, these houses have a responsibility to scrutinise this agreement. Not only in the interests of constitutional
principle, but also for respect for the people of Gibraltar who have
consistently and overwhelmingly affirmed their mission to remain British. The arrangements set out by the Government raise serious
questions, and they deserve to be answered and discussed in a proper
debate. People of Gibraltar deserve our full support.
They deserve transparency, they deserve proper
scrutiny, and it reflects their rights, their status, and their British identity. And the agreement
can be reached over brought up must respect those rights and I hope the Minister is able to answer these
questions fully in her response. questions fully in her response.
My Lords, I should clarify I visited Gibraltar previously, both before and after the Brexit
19:45
Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
referendum. And, indeed, I have been very conscious there has been a very
very conscious there has been a very practical legacy which I note that
practical legacy which I note that the people of Gibraltar rejected in
the people of Gibraltar rejected in almost equal numbers for those that determine their own sovereignty, and, indeed, it is the areas of difficulty and complexity that the
difficulty and complexity that the people of Gibraltar had predicted as
people of Gibraltar had predicted as a result of leaving the European Union that came to pass.
The immediate response of the previous
immediate response of the previous Government significant figures on the benches in 2217 was Lord Howard
who said we should be sending in the fleet but did not sending diplomatic forces to ensure that they would
forces to ensure that they would have an agreement for the benefit of the sovereignty, economy, and the
people of Gibraltar. Indeed, it was diplomatic rather than bravado
measures which we very much hope that now ensure there is a
resolution to those complex issues.
I note that the chief Ministers
letter to us all say is that this agreement put into place the 2020
order checks agreed by previous administration and that, presumably,
was not the time when the Minister but the agreements under the
previous administration were all, I suspect, previews that he is asking
Pistons of the Minister now. I look forward to her response. And those
forward to her response. And those
These benches will look closely, and
if there are measures required to
operationalise the agreement, we
will give them proper scrutiny, and we hope that Parliament will have a
considerable say in these issues,
because it is worth rehearsing the principles first.
We have an
unshakeable and irreducible support for the sovereignty of Gibraltar. The self-determination of the people
of Gibraltar is irreducible, and any decisions made on Gibraltar need to
be made with the participation of
the people of Gibraltar. These are significant principles which I hope
the Minister will agree with. The
tests for the agreement will have to
meet those but there are additional tests and they protect the people of Gibraltar's security interests,
support the economy, and they will contribute to the very sensible
economic relationship with
Andalusia.
I have seen with myself
the relationship between Andalusia
and Gibraltar. And the UK Gibraltar
relationship and the residents of
Gibraltar which adds to the Spanish
economy in particular. And Spanish workers, especially in health and
social care add considerably to support the services within
Gibraltar. Therefore, the human right of the daily crossings, the
workers and the relationship is of considerable importance, and
therefore, a workable and sensible
arrangement is in the mutual interests, and I very much hope that
the government has achieved that
when we see all of the details.
It
was up to this government to ensure that there was agreement after the
almost 8 years of inactivity from the previous administration. I wish
to close by asking some specific questions of the Minister that the
Foreign Secretary didn't respond clarity in the House of Commons. We
have known regrettably that even
though acting against their own interest the Spanish government have
been willing to act unilaterally
over Gibraltar, and to the detriment not only of their own residence, and
therefore, we cannot predict what
the future governments of Spain will be, all the positions that they
take.
Therefore, will the Minister recognise what will exist in the
deal to ensure compliance of those
deal to ensure compliance of those
areas of agreement? We will look at mediation and potential
adjudication, and other effective resolution mechanisms in place in
the event of future possible
the event of future possible
unilateral actions. We hope not, but
19:51
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
we have to plan for the contingency
we have to plan for the contingency that might be necessary. Even the
experience of the past, given
confidence that the deal will be
enforceable is very important. Finally, will the Minister confirm
Finally, will the Minister confirm what the lifespan of the agreement
will be? And whether it will include
any mechanisms so if there are those circumstances where the people of
circumstances where the people of Gibraltar believe that new deals
will be required, there will be an opt out mechanism.
Ultimately, we
believe in ensuring the ultimate
guarantee for sovereignty and therefore that should be at the heart of this agreement.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank noble Lords for their comments and questions. The Lord
comments and questions. The Lord opposite is spiky than his friend in
opposite is spiky than his friend in
opposite is spiky than his friend in the other place. She gave it rather a warmer tone of welcome than he
a warmer tone of welcome than he did, but he is here to speak for the
did, but he is here to speak for the government on those benches, and I
government on those benches, and I do thank him for reminding us of the
importance of the sovereignty of
Gibraltar and the long history and
military base there.
What matters is
the people of Gibraltar, and that is the open border. There are 15,000
people crossing the border each day
to go to work and to go about their work, and the delays and the
problems that can occur,
particularly as the EU looks towards implementing its entry and exit
processes in a matter of months time, this would make life very,
very difficult for Gibraltarians, and it was important that we were
able to reach a pragmatic agreement with the EU to enable daily life to
with the EU to enable daily life to
continue.
There does need to be a proper oversight and scrutiny, and
there will be an opportunity that
happens by both houses. It will be
the process that we are now familiar with, and we are aware of the
debates around things. It is the process that we are legally obliged
to follow, and that is the process
that we use, but I also that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has been
incredibly forthcoming about his views on this, and he is happy with
views on this, and he is happy with
the outcome of negotiations.
There have been 19 rounds of negotiations
to achieve this agreement, and these negotiations started, and they have concluded now that the Foreign
Secretary has been very clear in
terms of paying tribute to the work of his predecessors in leading these
negotiations. This has been a relatively smooth process. I should
also pay tribute to my friend the Minister for in the role that he has
played in bringing this about. On the role of the Spanish police,
there will be checks, and if you have been through St Pancras, you
will have seen the cheques which
have been about making sure that before you enter the area, there is
a cheque.
If there is an alert that
is triggered by that cheque, you will not be instantly lifted by
Spanish piker for interrogation. You
will have your rates maintained. You will have access to legal advice and
you will have the option to return
to your departure airports to do.
And, and I thank the noble Lords
array going to need checks stop but
the there is always a but and play- offs to be Minister, the government
of Gibraltar, their own
Parliamentary process to look at this up they are content that this
is the right way to proceed, and the Foreign Secretary is also meeting
with Gibraltar in opposition people as just to make sure that everybody
is comfortable and that we can proceed because the noble Lord asked about how long this arrangement is
intended to last.
It doesn't have it. Before the people of Gibraltar,
so having an end to be conducive to that. The contents of this agreement
packed the sovereignty of Gibraltar.
There is a clause in there that says this agreement doesn't affect the
19:58
-
Copy Link
sovereignty at all, and Spain, as Lord Cameron pointed out, Spain has
Lord Cameron pointed out, Spain has its view, but we are clear that
its view, but we are clear that Gibraltar is British and there is
19:58
Lord Rogan (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
Copy Link
-
nothing in this agreement but affects the current state of Gibraltar and Spain has agreed to
19:58
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Gibraltar and Spain has agreed to
Gibraltar and Spain has agreed to that. We have had no talks at all without the Chief Minister of
Gibraltar they don't think the previous government did either because it is clearly not tenable to
because it is clearly not tenable to have arrived at a busy UK and the EU
have arrived at a busy UK and the EU that didn't satisfy that ship and the people of Gibraltar that has
been at the forefront of and I just
off Lord Purvis on sovereignty, self-determination, and our
unshakeable commitment to people of
Gibraltar.
He aren't exit clauses.
Yes, they will be act. The full text will be available, but there are
19:59
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
clauses that should things deteriorate or if there is something that we don't see happening, we
that we don't see happening, we don't foresee this happening because
it isn't, but it is possible for
it isn't, but it is possible for early should that be the view that rest of the people of Gibraltar, but as I say, we don't hand being the
as I say, we don't hand being the case. Gibraltar. They are pleased
case. Gibraltar. They are pleased with it.
We have our best to go through. The full text will Bolton government will be there process to
government will be there process to go through as well, but I think
go through as well, but I think that, generally, including ventures
that, generally, including ventures in the other place, received outcome
and protracted set of negotiations many ways, was inevitable follow,
but I am glad get this almost resolved.
19:59
b Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
I declare an interest on the
register. I have been privileged to visit Gibraltar on many occasions
the all-party group to the Minister
and his colleagues and his manatees government for the hard work over
government for the hard work over
many, many years it agreement which has the support of all four parties involved in the negotiations. That
Steam continues to back its claim over Gibraltar and it has never
backed off over that.
To make a
comparison, as I may say, how we get to the continent of France or Belgium using the Eurostar system,
i.e. With a French immigration officer, it is not the same at all because you will then go through
And when a Spanish immigration
officer will call them will be
checking British passports and British passport holders and can actually refuse entry for that British citizen into a British
sovereign territory. That is the
difference. So, we have a Spanish officer refusing a British citizen
into a British overseas territory, so I would really like some clarification on that.
Other than
that, I would welcome obviously to see the detail as my Noble Friend has asked for on a number of these
issues, the devil is always in the detail and, of course, what is important is that the Gibraltarians Government and the citizens of
Gibraltar continue to realise that the United Kingdom will certainly always be watching their backs and
should anything arise that is toward through these negotiations in the
through these negotiations in the future we need to make sure that we are diligent in any oversight that
takes place.
20:02
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We simply differ in our view with regard to sovereignty, with our friends and allies in Spain, but
nothing in this agreement changes the status of the sovereignty of Gibraltar, we were very clear about that, Spain understands that, that is reflected in the treaty. It is
really important that we made sure that was the case because we do not want any thing to arise out of this
upper the Gibraltarians sovereignty. And it is different, of course it is
different, getting on the Eurostar, going to Kent and then into France,
but it is the similar check and the point is it is not a full
immigration process.
This is an alert as to whether there will be an outstanding warrant or a criminality issue, it would be triggered. And
issue, it would be triggered. And
you would immediately lose all your rights, if you were arrested or anything like that, you would have the option of going and answering
questions that may arise as a result of that trigger, or you would have the option of taking legal advice and returning to your country of
departure. This is a compromise. I accept that. It is something that is
very unusual, and this is an unusual circumstance.
This is necessary to
make sure that border stays open and that was the whole point that we
were trying to negotiate in trying to achieve and that is what has been
achieved and I have to say if it is the people of Gibraltar being front and centre of all of this, as
everyone has said, then we need to listen to what they and their
representatives are saying about this agreement and they are very warmly in support of this agreement.
And I have two say I will listen to them.
If it gets to the point where
they are no longer of that you then clearly they would have to think again, but they have been involved at every step of the way. We have to
think about them, we would not do
that, and this is an agreement that they are pleased with, and for them it is going to make such a difference to their daily lives, and
to their prosperity that they're able to live and travel backwards and forwards, 15,000 people everyday that they can do something freely
**** Possible New Speaker ****
without any concern about boarders being closed or anything like that, this is a link with the Gibraltarians and I welcome them. My Lords, I wonder if I could
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I wonder if I could welcome the government's statement very warmly and declare an interest, I was involved with senior officials
I was involved with senior officials in the Foreign Office in aiding the impose controls on the borders that
impose controls on the borders that have done such damage and lifted
have done such damage and lifted well before they joined the European Union. And I was rather surprised, as was the Noble Lord Purvis, that
as was the Noble Lord Purvis, that the Noble Lord mentioned which is quite brave to do so which for the
quite brave to do so which for the Gibraltarians to remain part of
Gibraltarians to remain part of Britain, but eventually the other
Britain, but eventually the other vote which was a huge 90% voting to stay within the European Union and which, of course, was quite correctly overwritten by the wider
vote for this country, which cast
Gibraltar into nine years of
uncertainty, anxiety, of worry, that things would not work out.
I think
an apology is due here for all those who are responsible for that action. Could I ask the Noble Lady to
questions? First of all, is it the
case that with a bit of luck and hope this agreement will also
facilitate the Governments process
of resetting the agreements in the European Union? And, in particular,
the one dealing with the security compact which will now go ahead at
full speed? And the second question,
if I could, will she perhaps convey the very warm words of these benches
and others of this House with remarkable patience and perseverance
with which she pursued what is, in my view, an extremely valuable
my view, an extremely valuable agreement for the Gibraltarians themselves.
I think it would be
right that he should hear words of praise from those of us who have contributed less than he has done to
this process. this process.
I thank the Noble Lord for his work in the past that I did not know
about with regards to Gibraltar. And absolutely, we will make sure that
absolutely, we will make sure that
they are made aware of the warmest of words that have been said in this chamber and in The Other Place about the tireless work that he has undertaken on behalf of the people
of Gibraltar over very many years to make sure that their interests are reflected in the agreement that we
have now made.
I will not get into
the whole Brexit, I just think we are all a bit exhausted with all of that, but, as he says, there is now
a reset with the EU relationship, and I think that what this shows is
what could be achieved when there is
a focus on people rather than perhaps our ideological hobby horses. What could be achieved with
patience and pragmatism, because that is the approach that this Government is going to take and has
taken to this issue but will take to all issues regarding our relationship with the EU, it is
important that we restore our relationships and we have cooperation on things like security,
that we get our SPS sorted out and
we can work together on the challenges facing migration such as
climate change, the challenges, these are all things that we need to
address together in the spirit of openness and pragmatism and I think that is far more profitable for the
people of this country as well.
people of this country as well.
20:08
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
Info I think I agree with what the Noble Lady has said with one exception, she implied that
negotiations started with the Foreign Secretary. I took part in
three negotiations at Gibraltar
airport, the first four Foreign
Secretary Geoffrey Howe, so the stone in the show has been there for a very long time. I think it has
been rather elegantly removed and I think the solution is a very good
one. I know that the duty of composition is to oppose as we said
but I did think that the opposition front bench slightly ungraciously
spoke about the officials that worked very hard for them on this,
at the early stages of this particular session have not been
factored in the same way the Foreign
Secretary in my view quite correctly states the officials that completed
the task they were doing when the opposition front bench spokesman
tonight was their boss.
tonight was their boss.
20:10
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I bow to the noble Lords experience and clearly this has been
going on for very many years. He is
also right to say that there are
teams of officials who work on this
and other similar matters with such expertise and diligence. I have seen officials coming back from one round
of talks, having to go out and spending time away from their family. It is their job, they appear to do it, they do not complain, but
I think it is right that we do underscore our appreciation and things like this are achieved.
things like this are achieved.
20:11
Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, the Noble Lady said
that this agreement would be subject, and we have not seen the detail, but what I wanted to know
was what are the circumstances in which the Government, for instance, in Spain, might take a different
attitude? Would be, and is there something there to protect the
situation? Because once people get
their foot in the door, bureaucracy can be more difficult, they can
refuse this, that and the other, and you can get actually quite a bit of hassle in this developing at the
point of entry, so I am sure that has been taken into account, and I hope that when the minutiae is
available they will be able to
confirm that and it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could address that.
And the other thing I just wanted to say, a gentle reminder
that she has said twice now that negotiations had been taking place
and the people of Gibraltar through their first Minister were represented at each stage quite properly. Just a gentle reminder that the Governments have been negotiating the Windsor Framework in
these matters and our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
representatives were not present. If the Noble Lord thinks I am
getting back into that, not tonight. But he is right. There is the
But he is right. There is the possibility with change of Government either here or in Spain
20:12
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Government either here or in Spain or in Gibraltar even, there may be
different approaches favoured in the future. There are going to be, as you would always expect in this type of deal, some dispute mechanisms
and, ultimately, although I genuinely do not expect this to happen and I hope for the sake of the people in Gibraltar this never happens, there is the possibility
for either party to unilaterally end the agreement, but we do not anticipate that happening. This is a good outcome for the people of Gibraltar.
Gibraltar.
20:13
Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, perhaps I could ask
some further clarifications from the Noble Lady. Firstly, she said on a couple of occasions that the checks that the Spanish officials would be doing at the border would be
Schengen checks. Yes the Noble Lady therefore saying that Gibraltar will be joining Schengen or part of
Schengen? Because I believe in The Other Place the Foreign Secretary
said that they were not. And the second question flows from that. Therefore, under the current Schengen arrangements, of British
citizens and British passport holders, are only allowed to spend 90/180 days in Schengen area.
So,
therefore, is it the case that a
British passport holder man who may own property in Spain, many do, in Gibraltar, many do, is she saying
Gibraltar, many do, is she saying
that those people with a British passport will only be able to spend 90 days out of 180 days in
Gibraltar, even if they never set
foot in Spain. I think these are important points. The detail matters on these things. And, of course, we have not seen the agreement yet.
The other question is, she did not
answer in her initial contribution, could she tell us what we will see forward. Wye I see the agreement as soon it is ready. Gibraltar is not
soon it is ready. Gibraltar is not joining Schengen. The Gibraltar
joining Schengen. The Gibraltar president will not be subject to this. The 90 days, he is right, that
is part of this. is part of this.
20:15
Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - committee stage (day 5) - part two
-
Copy Link
Think it is 815, so the House to begin again in committee under
schools bill. Baroness Smith.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move that the House do now resume.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
now resume. The question, thank you, I was expecting the Noble Lady to move. So sorry. I big to move that the
20:16
Deputy Lord Speaker. Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So sorry. I big to move that the House do now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The question is that the House do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the House do not resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
contrary, "Not content", The
20:16
Amendment:134A Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
After close 11, a member 134 a, Baroness Anderson.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Anderson. I rise to speak to amendment 134
a in my name which is in one sense a
fairly limited amendment can append to some of the other proposals in
this group. All of which I understand because what we are trying to deal with in this group is
one of the most controversial realities in children and social care, and that is the reliance on
private provision and the role of private equity funds. So more than 80% of children's homes are run by
for-profit companies.
A rise of more
than 20% since 2010. A large proportion are owned by private equity groups carrying large levels
of debt and creating instability in a sector meant to protect the most
vulnerable. And it was the concerns about the markets that the noble Baroness the Minister has mentioned
that led to the CMA launching in
2022, and it identified a shortage of suitable children's homes in the
right places, as well as high costs. With local authorities paying excessive fees to private providers
and the largest providers making materially higher profits and
charging materially higher prices than they would have expected if the
market was functioning effectively.
And as we have discussed in the previous group, we have seen a rise in the number of children placed in
unregulated homes as the pressure to find placements has intensified. So, as you might expect, in the
Explanatory Notes for this bill, and
as has been stated, one of its aims is to improve local authorities ability to shape the children's social care placement market and to
tackle profiteering. And there are a number of measures to address this in the bill. There are new powers
for Ofsted to find unregulated homes in the present undertaking, although
as we have heard, this may be doesn't go far enough.
And the Secretary of State will have the
power to The profit that can be made. As has been clearing the
Explanatory Notes, this is the power that would only be used if the other
marketing expansions do not sufficiently improve the function of
the market. Yet, as with the previous amendment that I mentioned,
some of these measures mentioned in this paper have not been brought
forward in this bill, and one notable exception is the proposal to improve the data that individual
local authorities hold on the prices paid for private placements, and
also improve the sharing of that data, hence the reason for this amendment which would require local
authorities to publish annually for
private placements.
This would ensure that local authorities are supported to better understand, shape and commission placements that
suit the need of placements in the
area and bring transparency to the cost of placements, and that is a
direct quote from the government's own policy system, so I'm rather
hoping that the noble Baroness the Minister sees that. If I may, I would like to given example of why
this data is important and how the current system works in the interest of the larger providers while
threatening the viability of the smaller operations.
I have a friend
who runs a children home. He has one property. He runs it well and has
children who often stay with him for
a number of years. Every year, he has to fill out a spreadsheet to justify a new price uplift to the local authority for existing
placements. This information means that things are fair across-the-
that things are fair across-the-
board. Typically, his uplift means
that it was only 1.2%. However, if we are in a home with regularly
changing children, it is home to set placements each time.
As a result, and only through a chance
conversation, he discovered that he
was being paid £1500 per week less than one of the large private providers in the area, offering the
same one-to-one support for a child to very similar needs. So, the net
result of all of this is that he continually struggles to keep his head above water despite being a
responsible provider running the type of home which we all agreed that we need more of, and if he was
able to see the data on payments made to other providers in the area, it would help him negotiate more
equitably with the local authority, and in turn, that would shore up his
perennially fragile position for there are benefits on the other side from the local authority.
As the
words of one practitioner, if we were more transparent, there would
be less chance that the providers can pick us off one by one. The
government has said it will engage in the sector to bring about greater cost and price transparency, but as
we know, local authorities are not great at sharing data, so I would like to ask the noble Lady the Minister if she will consider
mandating the publishing of this data as part of this bill. And I
understand that it has been mentioned previously that governments are rightly cautious about the number of requirements
they place on local authorities, but given the level of distortion in the market and the urgent need for more
suitable homes, I think there is a solid case to be made in this
instance, and I suspect that in her response, the noble Baroness the
Minister will point me to the regional care cooperatives, and
these will of course lead to a great deal of data transparency.
What it doesn't do is solve the problem for
the providers. And as with other measures in this bill, it is another late stage intervention, so it is a
step to be taken such as imposing fines when things have already gone wrong, and what seems to have got
lost along the way are some of those
positive preventative measures that originated from the government's own policy paper, and they have just
fallen by the wayside. I'll be honest, I am slightly confused as to
why this is the case, but perhaps the noble Baroness can shed some light on the matter, or perhaps she
might suggest that she reinstates them into this bill.
Just quickly,
and some of the other amendments, it does not go as far as amendment 174
which seeks to remove the market as
was mentioned, and I think that may have just fallen down now as I don't
think it is feasible or desirable to ban private provision because that
would only increase the capacity shortfall, and we do need responsible investment. I don't
think we should be incentivised private providers from investing in capacity or do anything to further
destabilise the market.
So, that is
why I understand the concerns about the proposed profit cut which the
CMA thinks would be unworkable, and it is also why support her amendment
which would exclude individuals from financial penalties. And while I have purposefully limited my
amendment to children's homes, I think the same principle of datasharing to create a fairer
market would certainly apply to fostering agencies where there is a
similar problem and while private investors operate less in the space of supported accommodation, it is
not unheard of, so I do understand the reasoning behind amendments 140
and 142 which would like to include supported accommodation are little more in the bell, and just finally,
on amendment 141, it is not my area of expertise that I am looking
forward to hearing your view and I beg to move.
20:24
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Clause 11.
Lord Storey for adding his name as
well. It relates to extending the scope to covering independent providers of supported accommodation. I think this is a
really important group of amendments. The whole area of
financial oversight is incredibly important. I suspect we are not all
going to have exactly the same views
in this area. But to put things into context, I just want to make clear
that I do welcome the raft of measures to strengthen the regulation oversight of the care system in the bell, particularly the
new provide oversight measures, the new powers for OFSTED to find providers of unregistered children's home, the financial oversight
mechanism and the profit.
I firmly believe that these measures are welcome steps in the right direction
in addressing some of the structural problems facing the care system. The
sort of issues we have spoken about in this chamber, things like
excessively high profit levels and rising care costs at a time when local authorities are under huge financial pressure. The power
imbalance of local commissioners and the largest private providers, the
risk of sudden exits to high debt burdens from private equity backed providers, and the growth in
unregistered children's home to be
focused on.
Together, I think it is a pretty toxic mix and we've got to take this opportunity to do
something about it. So that is sort of the big picture, but talking to
my specific amendment, as we have already heard, the has been a significant rise in the number of
children in care aged 16 and 17 who were living in supported
accommodation in the last six years. The numbers have risen very, very
significantly. And I think it is just important to be clear what we mean by supported accommodation.
It
is the purpose of it, for young
people who may have already started to make some sort of transition to more independent living but still
require a fair degree of support. And many supported accommodation settings like children's homes and
foster homes are run by private
companies, many of which are very large, and local authorities currently have no way of knowing the
debt level being carried by the private companies, and whether there is any risk of the company or provider failing financially which
could have drastic implications for
the settings.
So, given the number of children living in accommodation,
I believe it is important that these
measures in clause 14 are extended towards supported accommodation, as well as providers of children homes or fostering agencies, and my
amendment would achieve this and provide a consistent approach across
the different care settings, and provide a safeguard for local authorities to identify and mitigate
risks to provide a 70 closing multiple supporters accommodation
settings. I would say finally that
nine times out of 10, the noble Lady and I agree on pretty much everything.
We are often supporting
each other's amendments and talking the same debate. I don't quite share her position on removing the profit motive altogether from children
motive altogether from children
social care. Far more noise needs to be done to regulate it, but I do think there is a place for the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
private sector in the market. It has just got to be properly regulated. It is a pleasure to follow the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is a pleasure to follow the naval baroness when I agree with her and when I don't and I will note the
20:28
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
phrase the noble Lady used, toxic mix, and I think there has been brought agreement around the chamber
and from the government benches that
we have a huge problem. The noble
Lady in one of the earlier groups of the market has prevented local authorities from meeting their duties. My stress and that term, in
the market. What I am postulating is the market is not the appropriate
way to provide and ensure that we have the right clear places in the
right place with the right services.
And that is a statement of the Green party for cervical position. We
don't believe that any form of care profit should be made from it. But I
think it is also, in this case, just
insane. The market has driven us to this. In one of the earlier groups.
It was said that the market is clearly not working, so yes, it is
mighty logical position, but here, I think I have an overwhelming argument for saying that the market
is just the wrong model for providing this sort of care for vulnerable young people and
children.
So, to introduce and speak
to my amendment, this is a new clause that would look at services
for poor fit companies, so it's as we have two very simple provisions. The first is that any new
institutions created under the spell should be not-for-profit, and it
says that, within five years of the day of this act, what is now for
profit would be converted. As Baroness Anderson said, this follows the model of what is already
happening in Wales and I acknowledge that Wales is smaller than England, but Wales has shown the way and I
think it is worth looking at why Wales went that way, a significant
part of that decision, and there was broad agreement about listening to
young people, one of the driving forces behind the decision was to
listen to young people in care experience and they told the
Minister we do not want people
We are not eggs being sold in
supermarkets, we are not a normal private landlord.
We are vulnerable
young people and people making profit from the way we are being treated we don't think is right. I
would really urge noble Lords to listen to that. I think looking at
what the profit motive does, we were talking before about regional care cooperatives and of course one of
the predecessors for that is have
been regional and sub regional commission frameworks and I noticed a study from 2022 about what works
the children, they found that those regional and subregional commissioning networks, that the key problem why they were not working
was a lack of provider signup.
Providers thought we can make more money from the spot market so we don't want to sign up to standard
contracts. That is a real threat resented to the regional care cooperative model, but it's a threat
that is always going to remain there while they remain for profit companies. I take the point made by
Baroness Anderson there is for profit and there is for profit, and
there are better and worse. In many contexts in your Lordships house have expressed great concern about
the impact the private equity and
its whole model of loading down with that, this picks up the point made by Baroness Tyler in her amendment, we've seen this twice already in aged care homes where we've been
through a cycle where we have gone very close to large numbers of homes closing under one private equity owner because they have loaded down
with debt.
Care homes is an obvious area, in some ways it slightly less of a risk with care homes because so
many are in the poorest areas with the lowest property prices. Whereas
The aged care homes in areas with higher property prices they just sell the home of for development for
luxury flats and that covers the debt. Nonetheless there is a real risk with that model. I would say I'm sure there are very good people running a single home with good
intentions, they come back to the point about what the children themselves feel.
That they are a profit unit. And we have talked so
much about how vulnerable and how badly generally society has treated these young people, I don't think we
should treat these young people as a
profit unit for anybody. I'm happy to argue about whether five years is exactly the right time. I'm not
wedded to any of the detail of this amendment, but I'm going to ask you
to listen to the children.
20:34
Baroness Thornton (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
In many ways the test of the government success in performing public services will be whether we
can crack the tough NUT of children Social care. It's been quite clear
from the debates in the last three groups that this is a major
challenge. I need to declare my interest as the founding chair of
Social care UK, I'm on an APPG and
I'm associate of social business international when I have been working with leaders, social enterprises providing public
services for the last 10 years or so I think I might have preferred to have made the speech nearly debate at the beginning of the afternoon but I'm afraid I couldn't make it
here in time for the opening of the debate.
However this is appropriate because we are talking essentially
about procurement and finance. As the noble Lord said earlier in the last debate that the independent
review of social -- children Social
care led by Josh MacAlister described how the current system leads to unacceptable poor outcomes for children, rising costs, private
equity referred to by the noble Lady
and it found that care packages are dictated by the market, not by
children's needs. Excessive profiteering has minimised resources
and created public disgust.
His central recommendation is for government to launch a reform
program, a radical reset to fix the broken care market which has failed
our most vulnerable children. But whilst I absolutely welcome the
government Spending Review commitment to keep family held and other reforms linked to the
McAllister review, I do feel you can't throw money at children Social
care and expect to get better unless we actually also change. I want to
see commissioners leave the well evidenced voluntary sector, social
enterprise and other forms of care to have a diverse marketplace in
children Social care.
I mentioned in
the second reading debate, the wonderful judo community interest company in Liverpool. Social
adventures in Manchester and the Lighthouse pedagogy trust in London.
All are boosting the life chances of our most vulnerable young people. All exist for public service and
benefits. They are efficient, entrepreneurial, transparent and
accountable. They are sustainable, they plough their profit into their social mission, often providing preventative and complemented
services. These organisations win tenders in open procurement
processes. Yet -- there are exceptions in the system which
incentivises what you might called
social washing.
Let me explain. Commissioners plan and design
services to meet local needs must consider social value when choosing
providers. The concept brought into law by the 2013 social value act which I was very pleased indeed to
help to get onto the statute book.
Scoring bids for social value means public bodies consider and try to
measure public and community benefit alongside value for money. When they procure services we depend on. But in practice the system can be gained
while the process inadvertently raked.
It promises outputs they will
never attain and are not and are
Many commissioners know that social enterprises cooperatives mutuals,
leisure drafts, employee owned businesses, charities, trading charities deliver high quality public services that meet community needs. And have many have long wanted them to take a bigger role in
public services was this chimes with the publics view as well so the
reason Procurement Act gave commissioners new tools and tax abilities and came into force in February this year. After the
Cabinet officer Minister introduce the national procurement policy and
the national procurement policy and
the social value procurement notice.
Which referenced the role of these kinds of organisations and the idea of co-designing with community.
There is no point in having the best regulation, which I am very proud
of, if we don't use it in the opportunities it gives us. Commissioners can collaborate social enterprise providers, charities and
other businesses, Procurement Regulations should be an enabler not
a barrier. My question to my noble friend the Minister, what in the
bill will allow this real change to take place? Do we need to strengthen the bill in some ways so that they
can allow these redesigns to happen? I was very struck in the earlier
debate, the question of planning.
Of course it's the whole system needs to be thought of and that needs to be done. I wondered if my noble friend the Minister might for
instance organise a roundtable where
we could address the role of procurement to bring about the change we need in this particular marketplace before we reached report
stage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lady Sanderson on amendment 134A. You won't be surprised to know
You won't be surprised to know recently I've been championing local authorities and around the cost of
authorities and around the cost of children's homes, I want to give you a bit of a reality check and to do
so I'm going to quote to examples.
The first example is supported living for care leavers, 21 to 25,
living for care leavers, 21 to 25, nearly adults or top end.
They need very little support so to speak,
very little support so to speak, they are very nearly independent and a semi detached house is created
a semi detached house is created that can take up to five young
20:40
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
that can take up to five young people. Very little supervision. The cost for one of those young people
in that provision is actually £500
per week. If you think about that cost, that is nearly as much as any
landlord would get to actually rent out that property for a month. £2000
a month. Actually if you've got five young people in their that is one
hell of a profit margin. You can see
why people go down that route and why we are having to grapple with the costs.
The second case I want to
quote you is again where a property
had been sought and used to secure
accommodation with 20 4/7 support, so it actually was worse and it was
another counsel that placed in our borough, was actually worth them getting the property and having 20 4/7 support for secure accommodation, which they have
obviously a decision that this was either that they couldn't afford to
get that accommodation three normal
routes or that this was cost value, the first thing we knew about it was
when we read police reports to say this young woman who is in 24 seven
secure with two people had gone missing.
I'm jumping up and down
saying, we got a young child gone missing, no actually is not our
child, we didn't even know this young person was in our borough. That's actually expensive
accommodation and to the noble
Baroness Baroness Butler-Sloss earlier on, she said that you would know if people were placed in your borough, you don't. I'm sure the Minister will have something to say
about that. When you think about it addition to the knowledge that this
young person is placed in your borough, that cost to consider, 24
seven care and accommodation for one person in your borough is
phenomenal.
They are the things we
are grappling with on a daily basis. I know local authorities are not perfect, but actually some of these things we are grappling with on a
daily basis, pushes the costs up and actually some of this transparency might deal with it. I look forward
to the Minister's response.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I was looking at this group of
amendments and I must say I apologise for missing the 30 seconds, when someone says I want a quick word with you I should have jumped round and tried to politely
20:43
Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
jumped round and tried to politely brush them off. All these amendments are looking at financial control. Probably it is overdue but it's
extremely difficult. I think is the assumption I would make here. It's a
case of transparency yes, we need
something in here and the fact that as the Baroness O'Neill has just pointed out, you are actually dealing with on a last-minute we
must do something basis. Having some control over that is an extremely
sensible idea, but you won't get rid
of the fact that it will have to be done emergency contingencies or whatever.
It's still going to happen that way. Trying to extract from the
government limitations and, of what
they are actually proposing here and getting it more on the record is really what we are going to. My own
amendment here, I probably think I
should have slightly reworded it, of all the things which are accused of costing too much, special educational is probably right up there. Often it's the private
sector. Depends what you are dealing with, because there isn't a right
sum of money for that.
I'm on a committee looking at the autism act
at the moment, just went to see a
school that had one full-time member of staff for every two pupils and TA is on top of that. Because it is
needed. The private support comes in usually, they are usually coming in
to support somebody who has struggled in the education system, it may not be autism, it may not be
that severe. They are usually playing catch up and repair to put it front -- bluntly.
They are going
to have high staffing needs, is
going to vary, it's going to very to the person. I would hope actually that this transparency may be a defensive thing from people who
provide a service that is needed. Knee-jerk reactions and assumptions
that they are just ripping the system of are often based on people who know nothing. Let's face it.
There may well be people who are ripping you off as well but both are
out there. So trying to get a good idea of what the government are actually trying to get out of this, we all agree the principle but then
we have dozens of different assumptions of what that means.
If
we can find out what the government means in this series of amendments
we will probably be able to work, hopefully this will be something
that is as much of this bill has been, essentially cross-party. It's about how do we get the right answer here because the government is as in
all good do democracies this is a slightly reactive bills, dealing
with problems that exist. I don't say that as a great criticism of the government it is simply that it's a
government it is simply that it's a
I would hope that the Minister will be able to give us an idea about the government's thinking around
transparency, how we get out, if for example someone is grossly
overcharging you, how you would say that is happening.
That is what I hope.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Arose to support Lady Sanderson's
20:46
Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Arose to support Lady Sanderson's amendment. And also believe that the transparency should extend to the
transparency should extend to the SEMD sector. -- SEND. I believe we need highly leveraged, not private
investment. I understand why we are
bringing forward the profit cap,
because of course none of us want
them looking after our children. What worries me is that these are already out of favour with the sector who are struggling to sell
the assets they have in the provision of a profit cap and
monetary fines is going to drive capacity art.
I really am worried
about this. Who is going to replace the lack of capacity that I'm sure will result as a result of these
provisions. Of course, in an ideal world many of us would like more provision for these to be run by charities or the public sector. Some
have their own problems. We do not live in an ideal world. The public
sector hasn't no money, charities
are struggling to raise it. Most of the operators are concerned about
the reputation and safety and the
quality of their provision.
We need to encourage them, otherwise we will have and I predict this will result in a massive shortage of capacity,
as a result of fines and cat. I am
**** Possible New Speaker ****
all for, full transparency. ... How he feels that we need to make that transition to the kind of
make that transition to the kind of system that we want, if he is so worried about the reduction in
worried about the reduction in capacity. And how do you deal with the profit gouging that has gone on?
the profit gouging that has gone on? If you sort of say you do not have gouging, what happens when suppliers
**** Possible New Speaker ****
walk away? Transparency is a good start. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Transparency is a good start. I think it is the case and I know there are prices charged, maybe for different reasons, property prices
different reasons, property prices or whatever. I think transparency. I
or whatever. I think transparency. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, trying to interfere in
market is generally dangerous and generally has unintended
consequences. Everybody knows I am a career private equity guide. I do know that these assets are
completely out of favour.
There are a number who cannot sell these
a number who cannot sell these assets. They are just going to run out of money. I think the government
out of money. I think the government needs to be very careful. I say that as someone who is very concerned about the sector and that is why
about the sector and that is why here. I do not have any magic solutions, but I think threatening
people with fines, who is going to want to run these homes? The want to run these homes? The individuals.
I think it is something that needs to be thought about very carefully.
20:49
-
Copy Link
The noble Lord has just
essentially agreed with what I said, some of these entities are
financially unstable and uncertain. Would the noble Lord understand and reach the argument it is better to
bring these back, these facilities
can have to stay open, we need them. Better to bring them back into non- profit hands in an orderly manner, rather than if one of these private equity companies goes down, there is an immediate crisis and what does the Government do then?
20:50
Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I think the care sector is
slightly different further reasons people mentioned. What are we going
to do, nationalise them, for nothing? Are we going to pay for it? Where is the money going to come from? Anyway, even if you deal with
the ownership issue, obviously I do
not agree with the idea of nationalisation. Threatening people
who operate them with fines is just, it just doesn't seem to be, which is what I support the amendments, in
relation to limiting fines, then
also not applying to natural
persons, as opposed to corporations.
persons, as opposed to corporations.
20:51
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to speak to amendment 140
a, in my name and propose clause 14 do not stand part of the bill.
Before I turned to my own amendments
I would also like to add my support to my noble friend, Baroness
Anderson's amendment 134 A, which would bring, as we've heard a much needed transparency to the children's homes market and level
help in the playing field for smaller and larger providers. Of
course, this transparency would help negotiating the position of local authorities and regional care
authorities and regional care
cooperatives.
I would also like to thank my noble friend Baroness O'Neill of BRICS Lee for making it real and giving us those are very
practical samples. Equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler then
filled made important points about the level of profit in the area of supported accommodation which, as I
understand it, from the CMA report was a some of the highest margins in
the second and today provides about two thirds, three quarters as many
places as children's homes do, just
over 6,000, or 7% of the market, for
looked after children.
Amendment 141, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as we heard next
extend the profit cap to independent special schools. As the noble Lord understand extremely well, this is a
very complex area and one has to be careful, given the range of provision and some of these homes offer short-term respite to foster
carers, for example. So any changes would need to be thought through carefully to avoid unintended
, not just on my benches, but also the noble Lady, Lady Tyler, I cannot
support amendment 174, in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle.
A starting point is
that there needs to be greater capacity to limit price increases and ensure a choice of suitable
care. We were very clear when we were in government that we do not
condone the tiering, in this market, but we do have concerns about how transition in Wales will work. To a
market where there are no full
profit providers. And, obviously a
problem with very high price it will be only be exacerbated as a Lord Nash just explained if sufficient
new capacity is created quickly, or
even if capacity is withdrawn.
I do not think that such an approach can be considered, until the government has invested in new, not-for-profit
or social enterprise capacity, whether that be in the local
authority, or in the voluntary sector as Baroness Thornton very
ably outlined. I confess it is
slightly curious to be in a position of challenging the government's attempts to regulate and limit the
profits of some actors in this
industry which has rightly drawn criticism from the CMA, from local authority leaders and indeed many in
your Lordships' House.
My amendments, on this clause and the others in this area are definitely
not about defending a group of companies if they won't defend themselves. I'm simply trying to
test the viability and impact of the government's proposals and I think it is important, I think there is
such A-level of frustration, with the behaviour of some of the actors, in this sector, that we risk having
a kind of confirmation bias that
anything we change it too will be better. I think we really need to
test these proposals and be confident that the solution the government proposes will work.
As we have discussed at numerous points in committee there is a fundamental
problem with the lack of a residential care capacity, whether that be in relation to fostering children's homes or indeed supported
accommodation. And the Competition
and Markets Authority found, described the current shortfalls as
a fundamental saving failing in market functioning, imposing in their words, severe limitations on
their words, severe limitations on
the ability of the authorities in England, Scotland and Wales and purchase placements to engage effectively with the market.
And so,
we need a clear plan to address this shortage. My fundamental concern is that the measures in clauses 12 to
18 will not have the desired impact. The government seeks and actually
across Lordship's House macro. Amendment 140 K is simply an example
of why I do not think the plan for financial oversight regime as presented in the bill has been
properly roadtested -- hundred and
40 A. 30 Z I gives the Secretary of
State to arrange for an independent business review, by an external
business review, by an external
qualified person.
You would assume that in such cases, almost the first thing that they would look at, if it existed would be the recovery of the
resolution plan set out at 13 Z G. It isn't even mentioned, the list of the recovering resolution plans are
mentioned. And it would be
fundamental for them, given that it
covers the nature and extent of any risk to the financial sustainability of the person and the actions that they propose to take to address
this, as well as impact on local authority and on children.
It makes
me lose confidence this has been properly thought through. I hope the noble Baroness the Minister can
either add it into the list of things, independent business review
is will look at. More importantly
that she can assure the House that this area has been properly
considered. My amendment at clause 14 should not stand part of the bill
as a probing amendment. Proposed financial oversight scheme for children social, represents part of the regulatory response to the
market failures identified by the CMA.
And as with many parts of the bill, much will be set out in
regulation. The scheme requires information from parent undertakings, but as the noble Lady
knows, private equity structures are notoriously complex and opaque. And I wondered whether she was concerned
as to whether providers might restructure, to minimise oversight
burden and how the government will mitigate against this. Also I'm not
clear how the scheme will address jurisdictional limitations on enforcement of Thor-based
organisations. I would be grateful if she could explain and write to me with the answers particularly if it
is not at her fingertips.
I think it
is also reasonable to question whether the DfE has or will acquire a specialised financial and private
equity expertise, needed to analyse complex corporate structures and
finance arrangements effectively. Similarly it is sent in by a private
equity firm. Similarly, it is the noble Lady the Minister confident the local authorities have the capability to respond to advanced
warning notices. She concerned that the act of alerting local authorities about the financial responsibility of the provider can
actually lead to them withdrawing and lead to the financial collapse
that the scheme seeks to avoid.
I also would be grateful if she could set out how the government thinks
the contingency planning will work. I wonder whether the government
could have conversations with providers about how they expect to
create realistic plans, given the prevailing market conditions. Surely existing supply shortages will make rapid replacement extremely
rapid replacement extremely
difficult and emergency costs are already unsustainable. There are a lot of questions about the impact this will have on the shape of the
market. Will it result actually in more concentration in the market, because the 40 largest providers
will have hit the confidence of local authorities.
It actually results in financial pressures on
the smaller providers where there is less transparency. The Regulatory
Impact Assessments Bill page 30, paragraph 92, states that enable us to collect analyse and store
financial and business information from providers and their
undertakings, we will need to build
The noble Lady will recognise that governments of all colours have not
had the most sparkling track record of the new IT systems. I wonder whether she could share with the House what the estimated cost and time scale is for this? Again,
without investment, this is a high risk approach, to address and empower problems in provision.
It
has been estimated that the profit placement, per child for a full
year, rages between 50,000 and £100,000. For a child in residential
care. With 8640 children in care,
including those in secure
accommodation, 85% in private equity homes, that is a profit of around half £1 billion, a year, according
to my info, Ayatollah Khomenei. Can the Minister confirmed that she thinks the annual properties of the
thinks the annual properties of the
And even if my very crude calculations to hire gives a sense that the return on investment of the government buying additional homes and accepting the early amendment
from Baroness Sanderson and addressing the very real capacity problem would be very high, so I
would really urge the government to consider that.
I think we need a
more fundamental reform of capacity
to get to a place where we have public nonprofit models which would better serve the financial stability
that we need, but most importantly the welfare of children. I beg to
move. move.
21:02
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I rise to speak to amendments in group 4 is of the noble Lords have
identified in this group. We have a
market that is dysfunctional and not working appropriately. That results
in the types of pressures and
complexities for local authorities that we have heard about. And is
described, has been described by
several reports in 2022 the Competition and Markets Authority found that the children Social care
placement market was dysfunctional. They found the largest private providers were making profit margins
significantly above would be expected in a well-functioning
market.
The LGA also found in 2023 that the 20 largest independent providers made profits exceeding
£300 million in a year. There is a discrepancy between the levels of profits made in this market and
those made at the considerable discrepancy and those made on
average across non-financial businesses in the rest of the
economy. I don't necessarily believe, well I don't believe that
there shouldn't be a market in this particular area, but it is
completely clear that the excess profits being made are not the sign
of a properly functioning market, they are the sign of a market which is distorted, dysfunctional and is
failing to serve children and young people and the local authorities who
are paying the costs in terms of
funding the profits as opposed to investing in their children.
We
clearly need to make reforms and that is what this bill is partly
about, although I will say, I will come to some of the other reforms
not included in this builder also part of the overall program additionally. Local authorities
currently have no way of knowing if they provide all members of its
wider corporate group is at risk of failing financially. That is why amendments in this group cover
clauses 14 and 15 of the bill and
related issues.
I will start by addressing Baroness Barran's point
about clause 14 as a whole in the
clause than part debate. -- Stand part. Clause 14 introduces a new financial oversight scheme for children Social care, a key part of
our wider reforms to the market. We are aware that a provider of
children Social care places suddenly
closing the provision as a result of financial failure could have a significant detrimental impact on the care and stability of where
children and young people live.
Currently local authorities have no way of knowing if a private provider or its corporate owners are at risk of failing financially. If a large
provider were to fail and suddenly exit the market without warning it could be difficult for local
authorities to find alternative placements for those children or places that are appropriately met their needs. That's why we are
developing this new financial
oversight scheme in children's social care. This will for the first time increase financial and corporate transparency of difficult to replace children Social care
providers and allow for an accurate real-time assessment of financial
risk and strengthened formal planning.
Baroness Barran rightly
asks some detailed questions about how the system will work. We are not
of course developing this completely from first principles, we have
worked closely with the care quality commission to learn from their
existing market oversight scheme that operates for a similar purpose
in adult social and which was set up in the wake of the collapse of southern cross in 2011. We are
confident that this is something
that we can operationalise and make effective.
The way in which the
scheme is being designed means that those on the scheme will also be
those on the scheme will also be
required to submit a recovery and resolution plan containing information on risks to a providers
financial stability and plans to reduce those risks. The Secretary of State may also require providers or
a corporate group member on the scheme of heightened financial risk to undergo an independent business
review. The noble Lady I will come to her particular amendment but she asks about whether or not the
independent business review would
use the recovery and resolution plan, for reasons I will explain I think those are two important,
although slightly separate elements
of the scheme.
Turning to amendment
134 a in the name of Baroness Sanderson which seeks to require all know -- local authorities to publish
the prices they pay for private placements a children's home on an annual basis, before I get into the
detail of the amendment, the noble
Lady suggested that other parts of the overarching strategy that we
have to put right this failing market were potentially not being
taken forward. That is just not
right. The fact that something is not in this legislation doesn't mean that it isn't part of the government overall approach to improving the
sufficiency of placement.
Alongside the legislative provisions in this
bill we are also, I touched on this earlier on, developing a national
data program to address that gap in national and regional data around the underlying costs of children
Social care placement, are also extending our national support
program to provide additional support to local authorities in
forecasting commissioning and market shaping, we are of course investing considerably local authority
capacity, £560 million capital
investment between now and 29 /32 expand children's homes and foster care placements alongside additional
investment in foster care
sufficiency.
We are on the point about market diversification made by my noble friend Baroness Thornton we
are exploring options to encourage new providers such as charities and
ethical investors to enter the market and I will certainly talk to
my honourable friend minister day be
about the way in which we can bring people in potentially to a roundtable to think about that
market diversification. We are
improving both the workforce and the registration of new children's homes and supported accommodation in order
to support the reforms we are making to the market.
This is a wide-
ranging strategic and important program of work and what we are looking at in this bill is the
legislative elements of that. I do
agree with those noble Lords who have talked about the importance of data transparency that will be part
of our wider package of measures and this will cover not only placements in children's homes but also
fostering and supported accommodation placements. I'm glad
Baroness Sanderson is supportive of the need for this change, I would like to reassure her of our ongoing
commitment to it.
We want to ensure that local authorities have the necessary information, capability
and tools to shape the market, negotiate more effectively, secure
better suited placements and to
achieve writer value for money. -- Greater value it is also a function
of appropriately working market that there is better and clearer information than has been the case
up until now. On the point about whether or not and how we do that
with the local authorities, we are clear that these changes should be supported in nature rather than seeking to add additional burdens to
local authorities, for that reason we are considering the best way to
help local authorities to make informed decisions when commissioning placements.
Utilising the data we expect to collect on costs and how they can provide better data and cost transparency
and we will be outlining more plant on that in due course. I agree on
the principle about the need for much better information. Turning to
amendment 140 tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Tyler which seeks to
apply the natural oversight scheme to providers of supported accommodation, I would like to reassure noble Lords that supported
accommodation providers will be in scope for the financial oversight scheme.
They are not on the face of
the bill because that reflects how this type of provision is dealt with
in the Care Standards Act, the Care Standards Act was extended to cover
supported accommodation by regulations. So to ensure consistency we will similarly apply
natural oversight to supported accommodation through regulation, this will occur once the financial
oversight scheme comes into force.
The scheme will increase financial and corporate transparency as I've said of the most difficult to replace providers of supported
accommodation alongside the other forms of provision that have already
been identified.
Turning to
amendment 148 tabled by Baroness Barran, here is where we get into some of the detail about the independent business review and the
recovery and resolution plan. I want
to reassure the noble Lady that the independent qualified person undertaking the IBA will of course
be able to request the providers
recovery and resolution plan if that is necessary to inform their
assessment. The RRP is a proactive
contingency plan which requires providers to mitigate risks and prepare the worst case scenario of
financial failure in a way that minimises negative impacts on children.
Upon submission providers
RRP will be reviewed by experts in my department, and yes, I can assure
the noble Lady that of course we will ensure that we have the
appropriate expertise in order to be able to do that, but as I say, as we
are basing this on a similar model
for adult social I think there is a good learning and understanding about what will be required there.
Separately, if we judge that there
is a significant risk to a providers financial sustainability the Department may instruct a qualified
person to conduct an independent review of their business.
The IRB will examine the nature and extent
of risks to a providers financial stability -- sustainability and will provide additional assurances to the
Department in its assessment of
financial risk. As I say, that will
include... That may well include a consideration of the RRP, and of
course at the independent review of the business may well be carried out
by people with specific, will be carried out by people with specific expertise in this area where we may
well need to look to particular
well need to look to particular
The noble Lady also asked me about
the advanced warning.
It is of course the case that we will need to be careful and sophisticated about the point at which we issue an
advanced warning, on the basis that
that itself, of course, could cause commissioners to withdraw children from a provider and therefore
precipitate what we are all trying to avoid. So finding the right
That will be something that we will consider very carefully. In order to ensure that local authorities can make the necessary contingency arrangements, if necessary, without
precipitating the failure of, precisely, the organisation that we
are trying to ensure does not leave
the market at that particular point.
Turning now to amendment 141, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington which seeks to extend the powers to
cap profits in clause 15 to cover independent schools, wholly concerned with the provision of education and care of people with SEND. I would like to assure the
noble Lord that we really do appreciate the challenges in the SEND system, including the disproportionate costs and the profit making of some independent
schools. I do not think that this
approach is the appropriate way to
respond to that.
The school system doesn't operate as a market, in the same way as the placement market
does. Because, of course placement there are made through the statutory
Education, Health, and Care Plan process. Policy interventions are designed for the children social
care market, may not be the best way forward for SEND. We are however, in our consideration of SEND reform,
that we will set out in due course, considering very carefully the place
of profit, in a special schools. This is certainly something we will return to and we will have more to
say about.
Turning, finally to the amendment 174 tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett of Manor
Castle, which seeks to ban for making provision in children's
social care. I think we all agree that profiteering for providing children social is unacceptable. The
failure of the market through the unacceptable levels of profit that
have emerged is neither good, for
our local authorities, or for the nature of the market and those who genuinely want to provide high
quality provision, enormously important for the children who need
that provision.
Our thought is that rather than banning profit entirely, taking a more balanced approach is to be announced in keeping children
safe, helping families thrive with a whole range of ages that I've
Is more proportionate. There is a good work being done by some private
providers, but what we want to do is to ensure that all providers are delivering high quality placements for children at sustainable cost to the taxpayer. We will continue to
evaluate the state of the market, and if significant behavioural
and if significant behavioural
change from providers is not seen we will not hesitate to use the new powers to cap powers in clause 15 of this bill.
I know we are going to
talk about in a later group, as well. I think there are probably some elements of the particular questions that Baroness Barran asked
me, about the about the detailed
operation of the financial oversight scheme, that they haven't managed to
cover in this response. I will go back and look at her questions and make sure that I write to her on any
that I have not been able to cover, in this response. On that basis I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
21:20
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her response and I would like to thank
all of the four very interesting debates. I won't be very long, as
debates. I won't be very long, as
usual. Just very quickly, I want to say to Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. I genuinely have real
sympathy for children that you mentioned and how it makes them feel. I believe in the voice of the child. It would be inappropriate to
say otherwise.
I did agree with Lord Addington that he said that in some
senses this is a reactive and we are dealing with the problems that we
have here and now and, as Lord Nash and Baroness Barran said, one of the
biggest problems is that we have caused a lot of the problems we have spoken about, and all of these days
the committee, capacity. I think really what we have to do is just
address the fact of capacity and the spread, the geographical spread of
capacity, as well.
I just... Baroness O'Neill, she brings the experience and she is able to tell
us what it is really like. Also I was really pleased that she said she
thought this could be helpful, in terms of grappling with some of the problems that local authorities
face. Baroness O'Neill says, it probably will be helpful. I was very
encouraged by that. It might be helpful, I think in other areas.
Baroness Tyler, the extent of the support of the market and the
support of the market and the
levels.
Baroness Thornton I thought made some very interesting points. I was going to suggest that the
government did take up the offer of the roundtable. I was very interested. They are doing that
already. To the Ministers points, I kind of knew having sat through last Thursday's debate and I thought I'm
gonna end up with their Ministers and not everything is of a legislation box. And I do take the
point and I think of course that there is a wider body of work and in
the last amendment that I had spoken I mentioned that wider body of work.
I'm very happy to acknowledge it. I just think the difference here is
that everyone says this, don't they.
I actually think that it is great to have better data and it is great to have that improvement with local
authorities. I'm not clear how it will help the smaller and private providers and the capacity was mentioned. Unless we kind of mandate that publishing I do not think it
will happen. It does feel a little one-sided. On that note I actually
think I'm afraid I'm going to put this back out of the box of
legislation.
On that note, for now I bed to withdraw my amendment.
21:23
Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Member of the Scottish Parliament I
need withdrawn. Another not moved.
Not moved. The question is that
clause 12 be adhered to. Sorry, in clause 12, amendment 135, Baroness
21:23
Amendment:135 Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
I rise to speak to amendments 135, hundred and 36, hundred 37, hundred and 38 and hundred and 38 A B C, in
my name. Clause 12, provides an oversight scheme which, according to
the Department's policy summary creates the ability to for Ofsted to
creates the ability to for Ofsted to
act, and scale and pace. When there is poor quality in multiple settings
and agencies owned by a single provider group. It will require providers of two or more homes or agencies to implement an improvement plan, where there are reasonable
grounds to suspect that the registration of the two, of two or more of the establishments or
agencies should cancelled.
And we
support, in the principal approach of giving Ofsted the power to
intervene at a group, rather than at an individual home level. However, I do have remaining concerns about
this clause. My overarching concern is that this approach may not be effective in getting providers to meet the required standards. Rather,
I fear it risks turning into a letter writing competition between
Ofsted and the providers. And thinking of a similar approach to independent schools who do not meet
the independent school standards, frequently in relation to the
teaching of PSHE.
These schools are face sanctions, are required to improve, the need to present a plan
for meeting the standards. In my time in the department, despite the best efforts of officials, the names
on the fairly long list, barely
changed. I appreciate that the context and the reasons for non- compliance are different. I hope that the noble Lady, the Minister
can convince me that this regime
will be more effective. Secondly, the policy note talks about requiring standards not being met.
Surely there is a spectrum of breaches of the standards.
Some which will require the cancellation
of the registration as the bill is drafted and some which will require
an improvement plan. While I understand that clause 12 is
intended to sit alongside the existing regulatory regime of individual homes, it is unclear to me how they will mesh together and I would be grateful if the noble
Baroness the Minister could explain. My amendments 135 and 136 require an immediate inspection where the
preachers breaches of the standards indicates safety of children. 137
encourages the use of regulation for all visitors to make an unannounced
visit to establish if there are
lower-level breaches.
If these are est then the visitor can make a recommendation to Ofsted, which of
course Ofsted is and obliged to accept, about what they have received. I think the idea and
trying to get across is that having
immediate eyes and boots on the ground, so to speak is essential when there are serious safeguarding concerns. I remember a case when I was in the Department of a
particular children's home group, where two of their homes were judged
to be inadequate. I requested all of the other homes of the group should
be immediately inspect did --
inspected and that did happen.
It
may be that the Minister was so these amendments are needed. It would help to have the explanation of record on how they expect us to work in practice. Thirdly my
amendments 138 A B C require communication who may be permit
commissioning a provider where there are concerns to make sure it is shared. I appreciate that this may
be difficult in reality but as we just discussed there is a similar
provision of the financial oversight regime. I assume this is something
that the Department has considered.
Finally, there are a number of specific questions which might form
the basis of some tidying up government amendments act report
which is set behind my amendment 138 % I'm not expecting the noble Baroness at the Minister to have the
answer to everyone. If she would like to write to me that's
absolutely fine. How is a reasonably, how is that defined? Is
that recent? If so how recent inspection was it from wider
intelligent. Secondly an individual with a significant problem and
management of the parent undertaking defined.
Is that a director, do they have to be registered at Companies
House? What happens if it is an
offshore on page 19, line 3, subsection 7, I wonder if the
Minister can confirm that the period referred to four D is correct when
referred to four D is correct when
it must say it is less than 28 days. Is it that it should not be more
than 28 days. I did read this eight times I still wasn't clear what it meant.
Don't we want to receive improvement plans as pulley as
improvement plans as pulley as
possible? On page 19, subsection A, should this clarify the sea ice EIS,
Ofsted to its friends can only withdraw an improvement notice if it has strong evidence that it is no
longer needed. What evidence does the Minister expect Ofsted to require before it withdraws an
improvement notice. 23 B, subsection 2, line 22, shouldn't it be clear that Ofsted must inform the parent
undertaking and any subsidiaries within 28 days.
Shouldn't this be mirrored for all of the stages in
the process. I wondered whether the noble Lady, the timeline for
communications listed, in clause 12
will be set out in regulations. At
the moment it is not clear what the maximum time period after each stage of the improvement notice process, including for Ofsted, to inform and
respond to the provider. I would have thought it would be useful for
this to be clear as possible. In 23
B, subsection 5, I wondered if there was a step missing from the processes as set out in the bill?
Surely the parent undertaking needs to inform the Chief Inspector, when
it has been fully vetted, within a timescale which is currently not stated.
Then the Chief Inspector
should arrange for an inspection, appropriate action to confirm that
21:31
Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
is the case. I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Clause 12, page 17, leave out
improvement plan notice and insert
21:31
Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
improvement plan notice and insert
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Listen to the noble Baroness introduce the list of amendments under bring how many times as a minister she busted be back with a
question. -- Batted me back. But it
is basically a system as I interpreted it, if I got it wrong I'm sure I will be told, how does it work. Where are levels of
work. Where are levels of intervention when someone doesn't work how do we get through. It was a long and complicated series of questions but that is what the
questions but that is what the committee stages for.
If we could get an idea of where the answers are if the Minister has them or where we
if the Minister has them or where we would find them I think we will feel a little bit more comfortable before
21:32
Government Spokes. Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
the next stage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to speak to amendments in group 5 all in the name of Baroness
group 5 all in the name of Baroness Barran. Just taking the amendments
as they are, the majority of
as they are, the majority of residential and -- residential is settings are owned by provider groups, organisations that own the providers that run the settings will stop the legislation refers to by
stop the legislation refers to by the groups as parent undertakings.
Provider groups have influence over how settings run yet they are not accountable in legislation for the
quality of the setups they own.
Clause 12 is intended to complement OFSTED's existing powers, it will allow OFSTED to take action at scale
allow OFSTED to take action at scale and pace to improve the quality of
and pace to improve the quality of care when they reasonably suspect two or more of the providers group settings are not meeting regular,
regulatory requirements. In answer
to a question together with clause 13 which provides additional enforcement powers to OFSTED, it is part of this government strategy to
ensure the safety and well-being of
vulnerable children in care.
I will start which seek to give OFSTED the
power to inspect provide groups will stop inspection is not necessary at
provider group level given the existing robust regime for inspection of settings. Inspection
of provider groups would not give OFSTED any additional information
that they don't already have. To ensure the quality of care and safeguarding of children in settings
which are obviously is the purpose of what we are intending to do here. Inspection of provider groups would
Inspection of provider groups would
add substantial burden to the public purse and would not result in the improvement to the quality of care
for children as inspections would focus on provider group policies rather than the lived experience of children.
Additionally they would not be effective in holding provider
groups to account. Without
establishing a burdensome inspection system and when we think that there
are over 400 provider groups I think we understand the scale of the additional work that we are talking
about. The clause gives OFSTED the power to serve an improvement plan
notice on provider group to improve quality into or more of its
settings. This is vital as it will ensure the quickest and most effective action to secure change at
effective action to secure change at
scale.
Clause 13 which we will come to shortly gives OFSTED powers to take action against the provider group when they don't improve the
quality of the settings. This amendment will not impose any requirements in the provider group
which OFSTED could enforce against. Turning to amendment 137 which seeks
to empower OFSTED to use the
services of an independent person as provided for by the regulation 44 of the children's homes regulations to carry out an unannounced visit to
the children's home for administrative breaches or minor
concerns about the quality of care being provided, the amendment
proposes that after an independent person has inspected the children's
homes or home at the local authority may issue an improvement plan notice
based on the findings.
Under current regulations the registered person of
a children's home must ensure that an independent person visits the home at least once each month and
this visit may be unannounced. The independent person should have the
skills and understanding necessary to form an impartial judgement about the quality of the homes care, they
must produce a report about their visit which sets out their opinion
on whether children are effectively safeguarded and whether the home effectively promotes children's
wellbeing. OFSTED placing authorities, the registered provider, registered manager and
responsible individual must be given
a copy of the report.
The local authority where the home is located must also be given the report if they are requested. OFSTED used
these reports to inform whether further activity or inspection is
necessary. These reports may be used to inform OFSTED decision-making
around improvement plan notices to ensure their effective role as the
regulator. OFSTED must be the only body responsible for issuing
improvement plan notices. Giving local authorities the power to issue
an improvement plan would mean duplication and offers no additional protection to what is already in
place.
Turning to amendment 138
which I believe this to probe how an improvement plan might work in
practice provider of oversight has been designed to enable oversight to
enable poor quality care at scale and pace. For instance where OFSTED
in specs to children's homes and believes policies being impacted by the provider groups policies or management they could reasonably
suspect those issues are in all homes owned by the provider group. They would be able to use these powers new powers to ensure the provider group drive up standards in
all their homes.
The prior -- provider group would be to require
to implement the improvement plan.
This plan will be approved by OFSTED if they are satisfied. It will be effective in addressing the
concerns. OFSTED can provide the -- find the provider group if they fail
to submit the improvement plans when
OFSTED are satisfied improvements have been made they will consider the plan completed. This will result in improvement in multiple settings
simultaneously which could not be
achieved through inspection of provider groups as would be the case arising from the proposed amendments
135 and 136 finally turned to amendments hundred and 30 8AB and C
which would seem to require OFSTED to notify the relevant local authority when improvement plan
notice has been served, cancelled or appealed OFSTED are currently required to notify all their local authorities where certain enforcement actions such as
suspension or suspension of licences
taken it also amend these requirements to include a requirement to notify all local authorities were provider group is
issued with a monetary penalty for failing to her or implement an improvement plan this is more
improvement plan this is more
proportionate balance and ensuring local authority is aware of problems arising and ensuring that children's
accommodation is not necessarily disrupted.
It would also require significant extra resource both in OFSTED and local authorities, these
notifications would prove unnecessary where issues are
resolved or successfully challenged. It is important to stress that provider oversight will not be the
only tool in OFSTED toolbox to
tackle poor quality care where they find it. They will continue to have their existing powers to work with
individual homes including
suspending or cancelling if they
have serious concerns. I recognise that Baroness Barran has asked some
quite detailed questions as is quite within her right to do so, I am sure she will understand that I do not have all of those answers are my
fingertips and will give me the
space to look at specifically the issues she has raised and I will write to her and make sure that
those responses are shared with all members in the usual way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Could be quickly make sure we are all copied in thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
all copied in thank you. Has always -- as always, that was the point I was making. All the reasons I would kindly ask the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reasons I would kindly ask the noble lady the Baroness to withdraw her amendments. I would like to thank the noble Lady for her very detailed reply and
Lady for her very detailed reply and for her intention to write this is much appreciated. -- Commitment to
much appreciated. -- Commitment to
much appreciated. -- Commitment to right. In responding to her remarks,
right. In responding to her remarks, the reason for putting down 135136
and 137 is obviously the improvement
plan is for the parent company or
parent undertaking, but it is because there are concerns about two or more of their establishments or
agencies in the language of the bill which I understood to mean, given
the severity that OFSTED suspects there are grounds for counselling
the undertaking registration that they could within that be concerns
about the safety of children in
those homes so the spirit of 1356
and seven that we should have experienced people or inspectors in regulation 40 for visitors going and
not to expect parent I'm sorry if my amendments were unclear in that
amendments were unclear in that
regard but to inspect the subsidiary undertakings so maybe when the Minister comes to right she could
just reflect on on that point and
the regulation 44 should have read OFSTED issues the improvement plan not the local authority because of
course noble ideas write the local authority can't issue an improvement
plan but again it was just trying to get at the issue that if there was a variation of the levels concerning
the level reach that for a lower level breach regulation 44 visitors
could advise OFSTED.
I felt there
was an urgency if you think it undertakings registration should be
21:44
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
cancelled which would not be met by the improvement plan approach on its
the improvement plan approach on its
own. In relation to the noble Ladies
own. In relation to the noble Ladies remarks about 138 a BNC, I think the answer is if the process works
reasonably quick weekly the portion as he/she set out is reasonable. If
it gets bogged down in we sent you a
it gets bogged down in we sent you a plan OFSTED don't think the plan is fit for purpose, goes back and forth and back-and-forth, then I think we
would at the speed which might be needed in order to prevent other local authorities commissioning a
local authorities commissioning a provider where there are concerns that are as grave as set out in the bill so the proof in the pudding
will be in the eating, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my amendments.
21:44
Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment is withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. The convenience of the House Baroness
Barran amendments 136 through 138C
not moved two the question is that clause 2 -- 12 stand part of the
bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have
21:44
Amendment:138D Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
it. We now move to the next group in clause 13 amendment 138 the Baroness
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Barran. Coming into clause 13 as we have heard this introduces monetary
heard this introduces monetary penalties for non-compliance with an improvement plan or for running an
unregistered children's home or fostering agency. My amendments 130
fostering agency. My amendments 130 8D and E and 139 a seek to exclude
natural persons from the power to impose financial penalties on individuals involved in the
individuals involved in the management of these organisations and as my noble friend Lord Nash
said earlier, there is I think a reasonable concern that this will result in lack of people who are
result in lack of people who are prepared to take such a risk particularly as the financial penalty regime is being set out in
penalty regime is being set out in regulations, therefore could be
altered at any point.
Having said that given that the fines as I understand it are currently unlimited perhaps that is not the
greatest worry. Obviously if that concern were to materialise it would
More broadly my clause standing part amendment seeks to clarify a number
of aspects of the clause. In terms
of unintended consequences, we hear that local authorities are concerned that this will have a chilling
effect on the provision of capacity in this area and stop the plans are providers to expand. Anecdotally this is already happening.
I
wondered what analysis the department had made of the financial
investment, in this area, which I'm in both capital investment and other
relevant investment, buy it for profit local authorities and not- for-profit providers, in each of the
last five years. I wondered if the
noble Lady could share that information, in a letter. I also wondered whether the Department had
looked at the impact of introducing and finding provisions on other
and finding provisions on other
regulated activities, some local authorities will become part of
contract negotiations, and pushed
prices even further with local authorities have to be provision for the payment of fines, on behalf of the providers that they use.
Turning to the proposed fines set out on
page 32 of the bill, this may be of any amount, there could be an
unlimited fine for non-compliance. The noble Lady will correct me if I have misunderstood that. If that is
right, I would argue it doesn't feel fortunate, and a potential risk in a situation where there is no spare
capacity and significant pressure on places and prices. Schedule one a
goes on to detail fines in regulations. I would argue that the
principles should be on the face of the bill and should not be
unlimited.
I would trying to think if we contrast this with the harm
done to children by some social media platforms and the clear limits
on fines, in those cases. I would argue this is inconsistent and best
and disproportionate at worst. Furthermore the bill is not clear at
Furthermore the bill is not clear at
30 Z D... Whether the Constitution
of automatic registration or not. At
what point would non-delivery, non- plan result in cancellation of registration of the relevant steps.
I would be grateful if the Minister
could clarified. If this isn't clear and it is inconsistent, I would argue this will be the source of
more judicial reviews in the future. In relation to unregistered
children's homes, clause 13 feels like a curious workaround for two
reasons. Firstly it introduces a
civil penalties, where an organisation breaks the criminal law. The reason given and the noble Lady in the Minister, and she did
earlier today is that it is too resource intensive and slow for
Ofsted to pursue the prosecution.
I am aware that in other legislation such as speeding when driving to get different options. You can get
points on your licence, or you can do a speed awareness course. But this is at a very low level of
offence. In this case, in clause 13,
13 Z C two little a it states that the Ofsted will impose a monetary
penalty on a person if the Chief Inspector is certified without
reasonable doubt that remission counts as an offence under this part. We have criminal proof and
what sounds like a commission or
omission of a criminal act, the Chief Inspector can choose to issue a fine instead, which doesn't feel
like an approach that is driven by resources rather than a point of principle.
I just wondered if there were precedents for such a choice
between a criminal and a civil sanction, with such a serious law, it feels a bit different to
freeports in your driving licence.
Secondly we have the situation where local authorities are using unregistered children's homes for other reasons that we've already
rehearsed this afternoon. Such is the lack of capacity, lack of
availability for suitable places for some children, at very short notice and yet nothing is done to address
the responsibility of the local authorities themselves to provide a sufficient places.
I wonder if the noble Lady could comment on both
these points when she sums up. Some of the measures in this part of the bill would feel more appropriate if
the bill or the spending review had
contained major measures to increase the number of foster parents, in particular children with high needs
to address in particular children who end up in a children's home, but
whose care plan said that they
21:52
Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should have been fostered. So, with those remarks, My Lords, big to move. Amendment proposed, clause 13, page 22, line 11, insert except
natural persons.
21:52
Government Spokes. Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There is a deafening silence.
Right. I of course are now turn to group 6 and the amendments, all in
the name of Baroness Barran, concerning amendments one three
concerning amendments one three eight D, one three eight D, 139 K which seek to exclude natural persons from the provisions relating
persons from the provisions relating to the issue of monetary penalties was not clause 13 is drafted gives Ofsted an additional power to issue
monetary penalties to providers that are breach requirements set and in
all under the Care Standards Act, including operating a children's home, without registering with
Ofsted, which they could also prosecute as criminal offences.
Ofsted will also be able to issue a monitoring penalty to provide groups
for failure to comply with new requirements, set out in clause 12 of the bill. This measurement will ensure Ofsted had the full range of
investment powers, so that they can act proportionately and at pace, which will act as a deterrent. This includes an individual to operate in
children's homes, or other
establishments, or agencies. I have
to say, it is difficult to see why an actual person running a children's home, or other establishment or agency should not be subjected to the same enforcement
powers when they breach the law, as a partnership, organisation would be and where Ofsted could prosecute
that natural person for the relevant breach.
Furthermore, based on data from Companies House these amendments would result in Ofsted
being unable to find individuals that currently operate children's
homes. If they breach the law. Compared to the 2738 companies that operate in children's homes. Ofsted
have told me, directly that they strongly oppose any amendment that
would exclude natural persons and
limit and limit financial penalties in place for illegally operating children's homes, without being
registered. Individuals will and do gain financially from illegally
operating children's homes.
Without being registered and should not be excluded from the potential
consequences of doing so. I think all the way through the discussions
we've had at committee stage it has all been about protecting children.
And making sure that they are safe and I think we have to make sure
that in this area, in spite of the comments that the noble Lady made that children are and their safety
are at the forefront of our minds,
it is also worth noting that it is
common in legislation for natural Persians to be subject to financial penalties in the same way as operations and companies.
For
example, the Tenant Fees Act 2019 enables fines to be imposed on
landlords. Natural persons for breaching and letting fees are being
charged and the Data Protection Act 2018 enables the Information
Commissioner to impose fines on persons, including natural persons who have failed to comply with
various notices issued by the ICO. I
have already stated the reasons for
the need and the extent of these additional powers but I will add that the clause that ensures the Ofsted have an alternative
prosecution, where that is currently the only enforcement action, Ofsted
will not be able to impose a monetary penalty on a person, for the same conduct where criminal proceedings have been brought
against them, in relation to that same conduct.
Further and importantly, to act as a deterrent and to ensure transparency of the
public, the clause of Secretary of
State, the power by regulations to require Ofsted to publish details about the monetary penalties they have issued. Ofsted must also notify
local authorities when a monetary
penalty has been issued, as they are currently required to do in relation
to other enforcement actions. The
monetary action penalty also be used
for cancellation of registration. I assume it will come as no surprise
to the noble Lady that I will have to write to her, in terms of the financial assessment and the other
questions that she raised and
specific requirements in place.
I'm more than happy to do that and to
share it with her. And interested parties. Therefore, for the reasons
outlined, I would kindly ask the noble Ministers would draw her amendments and let the clause stand part of the bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the noble lady and I will keep my remarks brief. I think it
keep my remarks brief. I think it was a very helpful of the noble
was a very helpful of the noble Baroness, the Minister to set out the examples of where natural
persons are find as in data protection and a Landlord and Tenant
protection and a Landlord and Tenant Act. I suppose I would still argue I didn't quite follow. I think she said there were 10 people whom I escaped this which seems like a
escaped this which seems like a small number in the totality and I
small number in the totality and I suppose I was still argue criminal proceedings could be brought.
Even
proceedings could be brought. Even if they couldn't be fined. It was
21:59
Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
if they couldn't be fined. It was helpful to get those examples, as they say. I look forward to her letter and a big leap to withdraw my moment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn.
that this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 138 E and 139 A, not
Amendment 138 E and 139 A, not moved, Baroness Barran? The question is that clause 13 stand part of the
is that clause 13 stand part of the bill? Baroness Barran? You don't intend to.
The question is that clause 13 stand part of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say,
many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not
content". The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
content". The contents have it. I... I beg your pardon. We can still tidy up a few more. I will do
still tidy up a few more. I will do that. In clause 14, amendment 140, Baroness Tyler? Not moved. Amendment
Baroness Tyler? Not moved. Amendment
140 A, not moved. Amendment 141,
sorry, the question that clause 14 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The
contents have it.
In clause 15, amendment 141, Lord Addington, not
moved. And I think that is as much
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as we can do this evening. I beg to move that the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
dinner resume. The question is that the House be resumed? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the
contrary, "Not content". The
contrary, "Not content". The I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded