Lords Chamber

Monday 19th January 2026

(began 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Docherty of Milngavie; Lord Pitt-Wilson
-

Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the Grace Charles III, by the Grace of Charles III, by the Grace of God Charles III, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other subjects whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well-beloved Joseph Paul Docherty to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Docherty of MoJ of Alexandria in our County of Dunbartonshire, and for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Docherty of MoJ to have and to hold onto him for his life willing and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, for, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the forenoon of the 12th day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Joseph Lord Docherty of Milngavie, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of our other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other subjects whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well-beloved David James Pitt-Watson to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Pitt-Watson of Kirkland, of Glencairn, in our county of Dumfriesshire.

And for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Pitt-Watson to have and to hold unto him for his life willing, and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have, hold, and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, for, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the forenoon of the 15th day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. David Lord Pitt-Watson, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to
14:48
None Portrait Oral questions: Publishing the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice on single-sex spaces
-

First First Oral First Oral Question First Oral Question Baroness Ludford on behalf of Lord Strasburger.
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Chapman of Darlington I beg to move that the bill be now read a third time. read a third time. >> The question is that this bill be now read a third time. As many be now read a third time. As many as that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. My Lords, before I begin, I am pleased to update the House that pleased to update the House that both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have now granted legislative consent to now granted legislative consent to the Bill. I would like to express my thanks to devolved Ministers and their officials for their their officials for their constructive and collaborative way in which they've worked with us to reach this position. I also wish to reach this position.

I also wish to place on record my gratitude to noble Lords from across the House for their careful scrutiny, thoughtful challenge and constructive engagement throughout the passage of this Bill, noble Lords have brought considerable expertise to bear on a range of important issues. In particular, I would like to thank noble Lord Lord Teverson, who spoke convincingly on enforcement and human rights considerations on the high seas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones and Lady Miller, who both raised important issues on environmental protections and plastic pollution.

I'd also like to thank my noble friend Lord Whitehead for his support on the bill and for thoughtful his thoughtful maiden speech at Second Reading. I'm also grateful to the opposition frontbench for their constructive approach throughout the bill's passage beyond Parliament. I pay tribute to the scientific community from the National Oceanography Centre and the Natural History Museum to researchers across our universities whose advocacy has been instrumental in demonstrating both the urgency and the ambition of this legislation and the wider agreement.

Because this bill is vital, vital to protecting our ocean, to advancing marine science, and to ensuring that the United Kingdom continues to lead global efforts on ocean conservation. The ocean regulates our climate, sustains global fisheries and produces around half of the oxygen on Earth. Protecting it is not simply an environmental aspiration. It's an economic, scientific and moral imperative. By passing this bill, your Lordships will enable
15:52
None Portrait Legislation: Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill - third reading
-

the United Kingdom to take the next steps to ratify the BBNJ agreement in the coming months. This will
15:52
15:53
15:54
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> Of course, the treaty came into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course, the treaty came into being or was operational on Saturday, so this is a very appropriate day. My only sadness appropriate day. My only sadness amongst this excellent occasion is that, as I've said in Report stage, I believe this is probably one of the last agreements that we will have internationally from the United Nations in the near future, given the disrespect that we increasingly have of international law and international agreements amongst the community and certain of the major players within the United Nations.

Having said that, this is a moment of celebration where we have an important move forward in terms of biodiversity and the protection of nature on a very large proportion of our planet's surface, which until now has been, as the Bill says, beyond jurisdiction. There are now 81 signatures or ratifications of that treaty. We will be hopefully very soon be after that. But we have expected the conference of parties, I think probably in August. And I think the plea from our benches is that the United Kingdom has one of the greatest ambitions at that first meeting and collaborates with other parties that have ratified the treaty to make sure that it really does mean something and makes a real change on our planet and for our oceans.

I would just like to thank particularly the Minister for her cooperation, her help and advice as we've gone through and the way she has listened. It's been really good to have the opposition and the government spokespeople speaking as one generally in terms of what we're trying to achieve here. But I would also like particularly like to thank my whip's office, particularly Elizabeth, for his work in the the work that members of our benches have done on this bill.

Let's make this something really special, really work, and and really move towards what has been a global target of a third of our oceans put aside for protection and of biodiversity in one of the Yeah.
15:57
15:57
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:02
16:03
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
Well, I don't want to repeat what I said to the noble Lady, but I can assure him that we are absolutely focussed on those standards and we are absolutely focussed on better understanding new threats, which is why legislation is being considered by the Other place. And I would say that the scheme and, you know, after all, what we are talking about is also how, you know, people are able to properly access government services, not have complicated hurdles to constantly go through.

One, access is absolutely important. So the scheme will be available at no cost to the individual, available to all British citizens and legal residents. Subject from the age of 16, subject to the consultation and introduced after technical build and primary legislation is delivered in around 2028 and underpinned by robust privacy, resilience and security measures. And I would stress that, you know, all citizens will be in time, will be able to get the new digital ID, it is not compulsory and we will be consulting on minimum wage.

But what we are absolutely ensuring to do that it is inclusive, that whatever the government does, we maintain inclusivity. So rolling out free national digital ID will be accompanied by a massive inclusion drive across the United Kingdom, and this is an opportunity to empower the vulnerable and the left behind in our society. Inclusion will be at the heart of the design and delivery, but no one will be disadvantaged as a consequence of the scheme. Lord. trap.
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:10
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords? been with us. Now for over. A decade, and during that time its meaning and its shape have changed somewhat. Backwards and forwards, but nothing very much has been delivered. Now the Secretary of State, in her statement on Wednesday, starts by with a lengthy castigation of the preceding government for not having delivered anything, despite having originated the concept when George Osborne was Chancellor. And one has to admit that she has some justification for doing so, because the record of the previous government in delivering major rail projects was not actually glorious, and not something I'm standing here with a view to defending.

The other thing I want to say, by way of preliminary, is that if this is an ambitious programme and if the government were to deliver it, then the Conservative Party would applaud them because the people of the north of northern England deserve better. Transport links, rail transport links and this programme would transform what they currently have into something more effective and probably something that will bring greater economic benefits to the area. But that does leave us with quite a number of questions about the statement made by the Secretary of State, which perhaps the noble Lord, the Minister, can answer.

When the Labour Party was in opposition, they thought of and presented Northern Powerhouse Rail as being an almost wholly new line, stretching from Liverpool across to Leeds. And of course, what we have here is not a new line but a series of improvements, although there is part of it, part of it. Liverpool to Manchester is to be a new line, but most of it is a series of improvements. So could I start by asking the noble Lord if the government, the Labour government, has now abandoned the notion definitively of a new line across the Pennines, which previously they supported? The second point is the second question is that again, in opposition, the previous the Labour Party stated repeatedly that TransPennine improvements would not be effective without, except in combination with the full delivery of HS2, certainly to Manchester, ideally to Leeds.

Now again, the question is can the government say that definitively that view has now been abandoned, that there is no plan for HS2 to be extended, and that these improvements that are proposed are the stand alone project on which they are depending for a transformation of the economy of that area. My next question, if I may, is concerning money. In fact, I think my next three questions, which are my remaining questions are all concerned with money. What the statement announces is expenditure of 1.1 billion over the next four years, as I understand it, but I be grateful for the clarification from the Minister that 1.1 billion is to be spent on preparatory work, and by preparatory work I mean studies and scoping and design.

I don't mean preparatory work of a physical character. In fact, as far as I can make out, none of that money over the next four years is to go on physical works. Am I correct in that? In other words, all the other works that are to be the works that are promised here are to be delivered in the 2030s. That is, after 2030 and some even later than that. I am not criticising the need for phasing. I'm asking about the date.

So is the 1.1 billion actually going to give us any improvement, or will it simply be on preparatory works? Is there nothing to be seen before 2030? The next thing is that there is a funding envelope promised of 45 billion in total. Now I ask this question in all sincerity. It happens all the time. Politicians, government do it and so forth. They say this is what something is going to cost, but they can't tell you what the something is until you've done the 1.1 billion of works, of preparatory works, of scoping and design, how can you possibly know what it's going to cost? We made the same mistake over HS2, in fact, Lord Adonis than the noble Lord Lord Adonis made the same mistake over HS2 when he initiated it.

We had a cost before we even had a line of a line of route. So where has what is the basis in my question is for the 45 billion. If the preparatory scoping and design work has not yet been done? And finally, will the Minister confirm that the £45 billion is to be spent after 2030? That is wholly by its successor government? And doesn't it feel the slightest shame in claiming credit for that when they're landing it on another party?
16:16
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. launched in June 2014 by the then Chancellor George Osborne, featuring new and significantly upgraded railway lines. It should be the region's single biggest transport investment since the Industrial Revolution and 12 years on, despite various promises by various prime Ministers, all that seems to have happened so far is lots of talking and planning, but no concrete plans. And on these benches, the Liberal Democrats fully support measures to grow our economy across every nation and every region.

And we are supporters of delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail and a new Liverpool to Manchester rail connection. But the only solid information in this statement, as we've heard, is just over 1 billion to be spent over the next four years planning what should be in the final plan, not for spades in the ground. And I absolutely accept that the previous conservative government failed to deliver infrastructure projects such as this and High Speed two. But surely our northern towns and cities were hoping for so much more.

So could the noble Lord, the Minister, confirm that while we can hope that there may be some upgrades to rail infrastructure at some point in the 2030s, there will be no new trains running on new tracks until 2045 at the earliest. And can the Minister assure the House that this government is not falling into the trap of the previous government's playbook of stop start funding and delay on rail projects? Safe, reliable and affordable railways are vital for employment, quality of life and economic growth, and this is particularly true for the north of England, where the need for investment in infrastructure is clear.

So how will the noble Lord, the Minister, ensure this major transport infrastructure project, no matter how welcome, secures the funding that's needed, does not go wildly over budget and end up years behind schedule. Will some clear strategic thinking by shadow Great British Railways be undertaken now to avoid costly feasibility studies being undertaken by other parties, and to ensure a grip on the project? Northern Powerhouse Rail, if delivered properly, will unlock growth, connect communities and boost employment opportunities. I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, can provide clear answers that help us to all understand what is being promised in this statement, and when it will be delivered.
16:18
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. The statement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By the my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State and the other place last Wednesday set out a a practical and deliverable set of railway improvements for northern railway improvements for northern England related to a an economic plan for the Northern growth plan for the Northern growth corridor across either side of the corridor across either side of the Pennines, and both the noble Lord Moylan and the noble Baroness Lady Pigeon have have set out some of the more tangled history of these of of Northern Powerhouse Rail over, over the past ten years.

And what this government is doing is drawing a line under Uncosted and frankly, some undeliverable plans of which network North was the worst. But the integrated rail plan for the North came near it because there was a little bit of funding, but it wasn't prioritised in any way. And it's setting out a realistic plan for the delivery of a better railway for the north of England, which includes more frequent trains. So frequent you don't need a timetable, more reliable trains, faster journey times and a mixture of the use of existing lines, upgrading existing lines and has, as has been pointed out, a new railway between Liverpool and Manchester.

And it's also phased. Noble Lords will note that on the east side of the Pennines, improvements can come more quickly because it's upgrading existing lines. The the line across the Pennines, which is already being significantly upgraded with the TransPennine route upgrade, which has not so far been mentioned, but which is £11 billion worth of railway improvements being carried on now, with both capacity, electrification and reliability and journey time improvements. It then sets out a new railway between Liverpool and Manchester, using the northern part of the stalled powers for HS2, which are languishing in Parliament at the moment.

Together with the new railway from Millington to to Liverpool. And then thirdly, some upgrades later from Bradford to Manchester and Sheffield to Manchester. This government believes that that that that plan set out in that way is much more deliverable and, and more practical than any previous plan has been. The the noble Lord Moylan asks about abandoning a new railway across the Pennines. And yes, there won't be a new railway across the Pennines because effectively the the TransPennine route upgrade will will deliver what's virtually a new railway.

But on the existing alignment. And he also asked about the the the the proposition that somehow Northern Powerhouse railway is not Northern Powerhouse Rail is not effective without the delivery of HS2 to Manchester. He will note that one of the one of the things in the in the government's plan and the statement of the Secretary of State is the reservation of the existing purchase of land from Birmingham to Manchester, in order that more capacity. Note the phrase more capacity.

Not not a high speed line. May is likely to be needed at some stage and will therefore complement eventually the part of HS2 of the HS2 alignment, which is going to be used as a result of the new railway from Liverpool to to Manchester. The £1.1 billion worth in this spending review period, rather than to 2030, which the which has been was referred to last week, does actually deliver some enhancements to, for example, the cost of the new station in Bradford, subject to its business case, will be part of that 1.1 billion.

And we expect that to be well started in delivery because the site is nearly agreed. And the proposition is, is is a sound one. We are also expecting to see improvements to Leeds station, which is a critical which is a critical blocker to more trains actually on either side of the Pennines as a result of this expenditure. But it is true to say that a lot of that money will need to be spent on planning, because one of the lessons from HS2 to which this House will come back fairly shortly, was the foolishness of starting to build a railway without exact, without specifying it, and with contracts that, frankly make the contractor's money whatever they're building and however long they take to to to build it.

The funding envelope of 45 billion is a very sensible proposition, bearing in mind the experience of HS2 of government to limit the costs and to give some budgetary pressure to those specifying the improvement. And I and as the House will hear fairly soon, one of the difficulties with HS2 has been the the zealotry by which the by which the original specification was written, and the consequent enormous cost of some of the specification, which we're not going to make that that mistake.

The last point, of course, is, is that the 45 billion is is a sum to be spent after the end of this spending review. So the first part of it will be in the term of, of, of the, of this government. I think that we, this government is working very hard to produce a practical programme of improvements which can be delivered by both by the railway and its supply chain. I would say to the noble Baroness that we do need to plan first.

It is sensible to do that, but will GBR be involved? Well, very much so, because actually one of the mistakes of HS2 was to regard it as a completely independent railway, when actually it has to be regarded very much as part of the railway network, which is certainly what Northern Powerhouse Rail is envisaged by this government to be.
16:25
16:26
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
I the Baroness is is is right >> I the Baroness is is is right that railway improvement sadly take a very long time. They take a long time to be delivered safely. Unlike time to be delivered safely. Unlike the Victorian era where hundreds of people were killed during the construction and many of them have to be done on the operating railway, which is which can tolerate some, which can tolerate some closures but can't tolerate everything the, the the Chancellor spoke correctly in saying that the benefits will start to be felt in the 2030s.

And I think in fact, there will be some benefits to be felt before then because we must improve. Lead station a new station in Bradford will make a significant difference to Bradford's economic prospects. I can't tell her precisely when all of the parts of the improvements will be delivered, because actually we do need to plan this out properly. But what this government hopes is that with a general consensus about the economic prospects of the north of England being improved by better transport for the first time, we've seen a plan that does set it out in a, in a, in a progressive and and in a way that enables it to be delivered.

And the hope is that whoever the government is, though, this government will be here hopefully for a long time, that actually it can be delivered over the course of, of, of a number of parliaments. You'll recall, of course, that the the most difficult occasion in recent history in the planning of railways was the peremptory cancellation of phase two of HST, which was done, sadly, without any contemplation of of a replacement. And if future governments were to modify this plan, one of the things that one does hope is that they would contemplate what the effects of what they were doing were in order to be able to deliver the plan roughly as it was as it set out today.
16:27
16:29
16:30
16:31
16:31
16:32
16:33
16:34
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
So I thank my noble friend >> So I thank my noble friend because he raises a really important point. The role of the mayors is is well, the first thing mayors is is well, the first thing to say is that the mayors are party to these, to the, to to to the proposal. And there is a compact with each of them in, in, in, in the, in the northern growth corridor, which is really important because previous proposals have been done to those, to those mayors and not and not with them.

And they play an important role because one of the things in the announcement, although there's a funding cap which we've which has been discussed already, the mayors have the should have the ability to to change or improve the specification in line with their with the aspirations for the for their region's economy and jobs and, and homes. And if they do, they should be able to raise some money. The discussions about how they should raise some money is something that the government is now going to pursue with them.

But the noble Lord is right that actually one of one of the underused features of, of of infrastructure funding so far is, is is not buying into the inevitable rise in value of the land. And one of the most difficult things to witness and not to comment on is that as you approach Birmingham, there are the skyline is full of cranes and full of buildings, but not one of the owners or owners of none of the owners of the land, nor of the developers of it, have paid a penny towards the railway.

And that can't be right.
16:35
16:36
16:36
16:37
16:37
16:38
16:38
16:39
16:40
16:41
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Well, I do agree with my my noble friend. There are some noble friend. There are some remarkable structures, either in the ground or coming out of the ground for HS2. But he would have to agree with me that that that you have to be tinged with sadness to stand here and not know how much they've cost so far. And, and, and that's a shocking weakness really, which we will come back and no doubt debate at some stage. But he is right, actually, that British engineering can produce some extraordinary feats.

And I would put, I would put both the tunnel which was in the newspapers at the weekend, and the viaduct across the Colne Valley, as being very elegant structures. I would also say, incidentally, that those of you who take a train journey between Manchester and Leeds. Now, if you'd like to give me prior notice, I'll arrange for you to travel in the cab with a driver and you can see. You can see the extraordinary amount of work which is being done on an operating railway, which is neither trivial nor simple, and actually some understanding about what's going on there.

It seems to me the noble Lord Falconer is right to raise these, these, these great structures on HS2. But equally, what's been going on between Leeds and Manchester and, and out to York is extraordinary. And it's been done with relatively little disruption to the, to the train service. And if any noble Lord within reason would like to see it sometime, I'll fix for them to be able to do that.
16:42
16:44
Baroness Tyler of Enfield Portrait Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Speak to amendment 35 in my name and would like to thank my noble friends Lord Storey Lord Mohammed and the noble Lady Baroness Barran for adding their names to it. It seeks to extend the remit of staying close, to include support in helping care experienced young people to access services that provide financial support and literacy. My Lords, I want to say immediately that I was delighted to see the government's own amendments introduced at Report stage, which will amend the information that local authorities must include within their care leavers local offer to cover financial support and services that provide financial literacy.

This builds very much on our discussions at Committee stage and I'm very grateful indeed to the Minister for bringing forward those amendments. This change will provide greater transparency and will help young people, I think, to better understand their rights and entitlements, as well as encouraging local authorities to think about the support they provide to equip care leavers to manage their finances effectively. My Lords, in our previous discussions on this topic, we have highlighted how much young people leaving care are more likely to be living independently from a much younger age than other young people with greater financial responsibilities, and often with without the sort of safety net.

You know, the bank of Mum and Dad certainly isn't there for them to fall back on that so many parents provide to young people. So these factors, combined with young care leavers often feeling unequipped, unprepared and unsupported to manage the financial responsibilities that come with living independently from a young age can put care experienced young people at risk of facing unnecessary financial hardship and insecurity, falling often into rent arrears or debt, all of which can have a long term impact on their wellbeing and security.

So by seeking to expand the remit of staying close 30 my amendment 35 would have plugged this gap even further, ensuring that young people who are leaving care are supported. And I really feel that this this change would have, would have real benefit. But I do think the fact that the government have brought forward the two amendments and no doubt the Minister will speak to those in a minute, is an example of how constructive actually the debate has been at Committee stage and on this legislation.

So I would like to thank the government again for being so constructive and open to such amendments like my amendment 35, which I think will do a lot to improve the life of lives of care experienced young people. And perhaps when the Minister responds just to provide absolute clarity, the Minister will be able to confirm that the government amendments 39 and 40 will have the same effect as as my amendment 35, which obviously now I won't be pushing to a vote.
16:47
16:47
16:48
16:49
None Portrait Gov. Spokes Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-

think, has, has been, has come across very clearly, is stronger, strongly committed to improving strongly committed to improving support for care leavers both through the measures in the bill on staying close, local offer, corporate parenting through all other programmes of work such as the Care Leaver covenant and the the Care Leaver covenant and the Care Leaver Ministerial Board, all of which seek to ensure that young people leaving care have stable homes, access to health services, support to build lifelong loving relationships and are engaged in education, employment and training.

We do want to support those in care and preparing to leave care before they reach adulthood, and to have the same support as all young people. They will benefit, of course, from the wider changes we are making for all young people in this space. And I think we've had some fantastic discussions about the need for financial literacy for all young people, different, different places in over the last few months. And just to emphasise the in November, the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review published its report, along with our government's response.

As part of the review, we are taking forward recommendations that will help deliver a high quality curriculum for every young person. One key recommendation is to embed applied knowledge throughout the curriculum, including financial literacy, and we have given a clear commitment in our response to the review to strengthen financial education in both the maths and citizenship curriculum. So all children and young people have the skills they will need in adulthood. These commitments will benefit those children in care and preparing to leave care.

Turning to amendment 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, which does, which seeks to ensure that staying close support includes support to access services relating to financial support and literacy. I would like to acknowledge, having said that, about the curriculum review in general, that care leavers do have particular and additional needs in this area. I fully endorse the noble Baroness intent with this amendment, recognising the importance of care leavers being properly informed of the financial support to available to them as they transition to independence.

And we've listened to concerns from both houses about ensuring care leavers receive the support they need from local authorities, particularly with financial management and helping to develop their skills and knowledge they require in this area. And this is why we we are tabling two government amendments to clause eight, amendment 39, in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Smith adds services relating to financial literacy to the list of services in section two of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, meaning that local authorities will have to publish information about these services as part of their local offer for care Leavers amendment 40.

Also in the name of my noble friend Baroness Miller amends clause eight to require each local authority to include information about the arrangements it has in place for providing financial support to care leavers in its local offer. In bringing forward these amendments, I acknowledge the continued advocacy for care leavers receiving assistance with financial literacy and financial support that the noble Baroness Tyler of Enfield has provided in this area, and I thank her for that. Most care leavers already receive a pathway plan before leaving care, which should cover their financial capability, money management skills and strategies to develop these abilities.

Adding these government amendments will ensure that care leavers are better aware of the services available to them, and it will increase local authorities accountability in supporting care leavers to receive the support they need. This further underscores how the government has listened to the voice of children and young people because, as we've heard and everyone engaged in this area acknowledges, when we listen to caregivers requests for support and the message that comes across loud and clear is that they want more help in understanding their finances.

For this reason, we consider clause eight the most effective place for the amendment, ensuring a robust and consistent level of support for every care leaver, not only those assessing, accessing, staying close. Importantly, including the amendments in clause eight does not remove or dilute the support for care leavers receiving staying close. Financial literacy remains a key factor in helping young people find and, importantly, keep accommodation, and it will continue to be considered as part of the overall assessment of their ability to maintain a tenancy.

This will be reflected in the initial programme guidance we will be sharing with local authorities before April of this year, as the national rollout of the programme begins. This has been developed in collaboration with local authorities and stakeholders and people with care experience, and will be updated after evaluation of local authority practice and ahead of the publication of final statutory guidance. I do hope this answers the particular questions that the noble Baroness has asked in moving her amendment, and that noble Lords are reassured and she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
16:56
16:57
16:57
None Portrait Amendment:37 Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-

>> Well, as I'm introducing this. >> Group, amendments 37 and 38 are in my name, and I've added my name in my name, and I've added my name to 59. In the name of the noble Baroness Tyler on Amendment 59, I Baroness Tyler on Amendment 59, I want steel, Baroness Tyler's thunder. So I'll say merely that the arguments which I advanced when a very similar amendment was discussed in committee seven months ago still apply. I stress then that in the long term, there will be a significant cost benefit to the Treasury of young people being allowed to extend staying put from 21 to 25.

Four years ago, the McAllister report quoted figures from 2020, which showed that the average cost of supporting a child in foster care was just 35% of a residential care care placement. Now Mr. McAllister is, of course now the children's Minister, so he will know that it really isn't in the government's financial interest to deny support to those between 21 and 25 who want to remain with their foster families. Now, I acknowledge the point made by my noble friend, which she replied to my amendment in June that the government wanted to prioritise filling the gaps that exist in current support in particularly for young people transitioning into independent living.

That is absolutely admirable, but it is exactly what the support of a foster family provides. Amendment 37 seeks a review of staying put funding that would involve the government conducting a full and comprehensive review into the level of funding allocated to local authorities for staying put, arrangements to determine if it is sufficient to allow all eligible young people to benefit and meets its aims, as set out in the Staying Put guidance and my Lord Dear review of funding for staying put is certainly overdue, given that the arrangement was introduced as long ago as 2014, the case for such a review is bound up with the arguments in support of amendment 38, which aims to introduce a national minimum allowance for foster carers of 16 bit arrangements which does not currently exist, and to ensure that it matches the amount currently paid for 16 and 17 year olds.

Recent surveys have highlighted the need for the extension of staying support beyond the age of 17. In fact, the Department for education report published two months ago. So after the bills committee had concluded, found that in 20 2425, 62% of 18 year old care leavers continue living with their former foster carers. But that figure have, for those aged 19 and 20. And this illustrates that staying put is not being provided for as many young people as it could really help as they transition to adulthood and independent living.

And a 2024 survey by the leading charity, the Fostering Network of 3000 foster Carers, revealed that three quarters were financially worse off in a post 18 foster care arrangement. And the effect of that is that many foster carers who want to offer staying put support to young people in their care, reluctantly have to decide that they're unable to do so. To cover the cost of caring for children aged up to 17, foster carers receive a payment set by the National Minimum Allowance and a fee to cover their skills and expertise.

However, there is no such allowance for post 18 staying arrangements and the survey that I mentioned found that the average foster care allowance decreased by around a third when children turned 18. The issue is further complicated by the fact that local authorities offer different support financially and otherwise, which in effect makes support for young people. All too often. A postcode lottery. When a young person turns 18, they are often expected to contribute towards the foster carers allowance through their wages or benefits in order to make up the shortfall.

Of course, young people are required to remain in full or part time education until they turn 18, which impacts on their ability to work and contribute financially and the cost of living associated with the financial constraints explains why so many young people continue living with their birth parents well into their 20s. In many cases, care leavers do not have that choice unless their foster parents are prepared to continue to provide them with a home without adequate support from the state. To enable the young person to transition to adulthood.

My Lord, many young people in care are neither emotionally nor psychologically prepared for independent living at 18, and it is surely right, if at all possible, they should have a safe family home to stay in or to fall back on, just as there non care experienced peers have. So I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to accept the need for a national minimum allowance for foster carers caring for young people who are over 18. In staying put arrangements at the same allowance rate as currently exists for 16 and 17 year olds.

This would ensure that no young person has to claim benefits or pay their foster carers to remain living with them beyond the age of 18. It would prevent the postcode lottery to which I referred, and allow more young people to stay with their foster families until the age of 21. Equally, I ask my hon. Friend that she has her officials undertake the review of state funding set out in amendment 37, so as to determine its adequacy to meet the aims of such an important arrangement.

That does not affect the bill per se. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I say to my noble friend, why not undertake such a review? I beg to move. And proposed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And proposed. After clause seven, insert the. Following new clause. In the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
17:02
Baroness Tyler of Enfield Portrait Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
>> And my Lords, this is a very important group of amendments, and I'm extremely sympathetic to the case that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has just put forward on on his amendments. But I'm rising to speak to amendment 59 in my name, which seeks to enable care experienced young people to remain living with their former foster carers under the state. What's called the staying put arrangements. To the age of 25. I would like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Farmer and the noble Lady Baroness Bennett for adding their names to this amendment.

Staying put arrangements currently provide an important opportunity for young people to remain with their former foster carers until the age of 21, if they wish to, and their foster carers agrees. The evaluation of the programme demonstrates that continuing to live with foster carers beyond the age of 18 can benefit care experienced young people in a range of ways, including providing a more positive and planned transition from care to independence, a stronger support network and relationships, increased stability, stronger health and well-being, and a reduced risk of homelessness, as well as being more likely to remain in full time education.

So, my Lords, whilst it's welcome that the introduction of the Staying Close support, which is through clause seven of the bill, will also apply to young people whose final placement was in foster care, this does not enable them to continue living with their former foster foster families, many young people and foster carers across the across the country would like the children they are fostering to stay with them past the age of 21, but can't at the moment because there is currently no provision in law for this or funding to support it.

Extending staying put to the age of 25, which is what my amendment is about, would provide more opportunities for young people leaving leaving foster care in their transition to independent living at the time, which is right for them. We all know that sort of strict age points just don't, you know, they don't work for everyone. Everyone's different. It will provide a more stable home, family environment and support network for them as they start adulthood. After what has been a difficult start in life for them, it would also align staying put with other care leavers entitlements such as staying close, which runs up to age 25.

I urge the government to support this amendment. My Lords, very briefly, I have also added my name to amendment 95. In the name of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester. This new clause would would require the Secretary of State to publish a document called the National Care Offer, which will set out minimum standards of information that local authorities must publish in relation to section two of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. My Lords, I'm going to leave. Leave the right reverend Prelate to set out the case.

I don't want to steal his thunder. I simply want to say that this is a great opportunity, in my view, for both the national and the local care offers to be strengthened, and I very much hope that opportunity will be taken. You.
17:05
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful for the amendments in this group and we're continuing as the Bill makes progress to strengthen the offer that's made for care leavers. In the previous group, we've discussed matters which, assuming they're voted on in a little, little while, will improve conditions and improve what local authorities have to publish. My amendment 95. I'm very grateful for the noble Lady who Baroness Tyler of Enfield who's just spoken for signing this with me. My amendment would simply extend that to make sure that local people, care leavers in their local authority have a clear understanding of what their local authority is willing to offer and what it is not.

And particularly given that so many care leavers at age, age 18 or 19 end up leaving some, I'm delighted to say, go to university and end up in a different town, different part of the country, perhaps entirely. Others, for whatever reason, may decide it's appropriate to to move, perhaps to go back, to be closer to friends from former times. So it's not just the people who are already in a particular local authority who need to really know what the care leaver offer is.

It's young people who might be considering moving to that area because, as came very clear during discussion of my own bill a few months ago, that's often where people fall through the gap. They move for good and solid reason from one part of the country to another. And in that new part of the country, they find that the services that expected are not there because that local authority either chooses not to provide them to anybody, or, as is sometimes the case, chooses only to provide them to young people who have been in their care in the previous years.

So I would hope that we can get some support for amendment 95. I understanding procedure. I'm slowly learning this place. After about six years in. We probably won't get to a vote on this tonight, and maybe Baroness Taylor and I can can agree between now and Wednesday whether this matter should be put to division or not.
17:07
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, it's a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate and having, I believe, signed his amendment at committee and I didn't manage to catch up at report, I would encourage the right reverend Prelate to think about putting that to a vote if necessary. When it gets to that stage. I support all the amendments in this group, but I'm going to rise just in the interest of time to briefly speak to amendment 59, which is about continuing the staying put arrangements to the age of 25, which is the noble Lady? Baroness Tyler said, I signed, along with Lord Farmer not currently in his place, but I think you could say that's getting the broadest possible political range of support for this amendment that you could imagine, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Watson.

I spoke extensively on this on a similar amendment at committee, so I won't go into great length here. I would cross-reference what I said at committee when I told the horrific tale of how Duncan, who was dragged out with no notice at all out of his fostering arrangements and dumped into wildly unsuitable accommodation. That's the kind of thing that's happening to young people now. And if we're thinking about the state as a statutory parent as it is to to children in care, then surely we should be expecting the same kinds of things that we expect from other parents in terms of the expectation of society is now that parents will very often have their children at home until 25 or later, and that's a reality that the state should be making provision for.

And I just want to pick up a point made by the noble Lord Wood Watson about the financial issues here. And, you know, even this amendment wouldn't finally cover the financial issues. I note the The Fostering Network notes that three quarters of foster carers who continue caring after 18 end up financially worse off. And intrusion of private equity into the fostering system, and a quarter of all places in fostering now come under a provided by private equity based companies who are making massive profits.

And there's a commodification of fostering here. And we'd really like to think about ways in which we can address that issue more broadly. But also are there ways in which we can assure that massive profits are not being made from this important additional provision that the state should be providing?
17:10
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And I very much look forward to >> And I very much look forward to the Minister's reply on this group of amendments. There are sort of of amendments. There are sort of 80,000 children in care, 12,000 more than there was a decade ago, and all those 80,000 children have different needs, different requirements, mature at different ages, experience different feelings. And I don't think you can put an arbitrary date on when somebody has to leave. We know that nationally, increasingly young people actually stay with their family into their 30s and get all that support that a family gives them.

A friend of mine and his wife, Michaelis, they foster regularly, and the two had two foster boys, and one of them came to the age to move on. And he just said, I am not going, I'm staying. And and Malcolm, being the sort of person he is, said, OK, OK. And that child needed that. He needed that support from the family. So I hope the government would consider this very carefully. And on the Lord Bishop of Manchester's amendment, I don't actually understand.

I don't understand what the problem is in terms of why can this information not be available. It would seem to me good, solid practice, both for society generally, but also, of course, for for people in care and care leavers. So I just don't I can't say why, we can't say yes, it's going to cost more money. Or do we think local authorities haven't got the expertise to do this? And I'd be interested to know why the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thinks that cannot be agreed. My Lords, we've had a good debate on this group of amendments, debate on this group of amendments, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendments. The name of the for the amendments. The name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and I would be interested to know if the would be interested to know if the Minister knows what, whether what
17:12
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
Minister knows what, whether what the actual cost of this funding would be if it was extended in the way that the noble Lords review might suggest. One could absolutely imagine a situation where proper funding for foster carers, for young people who are in receipt of staying put support, might relieve pressures elsewhere in the system. And I'll also look forward to the Minister's response in relation to amendment 59, which, as we heard, would extend staying put support up to the age of 25.

Of course, we agree with the principle underlying amendment 95 that local areas should constantly be learning from one another about the best support for care leavers. We're just not convinced that it would be achieved by this approach. I'd like to turn briefly to my very modest amendments 41 and 42. I reread the noble Baroness, the Minister's remarks at committee, where she argued that these amendments weren't really necessary. A familiar term, as every leaver should have a pathway plan which would cover accommodation, health and several other important aspects of their life.

But as she said, the pathway plan covers accommodation. And yet the government has chosen to put the publication of the local offer on the face of the bill in relation to accommodation, if I've understood correctly. So I'm not quite clear. The resistance to the minimum commitments in relation to healthcare. And to be absolutely clear what those are. The first would create my amendment 41 would create a statutory duty for the health service to set out arrangements for those leaving care, so they can be given additional considerations that they deserve as they enter adulthood.

And the noble Baroness, the Minister, knows very well that children in care tend to, through no fault of their own, have much more complex health needs than those children not in care. But a lot of the specialist care available to children stops 18, and just taking the time to make sure they understand what support is available to them as adults surely is the minimum that we might ask for, and that links to amendment 42, which again, would make it explicit that care leavers under 25 need additional support from their GP.

And the noble Baroness will remember from committee that the suggestion is that there should be an extended initial appointment offered to those young people as they transition from specialist support to universal systems. They don't have parents to support them through that and as we all know, their needs are extended. It seems a tiny request that might make a a tiny request that might make a great difference. I beg to move.
17:16
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-

My Lords, can I again thank >> My Lords, can I again thank noble Lords for their interest in this area, and particularly as he opened the group? Thank my noble opened the group? Thank my noble friend for his sincere interest. As we heard at committee and we had I thought we had a good exploration of the, the the issues back then. I'd like to turn first to the three amendments together, which include amendments 37 and 38, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, which seek a review of current staying put funding and the introduction of a national minimum allowance for staying put arrangements.

And also amendment 59, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, proposing the extended staying put duties up to the age of 25. We know that the existing staying put duties continuing until a young person reaches 21, enable local authorities to support young people to remain longer in the stable and and secure foster homes. They know this continuity helps them step into adulthood with the same opportunities and life chances as their peers. And of course, we recognise that that additional stability at a crucial age, we remain firmly committed to supporting young people in staying put.

Arrangements. The Provisional Local Government Finance settlement includes continued funding of £100 million through the first multi-year settlement in a decade for local authorities supporting these arrangements and from my I'm sure all members who have had local authority experience that multi-year settlement will be recognised as absolutely crucial in bringing stability back into local government finance. This, as I say, will provide greater certainty and enable effective sufficiency planning for staying put arrangements. However, and I want to emphasise emphasise this again.

We must also ensure that we prioritise addressing the gaps in current provision with the available resources that we have, particularly for those moving into independent living at 18, who have not been able to remain with their former foster carers. And for those with the most complex needs, this is precisely why we are introducing statutory staying close duties. Under these duties, all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those who have a staying put arrangement, will receive staying close support where their welfare requires it.

This will help them find and keep suitable accommodation and access the wraparound services they need to thrive. As we introduce a number of new duties for care leavers through this Bill, it is essential that we allow these changes to embed and begin to deliver the outcomes we expect before we review staying put and look to amend or further include further requirements within the duty. I hope this gives some comfort to to my noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Watson.

We're not seeking to ignore the the comments, but we're looking at it in a pragmatic way that would bring things forward. The initial estimates, as asked for by the noble Lady Baroness Barran, demonstrates the costs of several hundred million pounds. Further proper assessment, of course, is therefore needed and we won't shy away from that. And further assessment of the impact of local authority funding will be needed. And in a changing picture for both, as I've said, residential and foster care as set out at the moment, we must prioritise those gaps.

I know this is a difficult message to get across, but we need to make sure that through staying close, we reach as many young people as we possibly can. Turning to amendments 41 and 42, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Baron amendment 41 seeks to require local authorities to publish information in their local offer about transition arrangements for care leavers in relation to health and primary care, while fully supporting the aim of the amendment. We believe it is not required as there is already an expectation that local authorities include details of services that may assist care leavers in relation to health and wellbeing in their local offer.

Similarly, the government supports the intention behind amendment 42, also in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Barran, which would require that general practice contracts have due regard to the additional health needs of care leavers under the age of 25 when negotiating general practice contracts in the future. However, again, I would say that it is not required as there are already clear expectations in statutory guidance for local authorities, integrated care boards and NHS England to have effective plans in place for looked after children to make a smooth transition to adulthood, including continuation of access to health advice and services they need.

Additionally, the corporate parenting responsibilities that we're going to go on to discuss being introduced throughout through this bill will require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and NHS England, as relevant authorities to be alert to matters which might adversely affect the wellbeing of looked after children and care leavers in the exercise of their functions, which includes negotiating GP services. I will conclude this group by addressing amendment 95 tabled by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester, to introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to consult on and publish a national offer for care leavers.

Throughout this bill, the government is taking significant steps to ensure young people leaving care are not left to navigate adulthood alone. Our aim is clear to ensure every care leaver has a stable home, access to necessary health services, support to build lasting relationships and the opportunity to thrive in education, employment and training. These are the foundations every young person deserves and care leavers should be no exception. Care leavers legal entitlement are already set out in the Children's Act 1989, supported by regulations and statutory guidance.

The Children and Social Work Act 2017 strengthened this, and by requiring local authorities to consult on and publish a local offer for care leavers. Statutory guidance makes clear that this local offer must include information on both the support. Care leavers are legally entitled to, and any additional help a local authority chooses to provide. Clause eight of this bill further strengthens these expectations. I'm particularly addressing the argument in terms of local against the national request that the Right reverend pilot made.

Most importantly, it is the local authorities who are best placed to understand the needs of their young people. And crucially, this support should be shaped in consultation and by understanding the needs of care leavers themselves. And therefore this amendment risks unintentionally creating a one size fits all approach that leaves care leavers in different areas and with different requirements, not getting the support that best meets their needs. With regard to the noble Baroness Bennett, I think I would suggest that her comments about the cost of foster caring are possibly more relevant in the next group.

Under amendment 110. See with those comments I, I recognise that we are putting in place measures that will take some time to embed and move forward, but I hope noble Lords will understand that we are absolutely committed to improving the life chances of all young people and in this case, particularly young people in in our care. And with those comments, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
17:26
Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-
I thank my noble friend, the Minister, for those remarks. And can I just start by on the point that she finished and that the government is totally committed to ensuring that all young people have the support that they that they need? And I do not question that, but I think it's unfortunate that the there seems to be a cohort of young people who are in foster care. They reach the age of 17, and they may be able to continue with the foster parents if they want to.

The first appearance are happy to keep them, but there will not be the national minimum allowance, which applies to 16 to 17 year olds. So it's incumbent on the on the foster carers themselves to make up that shortfall and in many cases with the best will in the world that simply isn't financially impossible. So I think it's then opens up the situation where some young people, at the age of just having turned 18, have to find alternative arrangements. Now, I take the point that my noble friend made about wraparound care, and the local authorities offer and the staying close arrangements.

All of those are valuable. And and most young people in that situation will make use of them and take advantage of them. But there are some who will not be able to do so. And don't forget the should I say, I stress the fact that in seeking for the National minimum allowance to be extended beyond 18 or sorry, beyond 17, it only would apply to those situations where the foster family felt able to keep the child, and the child wanted to keep the family, as it were, so it wouldn't be every every child of that age.

I'm not quite sure the the answer my noble friend gave to the noble Baroness Barran question about cost, because in my amendment 37 on review, it wouldn't. There's no cost implicit the my friend Minister give give a ballpark figure of several hundred million. Well I don't know whether that would be the case or not, but that would depend on the outcome of the review. And I'd hope that you might say, well, obviously never my intention. This should go in the face of the bill that she might say, but we will undertake that review.

I cannot see any harm in undertaking a review of staying put arrangements that have been in place now for 14, sorry, 12 years since 2014. So I cannot avoid saying I'm disappointed in the response. I think there's there are many options for, for for young people, but I my the place I come from in this is that I think every, every noble Lord who has or had a child that turned 18, how would they feel if they were obliged to leave home? And I'm not talking about going to university or college to leave home and fight other arrangements at that important and psychologically difficult time in their life.

I mean, there's there's no accident that children in care are far less likely to go to university than their peers who live with their parents and far less likely to take up training and apprenticeships. So I just make that point to my noble friend. I'm not saying she's not. She's not being unsympathetic, but I had hoped that we could at least have had the review that might have pointed the way forward to to advancing the number of young people who turn 18 and are able to stay with their foster parents and foster parents through such a fantastic job.

But having said that, I do beg leave to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment in my name. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 38 is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 38 Lord Hodgson not moved in clause eight, amendment 39, in the name of eight, amendment 39, in the name of Baroness Smith of Malvern moved formally. Amendment proposed clause formally. Amendment proposed clause eight, page 13, line seven. At the end insert the word says printed on the Marshalled List.

Question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content to the contents of it. And amendment 40 Baroness Miller also formally amendment proposed clause eight, page 13, line 23 at the end, in certain words as printed on the Marshalled List, the question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content The contents have it amendment 41 Baroness Barran not moved and 42 not moved.

After clause nine,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 43 Baroness Tyler of Enfield. My Lords, this is an important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this is an important group of amendments regarding family relationships and the appropriate placement of children appropriate placement of children in care. I have four amendments in my name in this group, and will move through them as quickly as I can. First of all, amendment 43 and can. First of all, amendment 43 and 49, which are linked and I really want to take together. They're about promoting children in care, family relationships, particularly improving sibling contact, an issue that we discussed at some length during Committee stage.

We know and previously debated, that children in care are too often separated from children when in the care system. Unfortunately, we have also heard that for too many children in care, they are not supported to have either consistent, appropriate or high quality contact with their siblings when they are separated so
17:31
Baroness Tyler of Enfield Portrait Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that they can maintain these most vital relationships and connected. The evidence shows there's real The evidence shows there's real variability in the type and frequency of contact between siblings, and it can be affected by siblings, and it can be affected by things like workforce issues, instability, geographical factors when including where children are moved to. And as we discussed at Committee stage, there's there is a real disconnect between policy and practice here. Amendment 43 seeks, in general terms, to strengthen the duties on local authorities to promote children's, family and social relationships, including siblings.

And I think this will make a real difference to both to overall family relationships, but also to sort of sense of identity for these children. But most specifically, amendment 49 seeks to close a specific loophole in the current regulations. Schedule one of the Children Act, paragraph three one includes provision for arrangements to promote contact between siblings who are in care, but who are not placed together to be set out in children's care plans. However, and this is the key point and the purpose of this amendment, it does not cover the promotion of contact between a child who is in care and a sibling who isn't in care, and whilst there is currently limited data about how many children in care have siblings outside of the care system, the charity become become have reported specific examples from children and young people who have felt unsupported to adequately maintain relationships with siblings who are not in care, particularly when they are living miles away.

So this this amendment seeks to to close this loophole by requiring a child's care plan to include arrangements for promoting contact with all of their siblings, whether they are in care or not. So far as, of course, this is consistent with the child's welfare for children in care, their relationship with siblings can be the most important relationships they have with lifelong consequences. It is clear that too often these relationships are either being strained or damaged by a system which is just not supporting these relationships effectively.

My Lords, this needs to change, and these amendments would strengthen the policy framework, close a loophole, and influence practice to better to better protect these fundamental relationships. My Lords, I turn now to amendment 61, which seeks to amend the sufficiency duty to prevent children in care being moved far from home when that's not in their best interest. This amendment seeks to amend the sufficiency duty in a number of ways. Firstly, it places a stronger requirement on local authorities to, quote, take all reasonable steps to provide children with appropriate local accommodation.

It places a more explicit requirement on local authorities to plan, deliver or commission on a range of accommodation to meet children's needs locally. It also requires local authorities to plan to keep children near to the local authority, if they are unable to be kept within their local area. In recent years, as we know, local authorities have faced real challenges in delivering sufficient places close to home in ensuring they have enough of the right type of homes and carers in the right places at the right time to meet children's needs and keep them close to the relationships and places that matter and their support networks that matter so much to them.

For too many children, this has meant increasing numbers being moved far away from the people and the places they love. Last year, 22% of all children in care in England were living more than 20 miles away from their home communities and support networks, and this number has increased by over 40% over the last decade. There are also too many children who are living hundreds of miles away from home. The charity becomes Gone Too Far campaign has highlighted the devastating and long term impact that living Far from Home can have on children's relationships and well-being.

I lose relationships, which is what these two amendments are all about. The where and who children are in care live with are pivotal. Pivotal to children's outcomes and experiences. There does need to be greater accountability and oversight about the extent to which this sufficiency is being delivered to drive real system change, starting with a stronger sufficiency duty and to keep more children living close to home. I very much hope that the government will be look sympathetically on this amendment.

And finally, my Lords, I turn to amendment 62 and I thank the noble Lords, Russell and Hampton for adding their names. It's essentially about the mental health needs of children in care, who often experience dramatically high levels of mental health or mental ill health in their peers. Yet their mental health needs are often under identified and poorly supported. And whilst current regulations require health assessments to include mental health, they do not require the involvement of health practitioners with mental health expertise.

As a result, assessments are often inconsistent or frequently fail to identify need early enough to offer the sort of evidence based professional responses to address mental health needs and prevent deterioration of a child's mental health. My Lords, my my amendment addresses this gap by ensuring that mental health is assessed by a qualified mental health practitioner as a core part of the initial and ongoing health assessment for children in care. And this. This builds on the work of the educational of the Education Select Committee, who've done very important work in this area in their inquiry.

And they reported that specific considerations around mental health were frequently absent or treated very superficially in in health assessments. I think it's a limited change, but it's an important change. It's simply asking that mental health is not simply included in the initial health assessment, but it's but that mental health expertise is involved in actually carrying it out because of the importance of mental health to to children in care, because of the high prevalence they have and because of the difficulties they have in accessing the right sort of mental health support and treatment.

I very much hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at this amendment.
17:38
Lord Bellingham Portrait Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-
-
Nine insert the following new >> Nine insert the following new clause in the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshalled List. My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of my amendment 51, which is in this group. It's a further one in this group. It's a further one in this group, and it aims to highlight the need to include health agencies in the RCC arrangement. My Lords, as I mentioned in my speech in committee back in June, integrated care boards now have a pivotal role to play in the NHS. The main argument advanced at the time when it was proposed that they should replace the clinical commissioning groups, was was that they could unite health, social care and all the voluntary partners involved.

My Lords, a lot of discussion took place at the time about health inequalities, delivering holistic care and coordinating GP services. My Lords be regional care cooperatives are at the heart of the mechanism proposals and have received widespread welcome and endorsement and indeed across parties. The view is that they are a pragmatic initiative and absolutely deserve all party support. My Lords, I won't repeat the arguments I made in committee because we've been urged, obviously not to go over ground that's been done trodden on already.

But and I certainly won't talk for very long. But I do feel, my Lords, that it would be unusual and indeed illogical for the new RCC not to be built on a strong and proactive relationship with the existing integrated care boards. This would indeed be the professional outcome that most people would desire. And so what I'd just say to the Minister is, why rely on goodwill when what I'm suggesting could be put on the face of the bill? My Lords, in her response to my amendment in committee, the Minister fully agreed that it was vital that the sort of cooperation and collaboration I'm talking about between the two bodies does indeed take place.

However, my Lords should refer to section ten of the Children Act 2004, which specifies that local authorities must make arrangements to promote cooperation with all the relevant partners, including local icbs, to improve the well-being of children in care. She went on to say, My Lords, that the statutory guidance working together to safeguard children provides the necessary clarity. So, in other words, the Minister is saying that my isn't necessary, it's surplus to requirements. But, my Lords, I would argue that this is a flagship bill and indeed, throughout the entire bill was a lot of talk about consolidation, clarification, updating existing legislation.

So, my Lords, why not accept that rationale here? I obviously accept that my amendment has an element of safety first to it, but surely we shouldn't be relying on goodwill among professionals, both in local authorities and in the local NHS. So, my Lords, I just want to make one final point and that is the the feedback that's come through from the national network of designated health professionals, because they've now commented on this particular clause. And I will quote just very briefly what they say, and I quote, children in care are our collective responsibility as a society.

We cannot continue to fail those most in need of our support and protection, those who are not able to be cared for by their family and do not settle into fostering families or children's homes, often have multiple placements and experience nowhere that they feel accepted and cherished. Many end up in crisis, and our acute hospitals are not meeting the criteria for child and adolescent mental health service services and not having a home to be discharged back to it. They go on to say, my Lords, that the RCS will now be a cornerstone of the government's social care reforms and are a golden opportunity to address the failures of the care system.

And they also point out that two pathfinders are currently testing the models to address the significant difficulties with finding the right homes, the right care for our most vulnerable children with complex lives, etc. and they go on to say that not having on the face of a bill that the need for cooperation and integration between these two bodies is a strategic omission of significant importance, and runs counter to the inclusion of health as a statutory and strategic issue regarding safeguarding partnerships.

And they finally say the Bill therefore needs to name integrated care boards as partners in the RCS to enable health to take a greater responsibility for the health outcomes and the life chances of the most vulnerable group of children and young people. My Lords, that's not me. That's the the national network of designated health professionals. So I'll just say to the Minister that this is a quite a simple amendment, but I do think it's an important one. And if we don't, if the government doesn't accept it, I suggest to the Minister that we are missing a very important opportunity because we don't put it on the face of the bill.

We'll be relying on the goodwill of hard pressed professionals up and down the country. I beg to move.
17:44
17:46
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
I wish to speak in support of amendment 49, specifically relating to sibling contact, which I've to sibling contact, which I've added my name. In doing so, I don't want to repeat what the noble Baroness Tyler said, other than to stress, as she did, the importance of maintaining and developing sibling contact where a child has to be separated from his or her parents, either temporarily or permanently. The most important viable relationship remaining is often with that child's siblings or half siblings.

Typically, siblings have shared experience of the parenting they have received, and they have, of course, a relationship which can long outlive the relationship that they have or have had with their parents. The Children Act did create a presumption that children should be placed together, but that is not always possible to arrange or to achieve contact between separated siblings, particularly if no longer in the same school or placed at some distance apart, can require commitment not only by their respective carers, but also by the responsible local authorities.

The proper, properly arranged sibling sibling contact typically requires a concrete plan by the local authority and an underlying framework of support. It may, it has to be said, sometimes influence what happens at the next stage after the care proceedings and determine what happens if the children are to be placed for adoption. This amendment 49 does help because it does not require or assume that both or all of the children will be in the care of the local authority, and it thereby sensibly extends the scope of local authority duties towards siblings.
17:48
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord. amendment 62, in the name of the noble Baroness Tyler. My Lord, the case for this is really fairly straightforward. Children in care often have quite strong mental health needs and are not in the best of mental health. And since care leavers comprise about 1 to 3% of the general youth population, that actually then translates into them being responsible for one quarter of the homeless population, and also that group are twice as likely to die prematurely than the general population.

And in many cases, suicide is the largest reason for that high death rate. So my Lords, that is a fairly strong causal link between children in the care system or going into the care system having fragile mental health and that not being picked up as early as it should be. So really all this amendment does is it says, please, can we ensure that when children do have a. An assessment of the quality of their mental health, that the practitioners who are doing that are qualified in mental health? Because only that way can we be sure that we catch those vulnerable young people at that early stage, and that they do not become one of the depressing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statistics that I've just mentioned. I rise briefly to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to speak to amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness Shah Tyler, to which I've added my name as well. Declare as added my name as well. Declare as ever that I am a teacher and would like to help. Thank the help of the like to help. Thank the help of the National Children's Bureau in this. My Lords, children don't come into care because they've won the care because they've won the lottery of life talk. Trauma is unlikely to be far from their lives, and yet our assessment processes still rely on professionals who may have little or no training in mental health or trauma informed practice care, experienced young people told the Education Select committee as part of its inquiry into children's social care, that local authorities are not always
17:50
17:51
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I happen and I feel strongly to to to speak to strongly to to to speak to amendment 61. This wonderful amendment 61. This wonderful amendment that is trying to amend sufficiency duty, prevent children being moved far away from home, especially those on whom deprivation of liberty orders have been put. And if a child has this deprivation of liberty orders, and then he moved them a long, long way, means that parents or even foster carers have got quite a difficulty in trying to keep in touch with these particular children.

So this question of sufficiency of duty, being secure as far as rural, practical, and I think the substitution to all reasonable steps to secure is a far better phrase and can give assurance, as somebody who fostered children and was in touch with other foster carers, children who were put a long way away under the expression in the Children Act of 1989 that they are taking steps that were reasonable and practical. But actually when you scratch under the surface, the pressure in the area where I was a vacant house near Brixton and a lot of children were actually placed in care, the council had a big, big job to do.

And you and I know that we're extremely busy. It is easy to say, yeah, yeah, yeah, I've taken reasonable steps. I've done whatever is practicable. And actually what should have happened that all reasonable steps had been taken. And you need to catalogue these reasonable steps so that somebody may ask questions. So I want to suggest to you, Lordship House, that amendment 61 will take away quite a lot of anxiety from parents whose children find themselves.

They have been deprived of their liberty, put them a long way away, is almost suggesting that parents really maybe, maybe not find a way of going to a place where these children have been placed. And the other thing is, in places where administered for that in years, they were always living in a financial crisis time. Persons didn't find time where these children have been put. It was such a huge burden. So I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will see this as actually helping our children.

They are not someone else's children. They are our own children. As that wonderful African proverb says, it takes a whole village to raise and educate a child. They are ours. And would we be happy that they've been put in such a long way from from home? It's it's it will be quite a burden. And I and I want to congratulate the noble Baroness Sugg putting this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right. Excuse me. I rise to speak. To amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To amendment. 71 standing in my name, and I am grateful to the Minister for grateful to the Minister for movement on this issue. I look at movement on this issue. I look at her a letter of the 7th of October 2025, some time ago now, and the
17:55
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
2025, some time ago now, and the Minister said this when used effectively, non-school alternative provision offers tailored support that meets individual needs and helps re-engage children in education, supporting future regular attendance in school. However, in some areas, inadequate oversight is putting already vulnerable children safety and quality of their education at risk. Too often, children whose needs could be met in school or instead placed in unsafe, low quality settings with no clear plan for returning to mainstream education. I don't understand why in our society we have anything unregistered, whether it's a school, whether it's a care home, or it's an alternative provision.

We should not allow that to happen because we put the lives of people at risk. Let's be understanding what. Provision means. It means that a child, a young person who has been permanently expelled, suspended, permanently expelled, removed from school becomes the responsibility of the local authority. The local authority has to make provision for them. However, in many cases schools do have their own units on site and that by far is the best model.

But where that provision is not available, local authorities have to find providers. Remember these children, young people are the most vulnerable. Often with special education needs, often from difficult circumstances, often suffering trauma, often suffering mental health problems. And I think the the Minister realises the issue and has come forward with some suggestions of how we might develop that. And I'm really, really, genuinely grateful for that. And I hope this will perhaps be another way that we can deal with this issue.

I would raise a number of issues, perhaps with the Minister, that she might be prepared to either write to me or respond in her reply. When we look to make sure, of course, unregistered provision cannot be inspected by Ofsted. But when we look at registered provision, we use the same criteria that we use for maintained schools, for academies, for independent schools. But these are very this is a very, very different situation. These pupils require flexible timetables, small groups, therapeutic approaches, outreach work, incremental attendance and curriculum that prioritises core skills, wellbeing and preparation.

So Ofsted inspections of alternative provision already highlight that applying main criteria to alternative providers creates inconsistent judgements, perverse incentives and misunderstandings about what meaningful progress looks like for these pupils. Without adaptation, the strengthening of strengthened regulatory framework in the Bill may unintentionally constrain innovation, reduce placement availability, push provision back into semi regulated spaces or penalise alternative providers for not behaving like mainstream schools. I hope, and I'm sure, that the government and the Minister really want to get to grips with this issue, and I hope that the proposals actually do deliver what we all want.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords, this group of amendments focuses again on of amendments focuses again on children in the care system. And as we've heard very expertly and we've heard very expertly and eloquently across the house, the focus on relationships is so important for these children, important for these children, allowing them to sustain relationships with siblings and relationships with siblings and families where it's safe to do so, and not being moved too far from
18:00
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
their original home and network wherever possible. And obviously, this is most sensitive where siblings don't live together either because they're not all in care or because they're in different care placements. I just wanted to say a placements. I just wanted to say a word on amendments 51 and 52 in my name, 51 in the name of my noble name, 51 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bellingham. I agree with my noble friend that it is essential that regional commissioning arrangements include health funding, and that the Icbs are a named partner in the regional care cooperatives.

And I think it would be helpful if the government could set out what the long term funding model will be for regional care cooperatives. There's still concern several years on about the lack of sufficient funding for regional adoption agencies, and obviously the government will want to avoid the same happening in relation to regional care cooperatives and without giving a clear statutory duty for the involvement of Icbs and health to align with their new corporate parenting duties, there's a concern that there will be a lack of funding and a lack of a specialist health expertise that is so critical for these children, so I hope very much, even at this late stage, the government might reconsider its position.

Certainly, the evaluation of the pathfinder sites, which was published in November of last year, although again at a very early stage, highlights really encouraging progress. But the vital involvement of health comes through loud and strong. And given how pathfinders have been prioritised, the involvement of health and how they've highlighted the problems where that has not been secured, I think the government needs to move and make it clear this is not and make it clear this is not voluntary but essential.
18:02
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, starting with >> My Lords, starting with amendments 43 and 49, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I think everybody who has contributed to the debate today, and certainly the government is fully committed to every care fully committed to every care experienced child having loving lifelong relationships with those that they care about in, in particularly in particular siblings, as several noble Lords have focussed on. And we recognise that relationships are fundamental to identity, well-being and long term outcomes.

Whilst I absolutely support their intent, neither of these amendments are necessary and would duplicate what already exists in legislation as stated in committee and referenced. In fact, today there is already a legal duty on local authorities. In paragraph 15, schedule two of the Children Act 1989 to endeavour to promote contact between looked after children and their relatives, friends and other connected people unless it is not reasonably practicable or consistent with the child's welfare. Additionally, amendment 49 would not serve to strengthen the duty placed on local authorities to make contact arrangements between siblings.

It only requires that where contact arrangements are made, these are recorded in the care plan, a duty that already exists in paragraph three of schedule one to the regulations. Existing statutory guidance, such as the Children's Social Care National Framework, which sets the outcomes that local authorities should achieve for children, young people and families, already emphasises the importance of family networks. This, alongside other guidance, builds on the legislative duty to emphasise the importance of family networks and listening to children's voices about who and what is important to them.

It is absolutely right that the care system and professionals involved in the care of looked after children should help children maintain relationships, including staying connected to siblings, family carers and wider community networks. That's why the government has been taking practical action to unlock any barriers to this, and we have already made clear commitments in this area. For example, as discussed last week, mandating the offer of family group decision making at pre proceedings, where that is in the child's best interests, which could of course include considerations about contact arrangements with family members, the family finding, befriending and mentoring programme mentioned by the noble Lord Lord Farmer, which helps children in care and care leavers to identify and connect with the important people in their lives.

And we are currently funding 46 programmes across 43 local authorities, with 21 local authorities also delivering or delivering lifelong links. The evaluation mentioned by the noble Lord is ongoing, but the interim evaluation report, published in September 2025, shows a statistically significant increase in reported relationships after children and young people have participated in the in the programme. And the noble Lord asked about the funding of the programme. We are determined to continue learning from the effectiveness of programmes such as this that support children and young people in care to build and strengthen relationships.

Plans for the continuation of this scheme of this programme beyond this financial year are currently subject to business planning and will of course also be subject to the continued evaluation that we are committed to. Having said this, just to to re-emphasise our view and the view of stakeholders that we have consulted with is that issues in promoting contact, particularly between siblings, are more, tend to be more practical and logistical than they do than they are legislative, or are caused by a lack in the legislation.

Having said that, my officials have met with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who I know takes a very close interest in this to discuss this important topic and have taken her very useful insights on board, which is why we will commit to identifying and sharing best practice on facilitating sibling relationships to ensure that local authorities support all children in care. To have loving relationships with family members. We think that is the right way to focus on ensuring that this is achieved in practice.

Turning to amendment 61, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, this aims to prevent children from being placed far from home through amending the sufficiency duty on local authorities. The government is clear that ensuring children are able to remain close to their home, community and connections with loved ones is crucially important for improving the outcomes of care. Experienced children, as several noble Lords have emphasised. That's why to support local authorities in meeting their sufficiency duty, over £130 million is being invested in fostering hubs, kinship care and children's homes.

Additionally, within the bill, we are also introducing legislation that will enable the Secretary of State to direct local authorities to establish regional cooperation arrangements to improve the commissioning of children's social care placements and to meet their sufficiency duty. However, the proposed amendment would not in fact strengthen the existing sufficiency duty. In fact, we believe it would weaken it. It would allow local authorities to provide and rely on more accommodation near to their area rather than within it, risking increased out of area placements and more children being placed far from home, not fewer.

We also don't consider that changing the wording in the way proposed would have the effect on the effort required by local authorities that I think the noble Lady wants it to have. It wouldn't, in effect, have any meaningful impact on local authorities decision making. Turning to amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, this seeks to add a requirement for a registered mental health practitioner to undertake an assessment of every child's state of health when they become looked after, and for a registered mental health practitioner to be added.

As a professional who may undertake health reviews of looked after children. As many noble Lords have identified during this debate, the significant trauma that many children who become looked after have experienced, and the lasting impact that this trauma trauma can have, means that providing effective mental health support is absolutely crucial. Unless the child refuses consent, being of sufficient age and understanding to do so, all children must have an assessment of their health when they become looked after. Existing regulations require that this must be completed by a registered medical practitioner.

It must include assessment of emotional and mental health, and it must be kept under review. The statutory guidance states that the health practitioner carrying out the assessment has a duty of clinical care to the child, which includes making the necessary referrals for investigation and treatment of conditions identified. So there is already a clear expectation for the necessary referral to be made. Where a child is assessed as needing investigation or treatment from a mental health practitioner. So this means it is not necessary to add the specific requirement for registered mental health practitioners into legislation.

However, I do understand the concerns of the noble Lady and this will inform changes to statutory guidance to further strengthen implementation to ensure that children in care receive the services and support for their mental health and wellbeing that they need. This is a this is a strengthening of the position that we took at Committee stage, and I'd like to say alongside that as well. First of all, we have also since then in December made progress when the Health Secretary and the Minister for Children and Families announced that in a boost for mental health support, the government will trial a three year pilot to make sure children in care have access to the support they need sooner and this will build on existing work across the country, bringing together social workers and NHS health professionals to work together to provide direct mental health support to children and families when they need it most.

The DfE further in relation to points made by the noble Lord Lord Hampton and the noble Lord, Lord Russell is committed to understanding and addressing the shockingly high number of early deaths amongst care experienced young people. As the Department progresses this work, we will carefully consider how to improve the support that care leavers receive across a range of aspects of their lives, including mental and physical health. In addition, we know that that there is that. However, there could be more to do to ensure that this focus on mental health is implemented as consistently and effectively as possible.

And we would welcome a meeting with the all party parliamentary group for children who I know have made this a priority, to discuss this important matter and what more we can do here. And I thank the noble Lady for raising this important point and pushing it in the way in which she has. I turn now to amendment 71, tabled in the name of the noble tabled in the name of the noble Lords Lord Storey. Sorry. Hopefully we won't short the whole place through my through my actions there.

Turning to amendment 71, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord storey, this is the proposed amendment on registration and local authority oversight of accommodation for looked after children and education provided in alternative provision with regards to oversight of accommodation for looked after children. This government is absolutely clear. Placing children in a legal unregistered homes is unacceptable. Looked after children should only ever be placed in accommodation that is run by a registered provider for children's homes, and supported accommodation providers must be registered with Ofsted, the single national regulator that is able to ensure safeguarding and quality standards are being met, creating a second registration system run by local authorities as proposed in this amendment, risks creating confusion and duplication, and for this reason, we don't believe that this amendment is the right approach to reduce the usage of unregistered accommodation placement.

But turning to non-school unregistered alternative provision which the noble Lord focussed on in his remarks. First of all, I welcome the noble Lord Lord Storey support for the proposals that we announced last year to strengthen protections for children in these settings, including for those in care. As I set out in the in the letter that the noble Lord referred to, these reforms comprise creating a new local regulatory framework and national standards. They're substantial, and they require careful engagement with the sector.

Introducing these measures now in this bill would bypass full parliamentary scrutiny, but we do recognise the significance of what the noble Lord was saying, and instead they will form part of our wider send and alternative provision reforms in the forthcoming schools White Paper, ensuring that they deliver for children. Turning to amendment 52, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Baron. As policy thinking develops, we want to ensure that legislation develops with it. Both regional care cooperative pathfinders, sorry, both regional care cooperative pathfinders have learned as they have expanded their functions.

For example, both areas made the decision to take on residential workforce development as a means to ensure the long term stability in their provision, and we are keen to allow the same flexibility to other areas as they develop their own regional cooperation arrangements. This amendment seems to be concerned about the strategic functions that could be added. The Secretary of State can only add to the strategic accommodation functions through an affirmative procedure, in consultation with local authorities and other appropriate persons, and this will ensure the legislation is fit for purpose and will help to future proof regional arrangements as they develop.

But as stated during committee, the scope of the regulations is limited. It's limited to those relating to local authorities functions covered by specific sections of the Children Act 1989, namely. Section 22 A the duty to accommodate looked after children. Section 22 C how looked after children should be accommodated by the local authority, and section 22 G the duty to ensure sufficient accommodation for looked after children. Turning to amendments 51 and 252. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, I do want to reassure the noble Lord and other noble Lords with regards to the duty to work with local integrated care boards raised in amendment 51, the government understands the importance and need to include health partners in regional cooperation arrangements to improve looked after children's outcomes.

There is already an existing legal requirement under section ten of the Children Act 2004, which specifies that local authorities must make arrangements to promote cooperation with relevant partners, including local integrated care boards, to improve the well-being of children within their area, so far as is reasonably practicable, the requirement will still apply to local authorities when part of regional cooperation arrangements. It is therefore not necessary to specify that separately in legislation, but I hope it would reassure the noble Lord that both regional care cooperative pathfinders in the South East and in Greater Manchester have already engaged in a meaningful way with the Icbs in their area, and we will continue to promote this through published guidance.

And turning to amendment 252, I would like also to reassure the noble Lord that the government understands the importance of evaluating the regional care Cooperative Pathfinders, a five year evaluation of the impact and effectiveness is already underway, and the first report was published in November, with further reports to be published annually, and the department has utilised feedback from these reports and both pathfinders to inform policy development, one example being to ensure that areas spend time building a strong foundation through data sharing and market analysis before moving to delivery.

And furthermore, as stated at committee and in accordance with clause 67 five, the Bill will come into force on such a day as appointed by the Secretary of State made by regulations. Clause 66 of the Bill allows different commencement dates for different areas for different purposes, so we will continue to use the evaluation and the pathfinders to ensure that that happens at the appropriate time and in a way that is most likely to achieve success. This has been a wide ranging debate, but I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance to enable the noble Lady to withdraw her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments at this point. My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for the noble Lady, the Minister, for her very comprehensive and helpful response to a large number of response to a large number of amendments. I listened very carefully indeed to what she had to say on the issue of family say on the issue of family relationships and sibling contact, which is a an issue very dear to my which is a an issue very dear to my heart.

I welcome the fact that she did talk about sharing best practice on sibling contact, and I do think that will certainly be helpful, but I have to admit that I was disappointed that she wasn't
18:20
18:21
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. The Adoption and Special Guardianship Fund was established in 2015 to provide established in 2015 to provide therapeutic support to families caring for children through adoption and guardianship. Since its inception, the fund has supported over 4000 families, offering interventions that have helped children manage emotions, process early trauma, and build trusting relationships, while also equipping parents and guardians with the tools they need to care effectively. The fund has played a transformative role in so many families lives, offering interventions that have helped children manage emotions, process early trauma, and building trusting relationships, while also equipping parents and guardians with the tools they need to care effectively.

In fact, over the last 12 months, a charity called home for Good, Safer Families. Talk to a large number of families who had used the fund, 67% accessed therapy e.g. counselling, play therapy, family therapy, 34% access, therapeutic parenting support or training and 33% specialist assessments. I'm also grateful to Minister McAllister for his letter following a meeting with a number of us, where he said many children who become adopted or in kinship care have faced difficulties in early life that mean they cannot live with their birth parents.

These experiences place them at great risk of mental health challenges, often made more complex by increased SEN prevalence compared to their peers. I am clear that the government has responsibility to these children, which I am determined to meet both now and in the future. And he finally said the Adoption and Special Guardianship Fund has helped children and their families access a wide range of interventions, including play therapy and therapeutic parenting courses. After more courses. So imagine the dismay amongst those parents that this element of the fund has been reduced.

And at Committee stage I gave the example of a family living close to me who had adopted two children at a very young age, absolutely traumatised with the children and the counselling paid for by the support fund has created a huge change in those children. Because the fund has been cut, they're not able to continue with that provision. Interestingly, that has been mirrored by a number of comments from other families talking about the support, the support we had so far dramatically helped.

Any loss of it would be devastating. My child is sick. She needed the help, so she grows up feeling accepted and cared for and not angry and let down. Both our boys have additional needs. It scares us that we might lose the help they desperately need. The recent reduction of the Adoption Support Fund has been a shock, and has led to huge stress for the families who rely on it. The new financial limits imposed are a major concern. We are already stretched to our limits financially and from a professional.

It is hard when told by professionals that your child needs more support and then you realise you cannot access what they recommend. So my amend my amendment is simple that that element of the fund should be restored so that these parents, these parents who adopted children, foster children can get that resource which those children so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

desperately need, I move. Proposed after clause nine.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed after clause nine. Insert the new clause printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshalled List. My Lords. I rise to to speak to to both these amendments, and I to both these amendments, and I declare that I am a co-chair of the all party parliamentary group on On Adoption and Permanence, alongside Adoption and Permanence, alongside Rachael Maskell, the the MP for
18:26
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
York. In 2019, the APPG did an inquiry into the fund, and I will inquiry into the fund, and I will simply read the the recommendation number six, which is headed number six, which is headed continuity. The department should ensure a continuity of therapeutic support by removing the current support by removing the current annual application requirement, enabling agencies and authorities enabling agencies and authorities to apply for support that orients around the needs of children and their families, not necessarily the budgeting needs of the department in question.

In doing that inquiry and in subsequent work that I have been involved in, I'm a governor of Corum, the the children's charity, which has a large say in adoption, the experience of families that have been fortunate enough to access the support given by the fund is is literally transformative, albeit in many cases when the therapeutic support is accessed, there is already a situation within the family where adoption breakdown is is potentially a reality. And unfortunately, over the last couple of years, there has been an increase in the level of adoption breakdown.

If one looks at the amount of effort, the amount of time, the amount of emotional expense that is involved in going through an adoption to, in the end, having to admit that it has not worked and that it has failed, which is devastating both for the adoptive family and of course, for the child or the children is is difficult to imagine. My Lords, this fund really, genuinely does make a difference, and I think it is one of the achievements of Her Majesty's occasionally loyal opposition when it was in government, in actually getting this fund onto the statute book.

One of the problems with it is the continuity of the support is absolutely fundamental. This is not the sort of support that responds well to a stop start situation. But unfortunately, because the flow of funding has not been consistent and because government, for whatever reason, the department has, perhaps through negotiations with the Treasury, has been unable to be assured enough of the funding that it can actually say to the families who are currently getting support or the families who wish to get support, that it will be available.

This makes it extraordinarily difficult. It also makes it very difficult for the livelihoods of those practitioners who are actually providing this therapeutic support, which is highly specialised because in many cases, these children have been and are subject to really quite severe trauma. And for those professionals to be able to give the level of care that is required at the rate required, does need a consistency of funding from the government to enable them to stay in business, but also for them to be able to engage with the family on the basis that they will be able to provide sufficient support over whatever time is required for it to be effective, for it to really make a difference.

So for those reasons, I would really hope that the government will will look at this carefully. 2026 is the centenary of the 1926 Adoption of Children Act, which I'm, I'm proud to say was brought onto the statute book when my one of my maternal great grandfathers was the Prime Minister, although having checked, he didn't actually have anything to do with that directly. But he obviously said to the Cabinet, this is good, go forth and multiply. And it went on to the statute book.

And in fact, immediately after this group, I shall be going downstairs to the room where quorum is celebrating the centenary of adoption, going on the statute book, which was a great achievement. So for all these reasons, I do hope that the noble Lady of the Minister will look at this very carefully. And above all, think about the families that are really need this consistency of support and of the children whose lives within an adopted family may be at risk.
18:30
Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell, follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell, as he said, it's played a major role within quorum, the organisation which, as we sit here organisation which, as we sit here now, is celebrating that centenary of the Adoption Act 1926. And for those of you who didn't know about it, it sits on the terrace between now and 8:00. If you get the opportunity, please do go along and meet many people who make such a large contribution to adoption within the UK, and it's appropriate to mark the centenary appropriately, because that was landmark legislation that introduced for the first time, England and Wales, a legal process by which the the rights and responsibilities for a child could be transferred from birthparents to adoptive parents.

So it really was landmark legislation. And because of that, I find it unfortunate, to say the least, on the centenary of that act, the bill we are discussing this evening features the word adoption only four times in 137 pages. I don't understand that. And three of these, I should say, are just mentions of adoption in other Acts of Parliament. So why that should be the case? I simply don't understand. A bill with children's wellbeing in its title surely should not ignore the key role played by adoptive parents in their children's well-being.

I made this point in committee. I'm not going to repeat what I said then, but I do feel that those working in with adoptive families who have suffered with the the cut in the the Doctrine Support Fund, which the noble Lord Lord Storey the noble Lord, Lord Russell have referred to, really do feel undervalued despite the very important job that they do in keeping children out of of of care and residential homes. I really think we need to think again about how we approach adoption, give it the respect it deserves, give it the resources it deserves.

Because if any of you do choose to go down to the terrace this evening, you will meet people very active and very hard working in that sector who will tell you they feel undervalued and under-supported. And I hope that that before long is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something that will change. My Lords, I'm pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Storey's the noble Lord, Lord Storey's amendments 46 and 47 Committee. And amendments 46 and 47 Committee. And again this evening we covered in detail the distress caused to parents and children by the very parents and children by the very late timing of the announcement in relation to the support fund, and relation to the support fund, and by the cut in the size of the grant. And in particular, amendment 46 gives the government the opportunity to review how best to use this funding ahead of the grant period in March 2027.

And I'm not aware of any compelling evidence that supports the earlier decision to cut the grant size and to reduce the funding for specialist assessments. But if that exists, maybe the noble Baroness, the Minister, can share it today. Of course, on these benches we're open to improving on the way that funds are distributed, but just genuinely concerned by the lack of visibility on what will happen next year. And I hope very much the government
18:34
18:34
18:34
18:34
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, as I respond to this >> My Lords, as I respond to this set of amendments, can I assure you that I. I will try not to drench anybody during the course of this response, although I have now response, although I have now decided to set myself an ambition of juggling with three bottles of water. By the time we get to the end of this of this Report stage. But turning to the important issues covered in this group for firstly starting with amendments 46 and 47 concerning the adoption of Special Guardianship Support Fund and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord.

Lord story regarding funding for the fund and for providing a further opportunity, through doing that to debate these important issues. Around 3000 children are adopted each year, and over 3800 enter special guardianship. And I salute all those who welcome these vulnerable, often traumatised children into their homes and hope that the centenary celebrations that other noble Lords have alluded to taking place here this evening, and enable there to be both a celebration of that contribution and also, quite rightly, as we've heard in this debate, a challenge about how we can do our best to support those who undertake adoption of special guardianship in the future.

Almost 57,000 children have received as GSF support since 2015, many more than once since April 2025. We have approved applications for nearly 16,000 children. Although I think it is important to remember that this is not the only source of funding. The Families First Partnership Programme totals £2.4 billion over the next three years, and that funding is equally available to support adoptive and kinship families and to support the services which support them as well. We have already confirmed that adoption and special guardianship funding will be continued for 20 2627, and further details will be shared in due course through usual funding announcements.

But as several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Watson, have made clear, we need to think perhaps even more so as we celebrate the centenary of of of adoption. We need to think more, longer term about the future of adoption support. As we promised at Parliament in September that we would, and we will shortly set out plans to engage widely on this, with the aim of understanding how best to support children and young people to thrive in their new families and get the support they need in the most effective way.

Turning to amendment 100, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness. Lady Baron, I want to thank the noble Lady for raising this important issue again. I think I would have to look back at the at the record, but I do have a considerable amount of of sympathy, which I hope I shared during the Committee stage on this. Foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most, and they therefore need to have the ability and the responsibility to be able to make the decisions that they think are suitable for children.

The government is prioritising fostering through the Fostering Recruitment and Retention Programme. We've been supporting over 60% of local authorities across England in ten regional clusters to recruit and support foster carers. We know we need to build on this to further accelerate foster care, recruitment and retention, and we will soon publish a comprehensive set of measures to achieve this, with regional care cooperatives and fostering hubs at the heart of these plans. But in relation to the the issues specifically covered by this amendment, which seeks to ensure that foster carers have by default delegated authority on day to day issues, except where an alternative decision maker is listed on the child's placement plan.

Our guidance already sets out that foster carers should be able to make day to day decisions about the children in their care, but I accept that too often we hear that this does not happen in practice, meaning that children in care miss out on normal childhood experiences and feel like they are treated differently to their peers. So I agree with the spirit of this amendment, but it isn't necessary to include this in this bill. Local authorities should already delegate all day to day decisions, and we have clear guidance that sets this out, but we will nevertheless be taking further action on this issue as the noble Lady pushes us to do our upcoming fostering publications, will set out our plans for ensuring that foster carers can feel confident in making day to day decisions for the children in their care.

Our publications will also set out plans to reform the Fostering National Minimum standards, and these will also reflect our position on day to day decision making and how fostering services can support carers to make these decisions. Any changes to the National Minimum Standards, including those concerning decision making for foster carers, would benefit from a period of consultation with relevant stakeholders. But I accept the noble Lady's point that it is important that we make progress in this area. Given that commitment and our plans on the longer term provision of adoption support, I hope that I've addressed the concerns of noble Lords and that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lord Lord Storey, feels able to withdraw his amendment. Thank you. My Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. I'm grateful. That the Minister agrees with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the Minister agrees with the spirit of this amendment, and she highlights that some parents she highlights that some parents have made up the difference themselves. They found the money themselves to carry on this. I find themselves to carry on this. I find this all rather perverse that.
18:41
18:42
18:43
None Portrait Division:Amendment:46
-

>> >> Yes. My My Lords My Lords. My Lords. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. As many as of that 46 be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. will go to the right by the throne. The not contents to the left by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Lord Oates.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Oates. Order. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the. Contents 235. Not. Contents 164.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the contents have it. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 47. Lord Storey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 47. Lord Storey. My Lords, I'm sure that the Minister will want to carry out the wishes of the House, and I'm sure wishes of the House, and I'm sure she would want to ensure that those parents do have support that they need. All parents have the support they need and in the spirit of cooperation, I will not withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 47 not moved. Amendment 48.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Storey not moved. Amendment 49. Baroness Tyler. My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 49. Baroness Tyler. My Lords, as I indicated during the debate on this vitally important debate on this vitally important issue of sibling contact, including sibling siblings, both in care and not in care, I do wish to test the not in care, I do wish to test the opinion of the House. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to.
18:54
18:54
18:58
19:04
None Portrait Amendment:g50 Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-

Malvern. Yes, my Lords, I beg to move government amendment 50. This regards notifications where children are placed in temporary accommodation, which all noble Lords who spoke to this in committee saw as being a clearly sensible change to make sure such children can receive the right support when they need it. I am pleased to tell noble Lords that, following extensive cross-government work, the government has tabled an amendment to introduce a new duty on local housing authorities to notify educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation if consent is provided.

This underscores this government's commitment to break down barriers to opportunity and support all children to have the best life chances. And I would like to particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell and my honourable and very good friend, Dame Siobhan McDonagh, for raising what the House agreed at Committee is a very important issue and engaging the government constructively on it. This government amendment builds upon the previous amendments achieving their intent. Children in temporary accommodation are particularly vulnerable and may need additional support.

This notification will alert health and education providers, enabling them to respond appropriately in accordance with existing duties and responsibilities, and help to mitigate the harmful impacts of living in temporary accommodation. For example, schools and colleges may wish to consider interventions such as providing pastoral support or practical assistance assistance such as breakfast clubs, after school activities and homework support. Health services may consider making proactive contact with families in temporary accommodation to ensure they do not experience gaps in healthcare provision.

Guidance will follow for local authority housing officers and the public bodies receiving the notifications to ensure that we effectively implement this very important measure and therefore I beg to move this amendment. Member before clause ten, insert the new clause children in temporary accommodation as printed on the Marshalled List.
19:07
19:07
None Portrait Amendment:g50 Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-

Baroness Bennett and myself. And we're all very grateful for this very positive response. There are
19:07
19:09
19:09
19:10
19:11
19:11
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
I was just from these benches. We also warmly welcome the amendment and thank the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for tabling it. Thank you to noble Lords for their thanks and their contributions. Of course, tabling and discussing this amendment has and discussing this amendment has been an important first step. If it is, and I think this goes to the point that that noble Lord, Lord young, raised about some of the young, raised about some of the technical areas where we need to ensure that it works effectively. But we're clear that if it's agreed as part of this bill, which it appears it will be, we will continue to work across departments so that it has the impact the government desires to strengthen information sharing so that educational institutions and health providers are aware where children living in temporary accommodation may require additional or different support.

And as I say, alongside the legislation, we will provide guidance for local authority housing officers and relevant education and health bodies to ensure that the duty is well understood by all relevant bodies and where possible, we will update existing guidance to minimise burdens and support accessibility. I think it is worth saying in response to the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett, that, of course this is one part of the action that this government is taking with respect to temporary accommodation. We have also, through the government's homelessness Strategy, published in December, set out a range of measures to support families with children in temporary accommodation, including protecting record levels of investment in homelessness and rough sleeping, eliminating the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families other than very short term use in emergencies.

By the end of this Parliament, we've set an ambition to cut school days lost for children in temporary accommodation, with a stronger role for pastoral teams to work closely with families in that situation, including preventing unlawful removal from a school's role, making a clear pledge to prevent deaths caused by gaps in healthcare, and to achieve that, there will be proactive health outreach to families in temporary accommodation, a clinical to improve data and prevent incidents, and will ends into bed and breakfast or other unsuitable housing, and working with the NHS on safe and robust pathways to be clear as well.

In response to the other questions made asked by the noble Lord, Lord young, there is no duty to notify the Welsh within this amendment, but we would be able to look at how we can do that in regulations in the future if needed. And I wholly take his point, given that I come from that part of the country myself, about those areas that are very close to the border and where moves may well be happening across the border.

And I will write to noble Lords to update on the timetable for the implementation of this very important step. And I thank noble Lords for the welcome that they have given it this evening.
19:14
19:15
19:15
19:23
19:27
None Portrait Amendment:53 Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-

committee that the number of children has risen by 11 times in only seven years, to almost 1300 children in 2024, and most troublingly the number of children under the age of 12, deprived of their liberty, grew by more than 50% in the last quarter, and 97% of these children are already in care. They're deprived of their liberty, typically for an average of six months, and restraint of those children is permitted in two thirds of cases.

And the amendments in my name and that of the names of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, the Noble and learned, Lord Lord Meston, and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester, offer a practical route to turning this tide. They would create greater integration of services, stronger accountability, and a focus on recovery rather than containment. So amendment 56 would place an explicit responsibility on local authorities and health partners to be jointly responsible for the funding of care of children who are deprived of their liberty or at risk of doing so.

And the amendment also makes clear, through government guidance, the expectation that agencies work together not only at the point of crisis but at an earlier stage. Amendment 58 would require the Secretaries of State for Education and Health to lay a report before Parliament annually, with transparent data showing how many children are deprived of their liberty, their characteristics, circumstances and outcomes, bringing crucial transparency to the system and showing whether the government's initiatives are working. Amendment 55 would ensure there is comprehensive guidance for placement and care planning, both in relation to the specific aims when applying for deprivation of liberty order, but, crucially, how a child's plan will support their recovery so they spend the shortest possible time with their liberty removed.

Currently, children are stuck in limbo for many months and this amendment would address that. Amendment 53 would ensure that children, deprived of their liberty, receive an education, and amendment 60 would strengthen the role of the independent reviewing officer to make sure that decisions are scrutinised robustly. And finally, amendment 54 would ensure monthly reviews of every deprivation of liberty order by a Director of Children's Services or head of social Work practice to ensure that it continues only where strictly necessary.

And my Lords, these proposals have not been developed in isolation. They build on the important collaborative work led by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, which has brought together representatives from child and adolescent mental health services, children's social care, regional care co-operatives, NHS England and indeed the Department for education itself. So I really urge the Minister not to wait for another review or another pilot. These children don't have lobbyists. They don't write to their MP, they don't have front page advocates.

They are, for the most part, invisible. Their lives are bound by locked doors and constant supervision. They cannot ask for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change. We must act for them. Amendment proposed clause 11,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 11, page 16, line 33. After care, insert education. And I apologise,
19:31
19:31
19:32
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
I would wish to support these amendments. The debate at the Committee stage really did throw a light on the working of the deprivation of liberty jurisdiction, which one couldn't help. Noting was not altogether familiar to many. Typically, these orders are made when parents can cannot provide good enough care, and the child concern needs protection from outside pressures and also protection from the own the child's own risk taking behaviour. When these come to court or before they come to court, the local authority, the Guardian and the court do have to do their best to provide placement in appropriate settings and to enable the child to maintain significant relationships, both of which, frankly, are easier said than done.

The problems which follow the initial order can include unstable placement and repeated changes of placement. These are not easy to manage, and I have read of a child saying that it was pointless to try and build up any relationship in the setting in which she was placed, because she knew she would be moved again or the staff would leave. And that is really a very unhappy state of affairs. There can be review hearings by the court, but they're not always satisfactory in my experience, and therefore sensibly, amendment 54 would require review by the Director of Children's Services to ensure proper monitoring and adherence to the objectives of the original authorisation to deprive Liberty.

I would therefore wish strongly to support amendment 54 amongst the package we have before us. I should say also that amendment 54 would also comply with the child's right to regular reviews in accordance with article 25 of the UN convention on the rights of the child.
19:34
19:35
19:36
19:37
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the Right Reverend Prelate, Lord Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for raising important points regarding clause 11, which, points regarding clause 11, which, as noble Lords have identified, relates to some of the most vulnerable children in the country. vulnerable children in the country. And I know that this is a measure that noble Lords feel particularly strongly about, and rightly. And I would like to to thank the noble Lady Baroness Barran for her engagement with my officials ahead of this debate, as well as that of the noble Lord Lord Storey and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, because it is important to remember that this clause, clause 11, makes an important change already from some of the situations that noble Lords have identified this evening the noble Lord, Lord Meston, correctly and graphically identifies some of the challenges within the way that the current situation operates.

And that's why the measure in this bill in clause 11 seeks to bring more children who would otherwise be deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court within a statutory scheme where they will benefit from enhanced safeguards and protections, of which many of the amendments tabled in this group are seeking. So in this group are seeking. So turning to these amendments, firstly, I want to reiterate that this measure is absolute liberty, but rather to ensure that there are appropriate rights and safeguards in place to prevent children being deprived of liberty inappropriately or for longer than is absolutely necessary.

We are committed to reducing the number of children in complex situations, as part of reforms to rebalance the system away from crisis. Intervention towards earlier help, and to prevent children's needs from escalating to the point where they need to be deprived of their liberty, and to ensure that when they are, that can happen in more appropriate accommodation than has been the case up to this point. We are grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for their scrutiny and having a government.

Amendment 57 accepted their recommendation that regulations developed using the powers under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring parliamentary scrutiny and approval in both houses. Turning to amendment 56, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about joint funding arrangements between partners for children deprived of their liberty. Under this measure, the government wholly agrees that care for these children must be jointly funded and delivered through an integrated whole system approach, which should include social care, health, education and youth justice.

However, we do not wish to restrict pooled funding arrangements in the way this amendment does, which ties it to the existence of the section 25 order. We think pooled funding arrangements would be beneficial to a wider cohort of looked after children, including those whose order has recently come to an end or are at risk of needing to be deprived of their liberty. This requires testing first to ensure the right cohort of children and relevant partners are included. And that is why the Department for education with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care is leading a national programme to tackle underlying systemic failures and support local areas to work together more effectively.

We are building Cross-system integration, starting with the Peer Collaborative convened by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, rightly praised by several noble Lords this evening, which identified key elements for transforming care for children with complex trauma, supporting professionals to stand together so risk is better tolerated and supported. West Sussex, part of the South East Regional Care Cooperative, is working closely with the ICB to test how a Cross-system team can drive integrated support, build an understanding of need and identify gaps in the current pathways across health, social care and justice for this cohort of children.

So we are not waiting, but we are making quick progress whilst doing that in a way that is most likely to be appropriate and solve the problems. And we will expand to pilots next year, where we will evaluate methods of pooled funding, developing best practices which can be adopted and adapted by other local areas. We know pooled funding works, such as through the Better Care Fund for adults, but legislating now would be premature. We must first test and refine the most effective approach to ensure the eventual framework enables the right level of cross-system integration and innovation.

Turning to amendment 55, tabled by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Manchester on Recovery plans, which aims to ensure there are plans to remove restrictions from a child. The government agrees that no child should be deprived of their liberty any longer than absolutely necessary, which is why there are already several existing duties on local authorities in this regard, including the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child looked after by them and that place, and that placement decisions are informed by a care plan that is based on an understanding of the child's needs and best interests.

Rather than legislate further in this space, diverting local authorities attention toward navigating an increasingly complex statutory framework instead of focusing on the child's needs, we want to strengthen the way in which existing legislation is applied. Re-emphasising the need for a care plan that is co-designed between all of the professionals involved in a child's care and treatment. As part of the court application, it is the practice of local authorities to submit the child's full care plan. The court should be provided with both the restrictions they plan to impose, and the action and progress required to end restrictions as quickly as possible.

The plan should be formulated with input from all those professionals involved in the child's care, and will be scrutinised by the court and used to assess progress. If the court is not satisfied about the level of detail included in the plan, to allow it to monitor progress and de escalation, the court should require further input from the relevant professionals. Similarly, in regarding amendment 60 by the noble Baroness, Lady Baron, relating to the abilities of independent reviewing officers to escalate concerns on the implementation of a child's plan to Kafka's Iros already have the statutory power to perform this function.

They are responsible for monitoring the performance of local authorities in relation to a child's care plan, and must consider escalating cases to Kafka's whenever appropriate. This includes issues related to deprivation of liberty, and is therefore not necessary to legislate to expand the legal duties of iros. Turning to amendment 58, tabled by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Manchester, on an annual review of Impact. As I've already stated, the government is committed to reducing the number of children in these situations.

I have already covered some of the specific points raised, namely in relation to recovery plans and iros. His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service will continue to record and publish statistics on applications made under the amended section 24 five. In addition, we will introduce a new module monitoring the use of deprivation of liberty orders under the inherent jurisdiction which will be included in the annual children looked after data returns from 20 2627 to support our monitoring and evaluation processes.

In the longer term, amendment 54 seeks to impose a requirement on directors of Children's Services to review deprivation of liberty orders every four weeks. As I said at Committee stage, the bill gives powers to the Secretary of State to set a maximum period, after which a deprivation of liberty cannot continue without court authorisation. The court is absolutely the right level to be making that kind of decision. Senior officers in the placing authority who are responsible for and familiar with the child's needs, must already regularly, regularly review whether the restrictions are still necessary or appropriate.

Doing so in partnership with health and other professionals involved in the child's care. A fixed four week review requirement on the placing authority risks creating an arbitrary deadline. Providers, in conjunction with placing authorities and other agencies, should be continually ensuring minimum appropriate restrictions are used to keep that child safe. Turning to amendment 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which includes education and in the purpose of this accommodation, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lady and other noble Lords that it is so important that where children are subject to restrictions on their liberty, that they can still access education, and that remains a focus for those carrying caring for them in their recovery.

There are substantial existing requirements on local authorities and others to ensure all children in care can access education to help them achieve and thrive. We do acknowledge that, however, that the quality and quantity of education for these children is variable. Arguably not good enough, and therefore we are working with the sector to understand promising practice and via the pilots will work with local areas to understand how they offer can be bolstered through the peer collaborative. We've seen how including virtual school heads as part of multi-agency discussions for children deprived of liberty, can ensure a child's educational needs remain a focus.

There are a range of models to support a child's education, which could be adopted depending on their individual needs. For some, this may mean continuing to access education in the community. For others, education In-reach services may be appropriate. The point of clause 11 in this bill is that it ensures that these children get the treatment that they need within a homely environment, which may involve depriving them of their liberty, but where they are able to remain closer to home and connected to their community.

This approach supports continuity and stability, as the child can continue to access services after moving on from a placement back to their family home or a foster home. For this reason, the provision of education will not be the primary purpose of the accommodation and whilst at the amendment from the noble Lady is well intended, it could risk actually changing the very nature of the accommodation that the new clause 11 enables children to be cared for in.

Local authorities will retain all existing duties in relation to a child's education, whilst they are accommodated in this accommodation, including when they are under a section 25 order. I hope that by explaining the extent of the wider programme of work underway, I hope reassuring noble Lords that we are not waiting here. We are already at taking action alongside the the and supported by the important work identified for through Nuffield in the debate this evening, and of the existing requirements already in legislation that this reassures noble Lords improving the experiences and outcomes of this group of children is a priority for this.

Government addresses their concerns and that the noble Lady feels able to withdraw her amendment.
19:50
19:52
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat)
-

19:52
None Portrait Division:Amendment:56
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I think I think that's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. The question is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this amendment be agreed to. Will the noble gentleman kindly sit down? noble gentleman kindly sit down? Thank you very much. As many he won't obviously as many hours are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

won't obviously as many hours are of this opinion, will say content. Content to the contrary, not content. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the contents will go to the right by the throne. The not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Follows. Follows. The Follows. The question Follows. The question is Follows. The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted. Contents 159. Not content 153. Oh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Therefore the contents have it. Yeah yeah yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 57 Baroness Smith of Malvern moved formally as many of that opinion will say. Content the country's not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country's not content. The contents have it. Amendment 58 Bishop of Manchester. My Lords, I think we've made good progress this evening. But nonetheless, I do feel that having an annual report laid before Parliament will bring together the information we need in a coherent form that will allow this House and the other place to give proper scrutiny of what's going on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Therefore, I do wish to test the opinion of the House. The question is that amendment
20:02
20:02
20:04
None Portrait Division:Amendment:58
-

>> >> Yes. Yes. Yes. My Yes. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to, as many of that 58 be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not content to the left by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. OK. Well, OK. Well, I OK. Well, I will OK. Well, I will do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. Well, I will do my. OK. Well, I will do my. Oh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. Well, I will do my. Oh. It's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. Well, I will do my. Oh. It's a bit of a wrench. So I couldn't find anything. Can you survive another rotation? You're very medieval, you know, with the. Bar medieval, you know, with the. Bar and something else going through myself. No, this is like Viscount myself. No, this is like Viscount Astor. I think it would be good for the mental health to go into. The European. Well, yes, we shall all Now. Now. The Now.

The Lord Framlingham. Thank you. Lord Framlingham. Thank you. I'm That. That. I That. I enjoyed That. I enjoyed that. That. I enjoyed that. Yes. Yes. OK. Yes. OK. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment Going Going on Going on to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They're They're half They're half voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They're half voted content. They're half voted content. 148 not content. 156 therefore the not not content. 156 therefore the not contents have it. My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm going to read the results of amendment 56 again. I'm blaming my Black Country again. I'm blaming my Black Country accent because the vote was content 159, not content 153. So the contents did have it. OK, just moving on. Amendment 59 Baroness Tyler of Enfield not moved.

Amendment 60 Baroness Barran not moved. Amendment amendments 61 and 62 Baroness Tyler of Enfield not moved. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this is a convenient time to break for dinner break time to break for dinner break business. We will not return to the bill. Therefore, before 2053. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. Therefore, before 2053. I therefore beg to move that report. Be adjourned. That further consideration on
20:13
20:14
20:14
None Portrait Statement: Contracts for Difference Allocation Round 7 offshore wind results (Dinner break business)
-

results of offshore wind.
20:14
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
And my Lords, I declare my interests. I'm chair of Army Action interests. I'm chair of Army Action and Buckthorn Partners. And in addition, I believe on this occasion the first I've spoken to a statement on energy debate from the statement on energy debate from the frontbench since I was Minister for energy, I should inform the House that I've spent my whole working life in the energy sector. I was also Minister for energy in the Margaret Thatcher and John Major governments aimed to maximise a low cost oil and gas province in the UK, always emphasising production with the highest importance attached to the environmental impact of all offshore activity.

Whilst in 1990 simultaneously launching the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation, the Renewable Support Framework and establishing the UK Renewable Energy Advisory Group. I place on record my Lords, because that political experience informs the contributions I intend to make and the questions I will be asking. I believe it's axiomatic that we should judge the statement before us against the principles of creating greater energy security, increased affordability to all consumers, industrial and domestic, strengthening the base of low cost firm power in the grid, moving towards cleaner energy.

And every decision we take should be addressed against fuel poverty. So I ask the Minister, how can this be so when the order promises the highest prices for intermittent offshore wind in over a decade, how can it be affordable to the UK industry when this order is still more expensive than the £80 per megawatt for gas, which goes down to £55 if you deduct the government imposed carbon taxes, how can it be when the overall price of a contract extension is 24% higher than last year? And by the way, why is the government using the LCoE levelized cost of energy matrix when we should be using the only true cost comparator, a full systems cost and being intermittent power, does the government acknowledge that we need more firm gas power plants anyway? Is it not the case that the government had told me so that there needs to be 40GW of backup generating capacity? My Lords, let's look at what's happening this evening.

Now, at a time when the wind is hardly blowing, is it not the case that we are here this evening, at this point in time, generating nearly 60% of our power from firm gas and only 18% throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, from intermittent wind. Worse still, is it not the case that when the circumstances that we're importing gas from an increasingly unstable global economy, burning more CO2 through imported LNG than we would if we developed our own resources to the full, whilst this minute continuing to burn biomass in Drax, which is more polluting than coal and comes at the moment, at this point in time to only 50% of the total wind generation throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister's store of Norway, who at the same time as the Secretary of State, was announcing this face the country and stated in Norway that he regarded there were many similar choices to us in the North Sea. And he said gas is crucially important for Norway and should be developed, not phased out. The oil and gas industry is crucial for Norwegian jobs and our welfare state. At the same time, Norwegian gas has never been as important for European energy security as after Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine.

Does the Minister agree with him? Does the Minister agree with Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia, who came to these shores in September 2025 and stated on a visit that the UK will need to utilise natural gas fired power alongside renewable energy to meet the massive energy demands of new artificial intelligence. AI data centres. For without that strategy, we will have no chance of generating thousands of jobs with competitive new data centres. My Lords, we need to keep our eyes open to the economics of energy and to the wider UK economic and political consequences of this statement and the government's energy policy.

Does the Minister agree it reduces energy security by increasing the need to buy more foreign LNG, to meet the need for firm power, that it increases unemployment through high energy costs? It accelerates the government's deindustrialisation of the chemical and petrochemical industries, which is all over the news this weekend. By placing them out of the market, it drives a coach and horses through affordability for households and industries alike, and it takes us in the direction of significantly increasing the cost of energy when the rest of the world is managing to reduce costs in a highly competitive global market.

Yet in this order, are we not faced with record subsidy contracts for offshore wind? Is there not a rise in the annual budget for fixed bottom offshore contracts from 900 million when it was first announced, the terms were first announced in October only three months ago, to 1.8 billion last week. Is the consequence of a poor UK economy and a loss of jobs from the once prosperous Aberdeen, now facing the chill winds of offshore recession. Is it true these are massive wins to the Germans, who totally dominated the round and won the lion's share of the contracts? My Lords, I conclude by asking the Minister whether he agrees with the analysis in the feet of the article which covered this round, one reader wrote, and I quote, we have just about the highest electricity prices in the world.

Despite access to relatively low cost North Sea gas, we have loads of gas boilers, so ongoing gas grid upgrades are required irrespective of investment in extremely expensive renewables. And does the government agree with this editor, helm, that current UK electricity prices are high? Because the true system costs of integrating intermittent renewables, wind and solar, plus grid upgrades and backup aren't fully priced in. Does he agree with me, my Lords, that we all want clean, low cost, renewable energy? We all want and can have domestic gas production, which has far lower impact on the environment than imported LNG or high cost CO2 emissions from Drax.

Why can't we strive to deliver a policy built on these three pillars? I look forward to the Minister's reply.
20:21
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his position. I look forward to his position. I look forward to working with him. My Lords, on these benches, we welcome the results of Allocation round seven, which has secured a record 8.4GW of future offshore wind capacity, including 192.5MW of innovative floating offshore wind, and seen £22 billion in private investment. My Lords, this marks an important step forward on our clean power journey and towards our future energy independence enough clean energy to power the equivalent of some 12 million homes, or roughly equivalent to 12.12% of national energy demand.

It shows that when properly managed, Britain can lead the world in clean, secure and affordable energy. After the chaos of the previous governments failed allocation. Round five, which delivered no offshore energy energy contracts at all. This progress is indeed an enormous relief. This auction confirms that my what my party has long argued, offshore wind is the future backbone of our energy electricity system. Projects such as Berwick Bank in Scotland are set to become the largest offshore wind farm in the world and the one in Wales, the name of which literally means sea breeze.

The is the first major Welsh project in over a decade show that progress is being made. But this is not only about climate targets, its about our future national energy security and an increasingly unstable world. Every turbine we build reduces our reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets. Securing Britain's wind power means freeing ourselves from the price shocks of the global gas markets. We should recall that the Office of Budget Responsibility estimated that the UK's energy support response to the war in Ukraine in Ukraine, driven by fossil fuel prices rises, costs US 78.2 billion over 20 2223 and 2324.

In contrast, my Lord, CBI figures show that the green economy grew by ten points, 10% in 2024 and Ar7 secures an important future pipeline of continued and sustained green jobs and green British jobs. The UK has some of the best wind resources in the world and when we harness our own renewables, wind, solar and tidal, we strengthen our energy independence. Despite what some may claim, wind power remains the most effective long term way to bring down energy bills.

The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit reports that in 2025 alone, wind generation reduced wholesale electricity prices by around one third. The average strike price in this round. Around £91 per megawatt hour remained extremely competitive by comparison, building and running a new gas power plant today would cost around £147 per megawatt hour, making wind power roughly 40% cheaper. However, we must be candid candid about the challenges the sector faces. Bid prices are rising, driven by global supply chain pressures, high interest rates and soaring material costs, particularly for copper and steel.

I therefore ask the Minister what steps the government is taking to address these issues so that our 2030 offshore wind targets remain achievable. The contracts for difference mechanism protects consumers and secures inward investment. It is a policy that has stood the test of time, but it can still be improved. Is the Minister considering extending CfD contract lengths from 20 to 25 years? This could provide greater certainty, lower financial costs and ultimately deliver cheaper electricity. Similarly, moving older renewable projects from more expensive renewable obligations certificates to new CfD contracts we think could save households up to £200 a year.

More broadly, urgent action is needed to reduce energy costs by other means. Now that the government has ruled out zonal pricing, I ask the Minister what alternative market reforms are being pursued to drive down energy bills despite rising renewable generation, gas still sets the market price at around 97% of the time. Our proposals being assessed to move gas plants into a regulated asset base, as has been suggested, this could potentially save some £5.1 billion a year by 2028, according to calculations done by Greenpeace.

If we do not urgently upgrade and streamline our transmission systems, this record capacity will remain stuck in connection queues. Instead of reaching our homes and businesses. Does the Minister agree that a long term, properly resourced spatial energy plan is now urgent and essential to ensure that these connections happen at speed? The Liberal Democrats have a clear vision for 90% of the UK's electricity to be generated from renewables by 2030. R7 is indeed a welcome step on the road, but more must be done to ensure we reach our targets, reduce the cost of energy bills and update our transmission systems.

Here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank the noble Lords for their contributions this for their contributions this evening, deeply contrasting in both tone and content, one of which I tone and content, one of which I substantially agree with. The other, which I don't really at all, and we'll have no guesses as to who we'll have no guesses as to who fits what. Bill. I am particularly disappointed as far as the contribution from the opposition benches is concerned, from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who I think I've already welcomed to his place in questions.

But perhaps this is the first time we have sat across the benches in in statements and various other debates, so a further welcome would not go amiss. And I hope this will indeed is shaping to be the beginning of a a good debate between us in the House as it goes forward. I think it's worth just reiterating what
20:28
Lord Whitehead Portrait Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
actually happened in R7 in order for the the House to judge whether for the the House to judge whether this was the miserable failure that the the opposition benches appear to suggest it was, or the great to suggest it was, or the great success that I think it is, and indeed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Russell, clearly also thinks Lord Russell, clearly also thinks so. We procured this time in R7. Eight point for gigawatts of new clean, low carbon power for this country.

That's new capacity over and above what we have at the moment, and indeed represents 40%, no less than 40% of of the installed capacity of offshore wind so far. So in one round, the amount of capacity that we have as far as wind is concerned has just leapt. And that's at a clearing price 20% below the administrative ceiling price. So a very competitive auction undertaken and a a clearing price that actually is within bounds at the moment of present market prices as far as energy is concerned.

And indeed, if, as we see the likely future is concerned, not only probably below or thereabouts in terms of market prices for the future, but a stable amount of cost, whereas of course, what we don't know at the moment is where gas prices are going, where energy prices are going because of the extreme volatility in the world and indeed the extreme volatility of gas prices over the last five years. And indeed, interestingly, the gas price in between this statement being read in another place and the reading of the statement now, gas prices have leapt by getting on for 40%.

So we are in a volatile a really volatile gas market at the moment. And don't forget the prices went up as high as 600 p per therm in the period just after the invasion of Ukraine. So compare the volatile price of gas fuels. If we go down the particular route that the opposition benches have suggested, as far as energy is concerned, more purchase of unabated gas fired power stations. And don't forget, this is not only a an auction about energy prices and capacity.

It's an auction about low carbon energy prices and capacity and among other things, if the opposition benches had their way, we would have apparently invest in a huge number of unabated natural gas power stations, which means we will be locked into that high carbon system of generating powers for perhaps another 30 to 40 years, which would be completely insupportable in terms of anybody's ambitions as far as energy is concerned. Now, the the noble Lord says that he wants our energy policy to be characterised by security, affordability and clean energy.

And I would suggest that in terms of this particular round, we have achieved a great step forward for our energy security. This is all home grown energy that we're talking about here, not stuff that's coming in from ships somewhere else. Or is the responsibility of a dictator or a cabal of overseas energy organisations. This is British home grown local energy, which we have procured, and a bright future goes with it. Affordability. Well. What I think we need to look at and indeed the the on the noble Lord referred to the levelized cost of energy, which he said wasn't the way to to compare prices anymore.

A little bit surprising, because that's exactly what the last government did when it went into previous rounds. And by the way, went into a previous round ar5, where they secured precisely zero low carbon energy in that particular round. So compare and contrast, if you will, with what we are talking about today. But. It is it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell says, that the the clearing price of this auction ought to be put in the context of what do you do when you try and get new capacity on board as far as this country is concerned, you can either buy a series of gas fired power stations, £134 per megawatt hour as levelized cost of energy, or you could in procure low carbon capacity, which both meets your climate targets and keeps the prices down on a constant basis of affordability for the future.

So the result of the auction is actually a good result for affordability and for stability of prices in the future. Because if we are if we are thinking of building new capacity £134 in megawatt hour Levelized cost of energy as again Levelized cost of energy as again as against £91, and we have procured something like five gas fired power stations worth of energy output with this, with this auction, as far as we're concerned, then there's really no contest.

And of course, finally, as I've said, it is clean energy. And that is what I thought we were all committed to for a period in the past. And it is extremely disappointing that the benches opposite appear to have decided to move away from clean energy and go back to gas and dirty energy, which we really can't sustain as far as our futures are concerned.
20:36
20:37
Lord Whitehead Portrait Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
Well, I thank the noble Baroness >> Well, I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention, and it does give me an opportunity indeed to give me an opportunity indeed to confirm the two floating offshore wind projects that have been agreed under this auction round. And I might add, by the way, the auction rounds were not, as some people have portrayed them, a sort of shoe in for anybody who wanted to come along and invest. And they were actually very competitive.

Substantially larger number of entrants to the auction than than were finally agreed, which, among other things, shows that there is a real appetite for this kind of investment going forward. And that is the case with floating offshore wind. And although the, the, the two schemes, one in Scotland, one in the Celtic Sea that were agreed are not, shall we say, final full scale arrays as far as floating is concerned, they represent a tremendous step forward in the development of offshore beyond the continental shelf in the UK, so that huge new areas offshore as far as the UK can be opened up to offshore wind.

Now, of course, that price is not the same as the price we achieved with the mature bottom based offshore wind that that we've been talking about. But actually if we look at the administrative, the original administrative strike prices when offshore first took off, they were not dissimilar to the sort of prices that we're now seeing for floating offshore wind. And I'm confident that once those arrays get larger and the the flow of fabrication and assistance, which the noble Baroness will probably know is already happening very positively in the in the Celtic Sea in particular.

The net benefit for Great Britain of floating offshore wind will not just be a large number of jobs and. Income coming into different areas of the UK than has been the case for bottom based offshore at the moment, but actually it will represent a technology which really does allow the whole of the UK to participate in the offshore wind revolution and not the areas that are hitherto had. The, the, the, the, the main development in their particular zones.

So Celtic Sea in particular is just a taster for what is going to come in the not too distant future. And by the way, it will be a future in floating offshore wind, which will be a British future. It will be home-grown technology leading in this particular area, which not only has an impact as far as the UK is concerned, but probably has a very substantial export impact as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well. I also welcome Lord Moynihan to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also welcome Lord Moynihan to the front bench and his expertise, and he is certainly a very effective parliamentarian, even if effective parliamentarian, even if I don't agree very much with his narrative. But we'll see where we narrative. But we'll see where we get to there. My Lords, I also welcome the government's announcement, but I think it's announcement, but I think it's important that we remember that electricity is only part of our energy needs in this country. The other side are particularly transport and heating, and I'm concerned that the while the government may remain strong in terms of electricity generation in those other areas, they we get whispers of moving backwards.

And I would like to in terms of electric vehicles, in terms of heat pumps and finding alternatives to space heating, I'd like to hear a reassurance from the government. That's not the case. I certainly hope it isn't. And also, where are we now in terms of the future home standard? That's absolutely fundamental in terms of how we move forward domestically, in terms of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

energy consumption. Well, the noble Lord, I'm afraid, will have to wait for about a week or so before the Warm Homes plan or so before the Warm Homes plan comes out, and that will contain some, I am reliably informed, a some, I am reliably informed, a great deal of detail about precisely the areas of of heat efficient, low carbon homes, heat pumps, all those sort of things which are the other side, as it were, of the energy revolution, which we hope will will begin to be combined together into coherent programmes, working with each other to ensure that, among other things, that greatest piece of low carbon energy, the energy you don't use is is properly incorporated into overall programmes.

And. I can assure the the noble Lord that this is very much uppermost on our minds. We're aiming and always have to develop a comprehensive suite of
20:43
20:44
20:44
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
days when you put out a auction and nobody played the the game. It nobody played the the game. It really was quite heartbreaking when we had that dreadful doldrum days. But if I could just focus on something that the noble Lord Lord Moynihan raised, which is the increased demand for energy, and particularly that caused by data particularly that caused by data and AI centres. I think I think the one thing we mustn't allow to happen is that we accept that that's a given, because it does seem to me that we've been fairly effective in keeping the whole concept of energy efficiency alive.

And the Warm Homes standard is going to be a good example of that. But I think the questions that need to be raised about whether some of the predictions for the energy demand of AI needs to be approached in a different way. That takes an approach that says we cannot simply see demand increase, but we must adopt measures that mean that some of these centres are using not only the most up to date modern technologies, but encouraging future technologies in order to reduce their impact on the environment, not only on energy use but also on water use.

I would love to say that photonics was the answer if I only knew what photonics was. But you know, there are there are technologies that are being talked about that that will impact on AI demand. And I think that I would appreciate a comforting voice from the Minister that that we're not going to lose sight of trying to this very new point in seeing a further increase in demand. Really seriously examine the technologies that are possible.
20:46
Lord Whitehead Portrait Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
My noble friend makes a very >> My noble friend makes a very important point about the the amount of work we still have to do, the extent to which we've actually got to integrate what we're doing into a whole low carbon system that works. And for example, one of the consequences of the neglect of grid development and indeed methods of supporting grid development, which were grievously neglected by the were grievously neglected by the previous administration.

Is that. If we can develop grid queues to get shorter. If we can develop the grid itself, if we can use the grid much more efficiently, then, for example, a lot of the constraints that we're seeing at the moment in the system will actually fade away. So the system itself will be used far more efficiently with a very large, greater amount of electricity flowing around the system, i.e. making much more efficient use of what we have already. But I do agree that there are some unprecedented demands coming our way, particularly as far as data centres are concerned, and we need to look at imaginative ways in which we can not only make sure that we are ready for that particular demand, but actually start to look at how those data centres themselves can actually can actually fuel their own requirements.

So whether you start developing data centres in conjunction with heat sources, for example, so that the heat requirements are those data centres can be dealt with on site, whether there are ways in which local grid systems, outside constraints can actually feed into data centre development. All those things need to be looked at in the context of a whole system analysis of how an efficient energy system is going to work for the future. So certainly getting a fabulous result as far as offshore wind is concerned is we do very much recognise only part of the issue.

It's a much wider issue than that, and it's one we've got to get right in terms of what we know is going to be a very substantial demand ahead of us for electricity in the years ahead. My Lords, first, I should, of course,
20:48
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-
congratulate my noble and homonymous. Friend on his his new homonymous. Friend on his his new position, which I'm sure he will occupy with distinction. And the occupy with distinction. And the noble Minister asked the question about dirty energy, and how could about dirty energy, and how could we possibly promote it? It is, on the other hand, in fact, the truth is the reverse. The noble Minister is promoting dirty energy, having deindustrialised this country with impossibly expensive energy. We now by our steal our goods and even the solar panels for this renewable energy from China, which makes them with electricity generation or power energy generation stations fuelled with coal, of which they build one per week, another one every week.

And that is where the dirt, my Lords, is going up into the atmosphere. And amazingly, it travels around the world. It doesn't just hang over China. So that is where the dirt is. My Lords, it is a complete mistake to believe that that this side is against clean energy. We're just for sensible energy. And I noticed also, my Lords, that the noble Minister did not reply to my noble friend's remark about intermittency and the fact that right now we do have quite a lot of offshore wind, but it's not being used much because the wind ain't blowing.

And does he think that these new contracts for difference will make any difference to the wind as it decides whether to blow or not? I don't believe so. The fact the fact of the matter is, my Lords, I mean, I agree with the noble Earl Russell. We can lead the world. We can lead the world in high electricity prices, which we are doing right now. And and whether or not we, we have these offshore, this offshore wind, we will need gas.

We will need gas. As the noble Lord implied earlier also. And and we're closing down our gas. We're refusing new gas wells to be built in the North Sea. So what are we doing? We're buying it from the North Sea, from Norway, and it is very noticeable, my Lords, that that that it was announced today that Norway's sovereign wealth fund is 2 trillion oil fund has embarked on a major sell off of its holdings in London listed small cap and mid-cap companies, even as Rachel Reeves hails a new golden age for the city.

Blah blah. My Lords, question coming. I'm just trying to remember to forgive me. Would it be the case, my Lord? Could the noble Minister confirm that? The noble Baroness said in the bad old days, nobody played the game? It's great that now they're playing the game. Is it the case that the that the private equity houses, which are the major financiers of these contracts, only agreed this very high price, which will further ruin our economy? They only agreed to do it if they got 20 years.

And is that why the noble Baroness is able to rejoice that somebody's playing the game now? Because they got 20 years in which our economy will be ruined.
20:52
Lord Whitehead Portrait Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
I really don't recognise the scenario that the noble Lord paints this sudden settlement is not only good for energy prices, and indeed renewables and low carbon energy have actually reduced overall prices by 25% because of the effect of the merit order and and the and the driving of gas to the margins the driving of gas to the margins in terms of prices, the. The industrial work that will be undertaken. And by the way, the government is producing clean energy bonus to make sure that that work is in Britain will be enormously good for very large amounts of jobs, very large amounts of industrial fabrications.

Erection of piles of of jackets and all sorts of things which go with this. So it's a major industrial step forward for this country in its own right. The noble Lord mentioned that I, I hadn't said anything about the intermittency. Well, I thought I had sort of, among other things, dealt with that issue by the fact that one of the things we have to do as far as our energy is concerned is run the whole system smartly and.

Wind itself, both onshore and offshore, has tremendously increased its efficiency, i.e. the proportion of time it actually does produce wind. And actually one of the issues at the moment is not whether wind collectively produces a large amount of output on a reliable basis. And after all, we had over 80 days last year when renewables and low carbon completely fuelled our energy economy. But the the fact that intermittency is only a problem if you don't have a smart system to use that energy where you have it in the smartest possible way, and that's, among other things, why there's been such a development imperative on batteries and other low carbon forms of storage, which actually distributes the energy in in a much more coherent way from the sources that we have.

So it really is not a a scene I recognise. I don't think the British economy is going to be ruined by this. On the contrary, this is going to be a great leap forward for the British economy. After all, the green economy in Britain is growing, as has been said on a number of occasions, three times as fast as the general economy. This is where the growth is going to come from over the next period, and this is very much a leading part of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

growth and that new industrial future. My Lords. There's time very briefly, the noble Lord, the Minister, just referred to onshore wind. And of course, we saw under previous governments a grinding halt come to onshore wind for reasons of short onshore wind for reasons of short term political apparent advantage. But I wonder if the noble Lord, the Minister, can say onshore wind, Minister, can say onshore wind, which of course has the potential to be part of community energy schemes.

Offshore tends to be inevitably very large multinational companies, but onshore has the chance for communities to decide for themselves how to generate their own energy, use local resources. Can the noble Lords Minister just very briefly outline where the government's going with that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the noble Baroness, I'm sure, will be aware that one of the very first things that the new Labour government did when it took office was literally, at the stroke office was literally, at the stroke of a pen, removed the ban on onshore wind, and we have onshore wind, and we have subsequently made sure that onshore enters the the allocation rounds. enters the the allocation rounds. We have great British energy, which at a local level will undoubtedly be supporting quite a lot of onshore wind and indeed a number of other community and local renewable resources, so that the the future for onshore is set very fair, because after all, that's even cheaper than offshore is concerned and just as reliable and long term indeed marginally better in terms of its, its, its, its overall performance.

So onshore is something we very much want to see as part of the overall package. And I and again, the noble Baroness will just have to wait for about a week before she sees what we've come up with. As far as the allocation around further pots are concerned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, that concludes the questions on the statement. We'll questions on the statement. We'll give one minute to swap the frontbenchers. frontbenchers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report Report of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report of Report of the Report of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill Baroness Smith of Malvern. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I beg to move that this bill be now further considered on report. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now further considered on report. As many as have had your say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 63 Baroness Barran.
20:58
20:59
21:00
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-

>> 63 and. >> 64, tabled by the noble Baroness. Lady Baron in relation to provider over the Provider Oversight Scheme. The scheme will enable Ofsted to require provider groups to implement an improvement plan across multiple settings, where Ofsted reasonably suspect standards are not being met in those settings. If the provider group does not adequately implement improvements, Ofsted will be able to issue them with a fine. Amendment 63 seeks to ensure that where an applicant for registration with Ofsted is a subsidiary undertaking, the applicant applicant must provide information about its provider group.

This information must be kept updated and new powers would provide for enforcement of these requirements and regulations. I do not believe this amendment is necessary. This is because there are existing powers in the Care Standards Act 2000, sections 12 and 22, which we intend to use to impose requirements on an applicant for registration or a person already registered to carry on an establishment or agency to provide information in relation to its parent undertaking. For example, contact details for service of relevant notices by email and information about other subsidiaries.

Subsidiaries under the same parent undertaking. Amendment 64 seeks to ensure that when a parent undertaking is required to implement an improvement plan, they are subject to financial and commercial restrictions, including the limitation on the acquisition of further subsidiaries, opening of new establishments or agencies, and organisational or financial restructuring of the parent undertaking. While the improvement plan is being implemented, the measure as drafted, allows for regulations to set out that a person is not a fit and proper person to carry on an establishment or agency where their parent undertaking, obviously the provider group has failed or is failing to comply with an improvement notice.

This will allow Ofsted to refuse registration applications in respect of new settings that are under the ownership or control of the parent undertaking that has failed to comply with provider oversight requirements. The significant restrictions created by this amendment on parent undertakings, which are implementing an improvement plan, would not be proportionate, given that the purpose of this measure is to require the provider group to implement change quickly across all settings where concerns have been identified. Turning to Government Amendment 65, it is vital that the safeguarding of children and to the safeguarding of children that relevant authorities can quickly and efficiently issue notifications and documents were needed to persons carrying on or managing establishments, agencies and parents undertakings.

This measure will amend the section 37 of the Care Standards Act 2000, so that Ofsted notices and documents under part two of the act can be served by email. It will give the option to choose between delivering notifications by post, by hand or by email. This amendment aligns with our wider aims to deliver efficient technological services. It will bring coherence to communications across reforms and eliminate outdated, costly and time consuming requirements of delivery only by hand or post.

This will reduce the risk of sensitive financial information being lost and reduced delays to decisions that could impact the delivery of children's social care services, and resolving concerns about the care that children receive. I hope I have addressed the noble Baroness concerns and I hope she will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw her amendments. I thank the noble Lady for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lady for her remarks and I accept them perhaps more in relation to my amendment 63 more in relation to my amendment 63 than my amendment 64. But time will tell how the government's plans

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tell how the government's plans work out. And with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendments. Proposed amendment. Withdrawn.
21:05
21:05
21:05
21:06
21:06
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Baroness Garden of Frognal (Liberal Democrat)
-

them. I'm alert to them, but I can I can choose to ignore them. What we need to have is something that
21:06
None Portrait Amendment:75 The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-

requires local authorities to actually take this seriously. And the concept of due regard, it's well understood in many other aspects of law. As a bishop, I'm used to being policies of the Church of England to which I'm required to have due regard. If I simply had to be alert to them, then I don't think they would get the attention and the focus that they need. So very briefly, amendment 75 puts, instead of just being alert to something that I think we all understand is a higher bar, but something which I think is achievable.

Amendment 76 again, reasonable steps. Relevant authority. Exercising the duty must take reasonable steps to avoid, reduce or otherwise mitigate any adverse impact of its policies and practices on looked after children and relevant young persons. The key thing here we're not asking for anything unreasonable. This is what it is that is reasonable for a public body, particularly a local authority, to do beyond. Again, just being aware. Aware is really no better than alert. How are they going to take reasonable and practical steps to prevent harm that's being done when some policy is being implemented.

It complements the aims of the bill. It provides a clear framework for shared action and accountability. And finally, being equally brief, if I turn to amendment 96 around equality impact assessments, I know it's not practically possible to create being care experiences yet another protected characteristic in the law. But what we do need to do is to see that those bits of the law that particularly impact on those children in care, or people who've been in care, that there is some way of understanding what impact is being had.

There is a misprint, I fear, in the text as printed on the Marshalled List. The Equality Act very famous act was called 2010, not 2020. It's been around rather longer than than the amendment. And I'm sorry, that was my people who who put the wrong number in there. But really we're looking at that. The impact of on persons who are looked after by a local authority, who are under 25, I think again and again, we've been trying in various aspects of this bill, as I did in my own private member's bill a few months ago, to say, really, the impact of care experience, at the very least, needs to be tracked through to the age of 25.

We need to be and we need to be supporting young people up through that age. As was said in an earlier group this evening, most young people, including I fear my kids, were still heavily dependent on me and my wife well beyond the age of 25. We're talking here about about young people who don't have the bank of mum and dad, don't have that kind of traditional parental support. We really do need to do our best for them. So I won't delay your Lordships any more.

But I would urge the Minister, perhaps, to give me such assurance as she can possibly give me this evening that will persuade me that I don't need, at this late hour to be testing the opinion of the House. I'm very grateful for the Lord Mohammed of Tinsley who supported

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these amendments, and I hope he will have something to add in a moment or two. Amendment proposed clause 21.
21:10
21:10
Lord Moraes Portrait Lord Moraes (Labour)
-
-
>> In my name and that of my noble friend Baroness Lister, who moved a similar amendment in committee. May similar amendment in committee. May I apologise to the House for not being in committee to speak to this amendment due to a period of illness last year. My Lords amendment concerns a new statutory duty for corporate parents to be alerted to matters concerning children's wellbeing. In this respect, there are a group of children in the UK are entitled to citizenship, but for various reasons do not achieve it.

This is not widely understood generally, but even amongst parents, foster parents, corporate parents of those children achieving their citizenship under British nationality law is good for the children who gain stability and for society, which sees the integration of children, often in vulnerable situations. Here, my Lords, I should declare that also I am a patron of the non-profit project for the Registration of Children. As British citizens, we want to ensure in this amendment that there is no duplication of duties on the Secretary of State, while ensuring that duties on corporate parents under section 21 one concerning the well-being of young people, include appropriate consideration of nationality rights.

We do not want to see children being wrongly categorised or treated as if this is wholly a matter of immigration or discretion. In committee, the Minister placed an emphasis on section 55 of the borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act, which states that the Home Secretary should be the one discharging citizenship in relation to the safeguarding and welfare needs of the child. But this, my Lords place, is the sole duty on the Home Secretary. It does not apply to the corporate parents to whom the new duty is to apply.

Our amendment understands the importance of section 55, but ensures that care providers to whom the new duty is to apply, are not left without the protection of any statutory duty altogether. In relation to these child citizenship applications. In committee, the Minister suggested that the government are reflecting on the requirement to support children in gaining citizenship. That is welcome, and that it is welcome that the government is considering what further steps to take in this area. But this amendment would support those efforts by ensuring that corporate parents could act on whatever new policy or practice was brought forward by the Home Office.

My Lords, while we welcome government steps to improve local authority practice in relation to child citizens, the experience of credible practitioners on the ground like Prbc is that these rights are not widely known or acted upon, and any improvement, any improvements that are seen are not uniform, with some local authorities showing evidence of no improvement at all. My noble friend, the Minister is probably aware that a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend, have been pressing the case for children in this situation for many years.

Government support for this amendment would ensure that these important children's rights are not overlooked by local authorities in their role as corporate parents.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I also rise to support to talk to amendments 75 and 76 to talk to amendments 75 and 76 that the Lord prelate, the Bishop of Manchester, set out powerfully and I fully support the arguments. and I fully support the arguments. Last week, my Lords, I hosted a meeting in your Lordship Lordships meeting in your Lordship Lordships Committee, room one, actually, which showcase care experience for protected characteristics. The room
21:13
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
protected characteristics. The room was full care. Experienced people had travelled from across the United Kingdom to be there because they wanted to, their voices to be heard. And I speak today to ensure that those voices are heard in your Lordships House care experience. People are asking that relevant bodies in the exercise of their corporate parenting duties are required to have due regard. As we heard earlier, one carer care experienced person told us and I quote, I deserve to have my voice heard to create real change, to often decisions are made about us, but without us.

Another said care experienced individuals need recognising because our outcomes are constantly poor, yet our insight is rarely used when services are designed. At that meeting, my Lords Terry Galloway, who often helps and supports these young people of care experiences, offered a simple but striking example. He asked us to imagine driving down a road in a fast car and you see a child standing in the road. You are alert to that child being there, but you drive straight through them and you say that your duty has been discharged because you were alert to them being there.

These children contrast that with the duty of due regard on the same road and the same child discharging that duty would require you to stop the car, get out, speak to the child, and you would seek an understanding of why they are in the road, and whether there is something you can do to help them. As one contributor put it, being listened to is not enough. If nothing changes, we want our experiences to to shape policy, not to acknowledge after the damage is done.

That is what care experienced people are asking for. They want to be heard, my Lords, they want to be considered. And where mitigation is possible, they want it built in at the point when services and policies are designed, rather than be treated as an afterthought. I want to just briefly talk about amendment 96 as well. That amendment is about honouring the voices of care experienced people across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are actively engaged in campaigns to see care experience properly recognised in public decision making.

This amendment does not create a new protected characteristics. What it does is require care experienced people to be considered within the equality impact assessment. Care experienced people have told us clearly that policies and services are, like I said earlier, too often designed without reference to their lived experiences. Despite the fact that the outcomes of this group are constantly poor. As one contributor put it, if policies continue to be designed without our input, it will continue to fail us. As my Lords, we will be aware.

Clause 21 on corporate parenting applies to England only. Amendment 96 provides a mechanism to allow all parts of the United Kingdom to move in the same direction, while fully respecting devolved powers. The amendment places, on the face of the bill an option for each nation to consider care. Experienced people within equality impact assessments. It does not impose a single approach, nor does it override devolved competence. Each devolved administration will retain the ability to decide whether and how to give effect to this provision, including through legislative consent motions or by introducing equivalent provisions within their own jurisdiction.

In that sense, this amendment creates alignment rather than compulsion. It provides shared legislative frameworks within each nation, can act when it judges at the time is right. We have heard this evening about disadvantage that care experienced young people have had. We have heard the poor life chances and about lives cut short too early. Amendment 96 seeks to ensure that these realities are considered at a point where policy is developed not only after harm has occurred. There is clear precedent in this approach.

Section one of the Equalities Act of 2010, the socio economic duty was placed on statute books as part of the UK's act, but its commencement was left to the discretion of each administration. It sat in isolation until devolved governments chose to bring it in into force within their own jurisdiction. Scotland and Wales have done so, while others have taken a different approach. That model demonstrates how Parliament can place a provision on the face of an act to create legal space for progress, while fully respecting devolution.

Amending 96 follows the same approach. It's a place mechanism in law that enables every part of the United Kingdom to act when ready in support of care. Experienced people whose voices we have heard so clearly and so powerfully. Last week in your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships Committee room. My Lords, I'm pleased to speak in support of amendment 77, to in support of amendment 77, to which I've added my name. May I use the opportunity to thank my noble friend, the Minister, for the helpful meeting that I and helpful meeting that I and stakeholders had with her to discuss the other issue I raised alongside this in committee. As my alongside this in committee. As my noble friend has said, I and other noble Lords have been pressing the case of children who have not case of children who have not claimed citizens the citizenship status to which they are entitled for many years, including raising the issue of the high fees that can act as a barrier.

Indeed, we've earned the label of terriers on the subject, so I'm delighted to welcome my noble friend Lord Moraes to the noble band of terriers. And like him, I speak as a patron of the project for the registration of Children as British citizens. This amendment, so ably introduced by my noble friend, would help to ensure that these children citizenship rights are not overlooked by local authorities in their role as
21:19
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
corporate parents. And as he emphasised, this concerns a statutory entitlement to citizenship and not a matter of immigration or discretion. All too often, the two have been conflated often, the two have been conflated in the past by government, and the consequence of this right not being given effect has been spelt out by given effect has been spelt out by the High Court, who noted that children who identify as British but who have effectively been but who have effectively been deprived of citizenship, can feel alienated, excluded, isolated, second best, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK.

I also echo my noble friends welcome for the consideration the government are giving to how better to support these children in establishing their right to citizenship. The White Paper, Restoring Control over the Immigration System stated that in the near term, the government will ensure children who have been fully in the UK for some time turn 18 and discovered that they do not have status, are fully supported and able to regularise their status and settle. This will also include a clear pathway for those children in care and care leavers.

This amendment, which also relates to some children born in this country, will make it less likely that children in this situation will turn 18 without having claimed their right to citizenship. So there is a good case for the government accepting it. And given that the White Paper commitment was made last May and related to the near term, may I ask what the government have done to realise it? My Lords, these are important issues for children's citizenship rights and wellbeing, so acceptance of this amendment would strengthen the Bill as it relates to some of the most marginalised children in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our country. My Lords, it's. A very great pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness Lister, as the noble Lady Baroness Lister, as I have many times before on this subject, joining the terrier pack subject, joining the terrier pack yet again. And I think it's a great pity that that pack still needs to form. I think all of the other occasions were under the previous government, and we were hoping that we might be able to disband and we might be able to disband and head on to other things, but I wanted to particularly join the noble Lady Baroness Lister in welcoming the noble Lord Lord Moraes, and thank him for tabling this amendment, to which, very late in the day, I attached my name.

I just caught up with this bill along the tracks. The noble Lady and the noble Lord have both made the case overwhelmingly for amendment 77, so I won't go over the same ground as they did, but I will just again highlight the work of the campaigning work of citizens UK in particular, who've really focussed on the incredible difficulty of the cost of more than £1,200 of applications for citizenship fee, and the fact that so many people are unaware this is necessary.

And the one additional point that I will make is that we have seen in the Windrush scandal, the British
21:22
21:23
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Briefly talk to amendment 75 and 76. I think these amendments are 76. I think these amendments are very important, and it's a great pity that we're discussing them at the end of of this day. I was sort of think of the the saying. Words, the actions or the assassins of idealism. And I wonder if these are not too general. I don't know what alert means. I can be alert to something and do nothing about it where I actually want something to happen, I very much, and it says have due regard to.

I can have due regard to something. I have due regard to the fact it's raining. You know, I don't choose to put my umbrella up or don't choose to warn other people. It's raining, so I'm just I want something more definite, I think. But I think there's the spirit. I say that to her, to an Anglican bishop. The spirit is there in the in the amendment. And I very much understand what he is saying in this amendment. I also like the he mentioned silos.

Silos are just the silo working. You talk to those Lordships who served on the Children and Families Bill in the during the coalition period, and we came up, of course, with education, health care plans. The health service were not interested at all. They wanted to work entirely in their own silo, and all the attempts to get them to work across just failed completely. So I don't know really. I'm not being very helpful here. I'm afraid hearing voices is important.

Listening, doing things important. I think there must be good practice up and down the country, and I think we need to know about that good practice. Perhaps the Minister's department know about these good practices where the voice of the carer of the child is heard and where something happens. I remember from my own experience or not, my personal experience where young children in a care home formed a Kirk Children's Council and they met each month and somebody from the education department came along and listened to what they said and had to go back and report to the counsellors and then come up with an action plan and then go back to the the school council.

And that actually did bring some results. Not least it gave the young carers confidence to stand up and speak. It gave them confidence to actually challenge and say why is nothing being done about that. So I think these amendments are really important, but I think we need to spend more time actually pinpointing what we need to do, if that makes sense.
21:26
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, whilst His Majesty's loyal Opposition agrees that these amendments are sensibly drafted, and as was highlighted by the noble Lord Lord Suri just now that the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester, clearly has the best interests of looked after children in mind in wanting to see stronger duties placed upon local authorities to acknowledge, assess and act to reduce the disadvantages that they undoubtedly face. We do not necessarily believe that amendment 75 and 76 are entirely necessary, given the measures already contained within this bill.

Amendment 75 would require relevant authorities to have due regard to the need to minimise disadvantages faced by looked after children. In addition to the measures already stipulated in the Bill. And whilst we understand that this is absolutely the right thing to do, the Bill does contain similar provisions. With that aim, authorities will be required to be alert to matters that adversely affect, or might adversely affect looked after children, and then to assess what services are available to them.

The requirement to be alert and to then assess available steps represents an intention that action is taken to aid children. We believe this achieves the same aim as the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord. Lord Mohammed amendment. Amendment 76 then builds on the previous one by placing a duty on relevant authorities to act upon policies or practices which may be having an adverse impact. Again, my Lords, in our opinion, this overlaps with the duties already set in the bill.

Authorities will be required to assess their services in subsection one B of clause 21, while subsections one C and one D create provisions through which authorities must seek to provide opportunities that enhance wellbeing and future prospects. We would also suggest that amendment 76 appears essentially to ensure that authorities enact policies and practices that are in the children's best interests. This is a duty already prescribed to authorities under the 1989 Children Act, and is already legislated for amendment 96, also in the name of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord Lord Mohammed would include care, experience in equality, impact assessments.

We welcome the intention behind this amendment, but with all due respect, are not convinced by the impact it will have. The government already reviews outcomes for children in need, which includes looked after children, and as such we are mindful of adding additional administrative workloads to public bodies. It would very much be our preference not to add bureaucratic layers to public bodies. If we are uncertain, they will actually result in positive outcomes. Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moraes seeks to remove clause 22, one and two, extending the local authority duty of care to looked after children to the Secretary of State, where section 55 of the borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 overlaps clause 21 from memory.

My Lords, the noble Baroness Stowell Minister gave an extensive reply at Committee stage on this topic. So whilst we understand the importance of this amendment, we will listen with great interest to the noble Baroness, the Minister, who will share her extensive thoughts on this subject.
21:31
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-

Thanks. the first time, key public bodies from Secretaries of State to schools, NHS organisations and regulators will be required to be alert. To matters which affect looked after children and care leavers when shaping policy and services. These new corporate parenting duties aim to drive culture change, tackle stigma and improve outcomes for some of the most vulnerable in our society. I'd like to reassure the noble Lord Lord Mohammed, that the voice of care experienced young people is absolutely crucial in this, and probably I don't know how many others, but certainly I'm sure Lord Mohammed and myself are two people in this chamber who actually have experience of being corporate parents, and we know just how serious that is.

And I understand the reference to language in this, but the responsibilities that come with this are real and important and need to be taken very seriously indeed. Talking to amendments in Group eight, I will speak to amendment 75 and 76, tabled by the Right Reverend the Bishop of Manchester. And again, I completely understand where he is coming from, and we have debated this in other in other areas in this chamber under other means. But these amendments, quite rightly, seek to strengthen the corporate power and duty by requiring relevant authorities to have due regard to removing or minimising disadvantages faced by looked after children and care leavers, and to take steps to avoid or mitigate any adverse impact of their policies and practices.

As I say, we fully share the intent behind these proposals, tackling disadvantage and ensuring that care experienced young people are not adversely affected by public policy, and this is central to our vision for corporate parenting. However, as discussed in committee, the new corporate parenting responsibilities are broad duties that apply in relation to a corporate parent's existing functions and can be implemented in a way to fit the unique circumstances of each corporate parent. We believe that our existing measures seek to achieve the aim of tackling disadvantages experienced by looked after children and care leavers.

The current. Just for a bit of clarity, the current responsibilities require corporate parents to be alert to matters which adversely affect the wellbeing of the cohort, and this will require them to take action as appropriate. So I just want to give reassurance that this isn't a means of just being aware. It actually comes with responsibilities. Therefore, we anticipate that corporate parents already would consider disadvantages experienced by these young people and how they may be addressed.

We support will support implementation through statutory guidance, which will set out the responsibilities and include best practice examples for tackling disadvantage among care experienced young people. Best practice will draw not only on relevant authorities but wider organisations, including local authorities who have taken action, such as representation on governance boards, financial support and discounts, and treating care experience as a protected characteristic. We think this is the best way to deliver impactful change not through this amendment, which, as I've outlined, we think is already sufficiently covered by the clause as drafted.

And I'm delighted to say that we are in contact with Terry Galloway, and he is very supportive of the direction that we're going in. And with his vast experience, he will be an invaluable source to us, making sure that we keep moving on in the right way. Talking to amendment 96, also tabled by the Right Reverend Lord Bishop of Manchester, this amendment would place a duty on public authorities to include inequality, impact assessments and assessment of the impact on persons who are, or have or have been looked after by a local authority.

We are determined to tackle the stigma and discrimination faced by care experienced young people, and this is why the bill introduces corporate parenting duties for Secretaries of State and public bodies, already requiring them to consider the needs of care. Experienced young people with the aim of improving outcomes. Clauses 21 to 25 aim to embed this cohort's challenges into policy and service design. We will commission an implementation implementation partner to support implementation through provision of training and circulation of best practice, including training on how to effectively assess impact of policies and practices on looked after children and care leavers.

And for this reason, we believe that the amendment is not necessary. Turning to amendment 77, tabled by my noble friend Lord Morris, and I'm very pleased that he's back in his rightful place in the chamber. The amendment seeks to amend the exemption on immigration, asylum, nationality, customs, functions in respect of looked after children so that action would be taken in adherence with the corporate parenting responsibility responsibilities. In the exercise of these functions would still be taken where it is not already required by section 55 of the borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.

It also seeks to distinguish functions in relation to the acquisition of British citizenship by statutory right from other nationality functions when exercising duties under section 55 and under clause 21. Whilst I understand my noble friend's intent with this amendment, I want to emphasise that as my noble friend the Minister noted in Committee, our measures require that public bodies named in this legislation be alert to matters which affect the well-being of looked after children and care leavers, regardless of immigration status, except when performing asylum, immigration, nationality or customs functions.

We fully intend intend on partnering with the sector and care experienced young people in the immigration system to make sure that our statutory guidance covers their specific needs and vulnerabilities. We will also ensure our implementation partner will develop and deliver training on this cohort to all new corporate parents. My noble friend, the Minister, as we've heard, recently, met with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister and partner organisations in this area who were greatly reassured by our proposed actions in this area, which I hope is sufficient reassurance to withdraw this amendment.

In addition to this, the Department for education officials will work closely with the Home Office as they develop their proposals in the Immigration White Paper to reduce the financial barriers to young adults who have lived here through their childhood, from accessing accessing British nationality. Local authorities already follow a separate set of corporate parenting principles and are best placed to take steps to consider whether a young person in their care needs support and to seek British citizenship. The Home Office has taken significant steps in recent years to support local authorities in ensuring that children in their care are able to access British citizenship, including by introducing an exception in June 2022 that removed the requirement to pay a fee for an application for citizenship registration by children who are looked after by a local authority.

Just responding. To Baroness Lister. I want to reassure her that we will continue to work with the Home Office on how we can improve the experience of looked after children and care leavers in the immigration, asylum and nationality system. Building on existing measures that the Home Office has taken in this space, and and just reassure her that the further efforts will include working on proposals set out in the White Paper, restoring control over the Immigration System and published on the 12th of May, to ensure children who have been in the UK for some time turn 18 and discover they do not have status, are fully supported and able to regularise their status and settle.

This will include a clear pathway for those children in care and care leavers. The White Paper also sets out that the Home Office will consider measures to reduce the financial barriers to young adults who have lived here through their childhood, from accessing British nationality. Applying the duty to the asylum system would not require the Home Office to decide asylum claims for young people as soon as as possible. Through the steps we are taking in this area to ensure looked after children in immigration system benefit from the corporate parent parenting measures.

We therefore do not see the amendment as necessary. Turning to amendments 7980, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Mohammed, which seeks to ensure that the corporate parenting guidance issued under clause 24 is laid in draft before Parliament. This amendment has, of course, been helpfully raised in reference to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's report. Our response to the recommendation explained that guidance issued under clause 24 will not introduce requirements on corporate parents beyond those enabled by this legislation.

The guidance will help corporate parents understand how the duties could be implemented. Using examples of best practice. We will develop statutory guidance in partnership with corporate parents, and this will then be subject to consultation. This gives all of those affected by the changes, including corporate parents. Local authorities looked after children, care leavers and all of the above an opportunity to have their say. We will also draw on the expertise of the care, experience, community and representative bodies from within the sector, including those who have campaigned for these amendments to support guidance drafting.

I can assure the noble Lords that their input will form the backbone of guidance. I hope with those comments I have addressed the right reverend Prelate concern and that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
21:43
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
My Lord, I'm very grateful for this short debate that we've had this evening. It's clear that we this evening. It's clear that we are all passionate about the same thing. We wouldn't be here at this time on a Monday night if we weren't, and we're passionate about getting the best deal we can for for care leavers, young people in care. And I'm very grateful to hear that. And the fact that we're hearing that from all the frontbenchers gives me some assurance that this is not something that will float away, whether to be a change of government, at least not to any of the parties in this chamber tonight.

I think. Moving on quickly. I do note, however, that the that I'm really appreciate the guidance that's being spoken of, and I do accept the assurances of the noble Lady, the Minister, that there are many matters, that it's proper for Report stage. We sought to put on the face of the bill, but which can be dealt with in that way before the act becomes implemented in due course. My Lords, were I merely alert to the fact it's late of night and I don't have the support of the frontbenchers, I might still waste your next 15 minutes by pushing this to a division.

But I'm not only alert, I'm having due regard to those factors, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

either. Is it your pleasure this amendment be withdrawn, amendment amendment be withdrawn, amendment by leave withdrawn and amendment 76 by leave withdrawn as well in clause 22, amendment 77 Lord Moraes clause 22, amendment 77 Lord Moraes not moved and now in clause 23, not moved and now in clause 23, amendments 27 and sorry 78 and 79 Baroness Finn move formally, right. The question is that these The question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content.

The contents have it in clause 24 Lord Mohammed 79 a not moved and in clause 26 Baroness Miller 80 and 81 moved formally. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. We now come to amendment 82. Baroness Meyer Baroness Blake.
21:45
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, turning now to Group nine, which consists of government amendments in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Smith. There are 82, 83, 84, 85, 244, 245, 249 and 253. They are in relation to consequential provision for Welsh and Scottish Ministers, and minor technical changes relating to the legislation in brackets. Procedure. Publication and repeals. End of brackets in brackets. Wales and Brackets Act 2025. Amendments 82 to 85 relate to clause 26.

Employment of children in England and Wales, and simply update references to the Welsh Statutory Instruments and the procedure they have to follow in the Senate. In consequence of changes made by the legislation. Procedure. Publication Repeals Wales Act 2025, which came into force on the 1st of January 2026. Amendments 249 and 253 do the same for clause 67. This is a change that we are making to refine the drafting in the bill and ensure that the terms used to align with the latest legislative developments.

Amendment 244 will confer power on Welsh Ministers to enable them to make provision consequential to clauses 11 and 12 in brackets, five, 20, 31 and 31 to 36, in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Welsh Parliament. Amendment 245 will confer power on Scottish Ministers to enable them to make provision consequential to clause 11 of the Bill in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

This would ensure that, if any such consequential amendments are identified, Scottish and Welsh Ministers could make those changes to the legislation. I am, of course, grateful for the continued engagement of our Welsh and Scottish counterparts on the passage of this landmark legislation. I beg to move this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed calls for 26, page 45, line six after section 18 page 45, line six after section 18 insert made by the Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

State. My Lords, we thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her clarification of the reasons behind clarification of the reasons behind these consequential amendments. They seem entirely reasonable, and His Majesty's loyal opposition
21:48
21:48
14:00
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Docherty of Milngavie; Lord Pitt-Wilson
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page