Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Barran Excerpts(5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I shall start, where the noble Lord, Lord Storey, finished in recognising the work of Lord Soley, who devoted many years to this issue. I hope somewhere, in his retirement, he is aware of what is happening here.
As we have discussed previously, there are at least three groups of families who educate their children at home: those who do so for philosophical reasons, where they make a positive choice; those who feel their children are struggling at school—many of whom, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Shephard, have special needs—and may not have chosen home education but believe it is in their best interests; and those whose children are faced with exclusion from school or other issues, where we are right to have concerns about their safety. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, whom I genuinely have huge respect for—I am grateful for the collaborative way he has worked on this Bill across the House—talked about serious case reviews, but two-thirds of serious case reviews are of children of preschool age, so we are not comparing apples with apples.
The Government have introduced some very serious, albeit belated, and positive amendments, partly in response to the recommendations from the review of the death of Sara Sharif. Again, like the noble Lord, Lord Storey, we welcome government Amendments 125 and 131 in particular, which would pilot holding a meeting with parents before removing a child from school and giving the option of a visit within 15 days of a child starting home education. But in principle, we support almost all the government amendments in this group.
However, government Amendments 120 and 131 leave material gaps, which I believe we have a duty to close. I was very fortunate to meet recently the authors of the Sara Sharif serious case review, Russell Wate and Jane Wonnacott, in their capacity as independent experts in this area. My revised amendments to Clauses 31 and 32 stem largely from that conversation and might have made a difference in her case but also in many others. The national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel report looked at the cases of 41 home-educated children, six of whom died and 35 of whom suffered serious harm. Of this group, half had never been to school and just over half had no agency involvement at the time. So, not all these children were visible.
We need to be able to talk about this group of children without in any way casting aspersions on the good intentions, commitment and efforts of parents who are bringing up their children by educating them at home who are not at risk. But we do need to learn lessons from these reviews. That is why we write them. And we have to have a proportionate approach to the risk those children face.
I am grateful to the other noble Lords who have signed my Amendment 121A, but I also point out to the House that it has the support of the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza. Amendment 121A would tighten up the conditions that will give the local authority the ability to withhold consent for a child to be electively home-educated; in contrast, as we heard, the government amendment would be limited to a child who had been on a child protection register within the last five years. My amendment would include children who have ever been subject to care proceedings, whether or not they resulted in a care order.
As my noble friend Lady Spielman said—or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Meston, or both—care proceedings are a serious move on the part of the state. In Sara’s case, two care orders were applied for in her short life; neither was successful. Amendment 121A would also include children who have ever been subject to child protection inquiries or placed on the child protection register. Again, in Sara’s case, she was only on a child protection plan at birth, so the Government’s amendment would have made no difference in her case.
Perhaps most importantly, the government amendments currently include children who are defined as a child in need under Section 17 of the Children Act. The Government have already included within Section 17 those children who are in a special school because of their special educational needs and disabilities, but they have expressly excluded children who under Section 17 are a child in need because of abuse or neglect. The department’s own data recently showed there are almost 30,000 children categorised as children in need who are suffering child sexual abuse and a further 12,000 who are sexually exploited. So, the bar for what is a child in need has moved up and up with the pressures that we have seen on the child protection system, and I really hope that the Minister, when she comes to reply, will address that point, because it makes me anxious, with my experience in child protection. These children are under much less scrutiny than the child who is on a plan. They are the more vulnerable children, and I think they need to be included in this group.
When I met with officials, they argued that the Government’s reforms would mean that all those children who are sexually exploited or sexually abused would now be on a child protection plan, but I would rather err on the side of caution and make sure that we capture them in this.
I entirely accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, regarding adoption; that was an oversight in the drafting of my amendment. But let us be clear: the consequence is that a child has to go to school; the consequence is not endless involvement of a local authority in a family’s life. The child goes to school—something which the vast majority of children in this country do.
My Amendment 131A has perhaps been slightly misunderstood. It
“would require the local authority to conduct a home visit where a child has ever been subject to care proceedings, named in a child protection plan”—
not, as was suggested, if there have been investigations that might be malicious—
“or is currently classified as a child in need”.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is right. For some children, home is a safe space, but for too many children, home is the exact opposite, and we need to walk over the threshold on behalf of those children.
I accept there have been concerns about my Amendment 121B, and I would not want to do anything that would put victims of domestic abuse at further risk. I hope the Government can come back with something that is workable there.
Anyone who has worked in child protection will know that the line between the child who dies or is seriously harmed and the child who survives is a very, very fine line; it might come down to the school or the neighbours or the bus driver or somebody noticing something and acting. So, what my amendments aim to do is to cast the net in a proportionate way that would drive professional curiosity on the part of local authority staff but allow us to identify those children who are at risk of suffering neglect or abuse if they are taken out of school and become invisible. I hope the Minister will be able to address those points.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will focus on the detail of the amendments in this group, rather than on some of the broader arguments made by noble Lords. Both on Second Reading and in Committee, we have talked about home education issues at considerable length.
Baroness Barran
“(c) conducting or has ever initiated proceedings under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision),(d) providing services to the child or their family under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of services for children in need, their families, and others),or has ever conducted enquiries or has ever taken action under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (local authority’s duty to investigate).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure local authorities must consent to the withdrawal of a child from school if there are currently, or have ever been, enquiries, proceedings or action initiated in relation to the child under section 31 or 47 of the Children Act 1989 or the child is currently classified as a child in need under section 17 of that Act.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. I hope I will be able to see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on YouTube. Was it a goose, did he say?
Our creative industries are hugely important to this country—we are world leaders—and children and young people play a huge part in their success. One of my ex-pupils, Josh Bolt, was a regular on “Last Tango in Halifax” and, sadly, “Benidorm”; I know that the schooling side worked for Josh.
We are so lucky to have in this House people who have real expertise in particular areas. Obviously, the noble Baroness brings it in relation to the performing arts sector, so we have to listen with great care to what she says. During the coalition, we promised a review— I think PACT was involved—and that decision in 2014 needs to be looked at again. If young people are acting or performing, we need to ensure that they are safeguarded and that their education is there. We also need to ensure that the system does not prohibit them making a valuable contribution, not least to their own career development. I hope the Minister will say some warm and wise words on those amendments.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Minister always says warm and wise words—well, some of the time.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Oh, well, all the time, then.
I will keep my remarks very brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lord Parkinson made a convincing case that children involved in performances should get special consideration in this area. I am not sure whether this is something I have to declare on the register, but my husband appeared in a drinking chocolate advert. I am ashamed to say that I just messaged him and, rather like my noble friend Lord Parkinson, he remembers exactly how much he was paid: £17 a day for two days and £200 for repeat broadcasts. My noble friend made the point very vividly: this means a huge amount to the children involved.
On the amendments tabled my noble friend Lord Wei, he will not be surprised to hear me say that the principles underpinning a register were in the previous Government’s Schools Bill and in the current Government’s manifesto, and we should respect that. Having said that, his Amendment 157A, even if it does not need formally to be in legislation, would be a very constructive way forward. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I feel that this group is becoming something of a confessional. It is very interesting to hear noble Lords’ backgrounds. The thing I love about this House is that noble Lords can bring their personal experiences, which makes the debate so rich. I expected it from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, but it is very interesting to have other experiences coming into the Chamber.
This is a very important group of amendments about making sure that the registration system works, that it captures the appropriate children and that it does not in any way undermine young people’s ambitions. That is a very good point.
Amendments 127 and 129, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, would exclude all child performers from inclusion in the children not in school registers. I thank the noble Baroness for her productive engagement with the department and my noble friend the Minister on these issues that she obviously cares very passionately about. I think that she agrees that home-educated child performers should remain in scope of the registers. For that reason, we cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendment, which would exclude all child performers from the registers. However, I am pleased to confirm that the Government intend to exclude school-registered child performers from the scope of the registers and will consult on this position as part of our wider consultation on the content of the regulations. I hope that that gives her the reassurance that she has been seeking in her conversations with us.
Amendment 130, also tabled by the noble Baroness, seeks to place a duty on local authorities to ensure that any children taking part in a performance, and who are not captured on the children not in school register, are registered under the existing child performance regulations. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that children can take part in performance opportunities while also ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, made a very good point about making sure that all children can take up these incredible offers when they come along.
I reassure the noble Baroness that existing legislation already requires children undertaking certain performances and related activities to be licensed with the relevant local authority. That would remain the case regardless of whether a child was also registered on a children not in school register and, as such, this amendment is not required. We recognise the need to review child performance regulations, and the Government are committed to doing so, as was agreed when the noble Baroness met my noble friend the Minister and officials last September. This review will take account of her concerns, and I am sure that she will look forward to further evidence of that work coming forward. Putting children at the heart of everything we do throughout this legislation is central to our ambition to support young people in this country.
Government Amendment 128 seeks to clarify that children who attend school on agreed part-time arrangements can be included in the children not in school registers where they are also receiving education outside of a school setting. This amendment is necessary to ensure local authorities have oversight of those children and can be confident that their overall education is suitable.
Government Amendment 156 clarifies that a local authority may ask an out-of-school education provider to confirm whether they are providing education to children, whether or not those children live in the authority’s area. That will help local authorities identify children who are not recorded on registers but who should be. Not having this clarification risks a loophole where registration is avoided simply by sending children to providers outside their home authority.
Government Amendment 157 also clarifies how the provider duty will work in practice. The amendment would clarify that providers subject to the duty need to give information only on children living in England and Wales. We recognise that there are providers that have significant online or international offerings that may be captured by the duty on out-of-school education providers. As the children not in school registers apply only to children in England and Wales, it would be inappropriate for local authorities to receive details of children outside of these countries.
Amendment 157A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish annual anonymised statistics on the operation of the registers and school attendance orders. We already publish annual anonymised statistics on home-educated children and school attendance orders drawn from local authorities’ voluntary registers. I emphasise that, once the children not in school registers are implemented, the department intends to continue doing so; where this would not identify individuals, it will also publish the number of complaints and appeals, along with their outcomes.
Amendments 148C and 161B were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, added her name to the former; I do not want to leave her experience out of this. They would require the registers to be reviewed, their findings published, and for the registers to be re-approved by Parliament within a set timeframe. We will evaluate the impact of the registers following implementation and will communicate it to the House. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to create uncertainty for families and local authorities by placing sunset clauses in this legislation.
Amendment 161C, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to give parents an independent route of appeal to decisions made by a local authority under Sections 436B to 436G and to prevent local authority enforcement action where a parent has lodged an appeal, ombudsman complaint or judicial review, unless there is suspicion of harm to the child.
Baroness Barran
“(c) must request a visit if the local authority has ever taken any action under sections 31 or 47 of the Children Act 1989 or is currently taking action under section 17 of that Act, in relation to the child.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the local authority to conduct a home visit where a child has ever been subject to care proceedings, named in a child protection plan or is currently classified as a child in need.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I am not going to divide the House on Amendment 131A, although I feel I ought to, but I would be grateful if the Minister could agree to write to me, and put a copy in the Library, explaining what the purpose of Amendment 131 is, because my amendment would have brought absolute clarity as to which children and which homes would receive a home visit. She said that children to whom Section 47 applied would get a home visit anyway, but the implication was that those other groups of children would not. It would be helpful to know how the Government are planning to give clarity to local authorities. At a high level, what will the guidance say? Are there powers that the Government are taking within the Bill that would allow them to introduce something like my amendment in future if it appeared to be necessary? If she could commit to write, I would be very grateful.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am happy to commit to write and respond to those questions.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has just said, particularly the thanks to the Minister for the time and consideration of civil servants and the many excellent government amendments in this group that reflect that.
I too think that Amendment 135A and the versions of it tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, are really worth considering and, alongside them, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has said, Amendment 172A and other aspects of cyber security. This is a collection of information about children. We need to be very careful about it. I hope the Government will not allow local authorities to develop their own versions of software to do this but will do this centrally and to the highest standards.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, my amendments in this group pull in two slightly different directions. If the Minister and her officials are confused, I apologise, but I will try to explain why.
The main thrust of my amendments, as the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Hacking, both said, is to try to simplify the amount of specific detail required to be held on the register in future. I too very much welcome the Government’s decision to simplify a lot of the information that was in the original draft of the Bill and to leave a bit more room for professional curiosity on the part of the home education team in the local authority. My Amendments 135A, 135B and 146A all point in this direction and give the Government different options—a pick-and-mix menu to achieve this end. Amendment 146B would make it clear that a local authority can request further information where it believes that a child might not be receiving a suitable education or that their welfare may be at risk.
In the other direction is my Amendment 143B— I hope the Minister will be able to address this specifically when she sums up—which would establish a duty to record information relating to care proceedings. I think that is missing from the current list, but the Minister will tell me whether I am right or wrong on that. This would include information relating not just to the child but to their siblings. We are all aware of cases where siblings or half-siblings are in care proceedings, perhaps if they are babies or under five, but an older child might not be. It feels highly relevant, if a child is going to be taken out of school, that the local authority has that level of concern about other children in the family. I hope the Minister feels able to accept that and perhaps bring back a government amendment at Third Reading.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords have noted, the amendments in this group are all about how we reduce the burden on parents of providing information for children not in school registers while maintaining the purpose of those registers. As I said in the previous group, I have taken seriously noble Lords’ views that the provisions as drafted in the Bill were too onerous for parents. At the same time, it is important to remember that the system we are proposing is still incredibly light-touch relative to what is mandated in many other countries.
I turn to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Hacking—134A, 139, 140 and 141—and Amendments 135A and 135B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These would remove certain information requirements or replace them with more limited alternatives. It is essential that local authorities have the information they need to assess whether a child’s education is suitable and full-time. I fully appreciate the intention behind these amendments, but reducing the scope of information would, in practice, make those assessments significantly harder. It is also vital that safeguarding information and other relevant information on registers be recorded consistently. Recent safeguarding and serious case reviews have shown how often opportunities to identify children suffering or at risk of significant harm are missed when information is fragmented or incomplete.
However, I hope I can provide some reassurance to my noble friend Lord Hacking about access for parents in the sort of circumstances he identified. There are no powers for parents to access information on their children. We have thought this through very carefully, particularly from the perspective of victims of domestic abuse and other forms of abuse. For example, we have considered whether the estranged parent could make a subject access request to acquire information. Local authorities are strictly required to have clear and well-defined processes to help staff handle such requests safely and lawfully. We do not believe, therefore, that the fear my noble friend outlined, which is a quite understandable fear, could legally exist. I hope that provides some reassurance.
On the detail, Amendments 134A and 135A would require only the names and home addresses of the parents directly providing the education. Yet, as I said in Committee, Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 places the duty of securing a suitable education on all parents. If these amendments were accepted, we could face situations where no parent is recorded at all, making it harder for local authorities to identify and support children missing education.
Amendment 135A would also limit information for inclusion to the primary type of education, while Amendment 139 would require information on other providers only where they deliver the child’s principal education. In practice, this would not work because where education is from multiple sources, for example a parent and a tutor, there is no clear way of determining which is primary.
Amendments 135B, 140 and 141 would remove the requirement to record time spent in education and information concerning education received from those other than the parents. Yet this information may be precisely what allows local authorities to understand a child’s overall educational picture. If, for instance, a child spends substantial time with a provider offering a very narrow curriculum, the authority must check that they are receiving a balanced education elsewhere as a core part of assessing suitability.
Amendment 146B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, alongside Amendment 135A, seeks to clarify when further information may be requested. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention, but it would mean that the local authority may request further information only where it has reasonable cause to believe that a child may not be receiving a suitable education or their welfare may be at risk. Yet the purpose of the registers is to cover all children not in school and gather the information that enables authorities to form those very judgments. The information being sought might be exactly the information needed to make that judgment.
At this point I will respond to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on the group before last. On the point about annual reports, the high-level information required for registers is not intended to replace the more detailed informal inquiries that local authorities undertake—what the noble Lord refers to as the annual reporting system—to understand whether a child is receiving a suitable education. Should the amendment from the previous group be accepted, regulations could outline how the updates could be requested and statutory guidance would set out how these processes should align. On the point about whether parents ignore the annual request for meetings if the meeting has already happened, we will expect local authorities to adapt their systems in line with the new legislation. If there has recently been a meeting and the local authority is satisfied that the education is suitable, we would not expect it to request another soon afterwards. We will put this into statutory guidance.
Amendments 153A and 155A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would limit requests from local authorities for information, meetings or home visits, and prevent non-compliance being used as evidence of unsuitable education. The extensive package of government amendments to reduce the frequency of updates required from parents, which I will come to shortly, will address many of the noble Lord’s concerns. His amendments would also restrict home visits and meetings, when some parents welcome them as the easiest way to provide information. The suggestion that deregistration from school could be blocked by requiring a meeting is also misplaced. Children covered by new Sections 436B to 436G are already out of school and, if home-educated, already off the school roll. The amendments would give the Secretary of State new powers to penalise local authorities for breaching these limits. However, local authorities must already follow the law. The Education Act 1996 gives the Secretary of State sufficient powers to intervene when a local authority fails to comply.
Amendment 148E, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would prevent information on the registers being used to judge whether a child is at risk of harm or not receiving a suitable education. But local authorities must be able to use information on registers to make those assessments. Where information on registers indicates that a child may not be suitably educated or that safeguarding concerns exist and any informal inquiries have not resolved matters, authorities have a duty to act.
Amendment 146A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would prevent the Government prescribing additional categories of information for recording in future, even where necessary to improve understanding of this cohort, inform local and national policy, or better target support, including, for example, information on exam entries or outcomes for home-educated children, in which many noble Lords have expressed interest. Indeed, the noble Baroness’s own Amendment 143B shows the value of being able to add future categories, namely the details of care and supervision order applications, where we can see the logic of her argument. We would be happy to consider prescribing this information when developing regulations, and we will publicly consult on this.
Amendments 148A, 148B and 148D tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, concern the protection and retention of data on the registers. I appreciate the concern for the protection of children’s data, which of course I share, but these amendments are unnecessary. The registers will be required to comply with all applicable data protection legislation, which requires data not to be kept longer than necessary. Furthermore, entries on registers will be deleted once a child ceases to be within scope.
Amendment 174A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would remove Clause 34. Clause 34 enables information to be disclosed when required or authorised by children not in school measures without it breaching any obligation of confidence. This is important for local authorities to fulfil their duties, including sharing information where it promotes or safeguards a child’s education or welfare. The department continues to engage with the Information Commissioner’s Office to identify and mitigate any data-sharing risks.
Amendments 172A and 247A by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require the National Cyber Security Centre to certify and test the security arrangements for registers before implementation. As I said in Committee, this is unnecessary. Local authorities are already expected to comply with cyber-security standards, which are an integral part of their wider data protection obligations. There will also not be a single national register but over 150 local registers across England and Wales. The National Cyber Security Centre’s role is advisory, not regulatory, so not only would requiring it to test and certify each register inappropriately widen its remit but it would be a colossal resource demand and unnecessarily delay implementation of these much-needed registers.
Amendment 161D, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require local authorities to give written reasons for all decisions relating to the registers and to offer parents opportunities to correct inaccuracies. Local authorities will exercise discretion across a range of decisions, from adding information to the registers to seeking further details from education providers or determining what support to offer. It would be inappropriate to require written reasons in every case, particularly where safeguarding is involved. However, for support duty decisions we will make it clear in statutory guidance that written reasons should be provided. As for correcting factual errors, UK GDPR already gives parents the right to have inaccurate data rectified.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I too thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for tabling this amendment again. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, we had a fervent debate in Committee, where the case was made for the precious nature of Haredi traditions but also for the importance of avoiding a two-tier system of education; and that the reality for some young men was that they felt their experience at a yeshiva had been deeply damaging.
My noble friend Lord Lucas suggested that the department pick a time period to resolve these issues; that seems a very constructive suggestion. It feels as though this amendment has the elements in it for a way through this very long-running debate, given that it includes a commitment both to suitable out-of-school education and to safeguarding issues being addressed. I acknowledge the deep concerns that were expressed in Committee and I hope very much that the Minister finds a way through this, not least for the Haredi community, who are obviously deeply anxious about it.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As other noble Lords have done, I first thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing forward Amendment 175A. Of course, this amendment was previously tabled in Committee and debated extensively then. For reasons of time, I will not repeat that debate.
However, I agree with my noble friend Lady Morris that support for this clause is absolutely not a failure to recognise the significance of faith-based education across a range of faiths in our country. My noble friend is right, and she has championed and supported this, even in the face of opposition. I assure the Haredi community that it is neither a denigration of their faith nor of the way in which they wish to express it in a plural England, where I very much hope they feel able to be, and remain, a full part of our community.
It may assist the House if I clarify the purpose and effect of Clause 37 and the Government’s general approach in this area. In so doing, I will attempt to answer the questions raised by the right reverend Prelate. Clause 37 starts from the position that, if a setting is providing full-time education to children of compulsory school age, it should be regulated and subject to oversight. I trust that there is broad support across the House for this principle. Clause 37 therefore extends to more settings the regulatory regime found in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008.
I reiterate that it is categorically not the Government’s intention to close down yeshivas. This is the same ready-made, flexible and effective system of regulation that independent schools have been able to operate within for many years, including those with a primary faith ethos. Let me be clear: there is nothing in this clause that, in itself, requires impacted settings to become schools or to operate identically to other settings already regulated by this regime. What the clause does do, in broad terms, is subject impacted full-time settings to a regime of registration and the need to comply with prescribed standards and inspection against those standards. While people running educational settings should already have an idea of whether they provide a full-time education, based on an ordinary understanding of those words, the Government will produce guidance so that it is clear whether a setting is being brought into regulation by this measure.
In addition, the right reverend Prelate asked for confirmation that the regulatory regime found in the 2008 Act permits different standards to be prescribed for different types of setting. I can confirm that this is the case and that Ministers have not yet decided which standards would be prescribed. Any decision will only follow extensive engagement and consultation. This is likely to take a minimum of several months and will take into account all relevant views, including those concerning the appropriateness of teaching relationships and sex education in regulated settings.
Lord Storey (LD)
Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, has taken the words out of my mouth. This is an issue that I have felt strongly about for a number of years. I know from talking to Ofsted that one of the barriers has always been getting the evidence. I presume that the Minister has had detailed discussions with Ofsted and that, as a result, this wording fulfils what needs to be done. I hope the Minister will confirm that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening to the concerns that we raised on this side, both in the other place and in your Lordships’ House, about the scope of Clause 40. We feel that it is much improved and are grateful to the Government for listening.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Perhaps I could come back to my noble friend Lady Morris on the details of that particular question; I am sorry that I cannot respond to it now.
I welcome the welcome provided to the Government’s amendments in this group. I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that we have had extensive discussions with Ofsted about the provisions we are proposing here to make sure they enable Ofsted to do what this Bill is strengthening its ability to do.
Baroness Barran
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the ability of the TRA to investigate complaints before a teacher began their teaching career or after they have ended their teaching career.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the issue of complaints against teachers is changing considerably, particularly with the advent of social media and AI, which can be used to identify and draft lengthy complaints which schools have to respond to. I understand that up to one in five members of the teaching workforce are currently facing a complaint, rising to one in three of our head teachers. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, for signing Amendment 190 in my name and to the National Education Union for its support.
I am also grateful to the Minister for Schools, the honourable Member from Camden, for our conversation last week. The original draft of my speech said that I was very hopeful that, when the Minister came to close she would accept the amendment, but I have to say I was very disappointed by the reply that I received from the Minister for Schools today, in which—and I paraphrase —she said that she accepted the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and I had raised when we met her but she stressed it was not the Government’s intention to do any of those bad things; it was to address things such as teachers who take a year’s sabbatical and then come back and all of this would be addressed through regulations. I feel like a cracked record in saying that we cannot legislate just for this Government and this Minister’s intentions. We can absolutely imagine that this is the kind of area that could become very politicised in future.
Our basic argument is that our amendment would mean that complaints could not be brought in relation to a teacher’s behaviour before they began teaching and after they finished. The idea that you can bring a standard of professional conduct to someone when they are not acting in the profession is stretching things. Let us just imagine if Ministers were held to a Ministerial Code before and after their tenure; they obviously, I think we would agree, arguably wield greater power and influence, although I admit that at times it does not always feel like that.
The other thing is that our expectations, both of teachers and of standards in society, change over time, and judging historic behaviour against today’s professional standards risks unfair hindsight and inconsistency, particularly where the conduct was lawful or accepted at the time. Teachers arguably have some of the highest professional standards around. They are held to them 24/7, 365 days a year when they are a teacher, let alone before they even become one and after they leave.
From a safeguarding perspective, surely the DBS enhanced checks should be sufficient. They may not be perfect, but we need to have some line for where these different regimes begin and end.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns three distinct areas, which I will take in turn. Amendments 190 and 191 concern the jurisdiction of the Teaching Regulation Agency. Amendment 190 would remove the ability of the TRA to investigate alleged misconduct that occurred before an individual began their teaching career.
I understand the concern here may also be that Clause 46 permits the TRA to investigate those who at any time have been employed or engaged in teaching work and hold those responsible for their conduct at any time in their life. Given that this includes me, I can wholly understand noble Lords’ concerns.
At present, the teacher misconduct regime limits the TRA’s jurisdiction only to those who are currently employed or engaged in teaching work, or who were so employed or engaged when the referral was made. There are problems with this—it cannot be right. Clause 46 addresses this by extending the TRA’s jurisdiction to those who have at any time been employed or engaged in teaching work. Noble Lords can imagine that there could be times when somebody has very recently resigned, possibly with the idea of avoiding a referral to come, and is not able to be investigated. So there are circumstances where it would be appropriate to change the ability of the TRA to investigate.
Given what noble Lords have said today, despite the assurances that my honourable friend Georgia Gould was able to provide to noble Lords during the meeting they held with her, I can understand noble Lords’ concerns. Therefore, the department is not in the position of wanting to implement Clause 46 without having undertaken considerable further consultation, having considered the points that noble Lords have raised. I hope I can give that assurance this evening, and I will find a way to come back to noble Lords with how we intend to do that and some of the safeguards around the sorts of issues that noble Lords have identified this evening.
While Amendment 190 seeks to narrow the TRA’s jurisdiction, Amendment 191, as the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, says, seeks to extend the TRA’s jurisdiction. I understand the concern here that holders of iQTS may work in a school in England but previously have committed misconduct in a foreign country and that, as such, the TRA’s jurisdiction should be expanded to cover all holders of iQTS.
There are problems with this amendment, which have been outlined in the correspondence we have had with my noble friend Lord Knight. I thank him, and the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for the approach they are taking to what is a clearly worrying problem. We would not want there to be a limit on restricting the ability of those who have committed the types of behaviours the noble Baroness has outlined to work in schools in the UK. There have been some important developments in the ability of both international and UK schools to check a teacher’s record. Once again, noble Lords have made a strong case, and while we cannot accept Amendment 191 for the technical reasons that were outlined in the correspondence, I undertake to continue discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, my noble friend Lord Knight and the Safeguarding Alliance to try and find a way through, because I recognise that there is an issue here.
I turn to the proposed new clause in Amendment 191A of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, on opening up the right to accompaniment for school staff at disciplinary and grievance hearings. While I thank him and other noble Lords for their thoughts on this matter, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary. This issue, as others have said, was debated at some length during passage of the Employment Rights Bill. Following Third Reading, my noble friend Lord Collins set out the Government’s commitment to review in its entirety the functioning of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which includes provisions on who can be a companion and the right to be accompanied. As part of the review, we will engage with relevant and interested stakeholders and following its conclusion, we will publish our findings in Parliament. This House accepted the Government’s concession on this matter, and the amendment was withdrawn. We will, as the noble Lord asks, consider the implications of the review outcomes for the school workforce. I hope he agrees with the Government that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Department for Education to act unilaterally on this matter for school staff until the full review has taken place and reported. I hope, therefore, that he will not press his amendment.
Turning to the group of amendments relating to parental complaints and appeals, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman and Lady Barran, for tabling these amendments again. Amendments 223, 224, and 225 would, respectively, allow parents and carers of children in maintained schools, independent schools including academies, and non-maintained special schools to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Amendment 226 would allow for regulations to amend secondary legislation on the rules and procedures of the First-tier Tribunal. Amendment 243D seeks to introduce a central complaints system to handle school-related complaints in England, and for these complaints to be held in a central database accessible to the Department for Education and Ofsted.
My noble friend Lady Blake previously gave detail in Committee on the work we are doing to improve the school complaints system. I will not repeat that today, but I confirm that our aim remains to reduce the burden on schools and leaders, while also maintaining parents’ rights to raise concerns and have them properly considered. We will be providing more detail on this in the forthcoming schools White Paper, but on the role of the First-tier Tribunal, we still do not believe that introducing an additional layer of appeal to the general school complaints system is the right way to achieve our aim of reducing the burdens on schools. The First-tier Tribunal is already under significant pressure, and despite the investment of additional administrative and judicial resource, which has ensured the conclusion of more appeals, the rise in demand is nevertheless outstripping the increase in capacity at present. Expanding the remit of the tribunal would only lead to longer delays for families. We do not think it would be appropriate or proportionate to expand the First-tier Tribunal’s role to include general complaints about schools, but we recognise the concerns being raised in general. We are actively looking at how we can strengthen the independent element of the school complaints process, so that, where parents need to escalate their complaint, they are reassured that it is assessed fairly and objectively.
The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, talked about the work the department has been doing with the charity Parentkind. As she pointed out, we have worked with the charity to develop the Parent Guide to School Complaints, which was published on 20 January. We are also exploring potential digital options for improving the system. This work involves user research and testing with the sector—including with parents, teachers and headteachers—to ensure that we get this right and that it works for everyone involved. This type of work takes time, of course, but I hope this offers assurance to noble Lords that we are considering this as part of our package of reforms that we will set out in the schools White Paper.
I hope I have addressed noble Lords’ concerns in responding to the amendments. I invite them not to press their amendments.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. On Amendment 190, what I heard her say was that she would undertake not to implement Clause 46 without proper consultation. I urge her to look again with her colleagues at the wording of the clause, because while the Government’s intent is absolutely spot on, it is not what is said in the clause. If there is a way to do more, that would be even better.
I thank the Minister for her responses and for her openness to continue the conversation on Amendment 191. She almost repeated my noble friend’s words about simplification in the schools White Paper, so we look forward to seeing Amendment 243D back in new, official, government form. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 190.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, like others I really regret that we are debating these amendments so late, because they are very important. I will try to get to my key points.
I thank the Minister for Amendment 192 in relation to Clause 50; this addresses some of the concerns that we raised about its scope in Committee and again in the other place. The main substance of this group, as we have heard, is the lengthy, prize-winning Amendment 193, which would allow the Government to introduce mass inspection. We debated this in Committee. It is curious that the Bill has gone through all stages in the other place and only now are we seeing this on Report. Some of the gaps that it reveals are highlighted in the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and in my Amendments 193D and 193E. We can see that in the breadth of drafting of this amendment, with so much left to secondary legislation giving Secretary of State extremely broad powers—which suggested to me that it was an amendment that was drafted in haste rather than one that was on the shelf. Officials kindly invited me in to talk about the amendment before Christmas, and they argued the case for giving the Secretary of State maximum flexibility. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said on an earlier group, we have talked about this ad nauseam, and the Government have acted to correct some of it, but this new clause goes in the wrong direction in relation to those powers.
If we think back to the introduction of the new school inspection regime, we see that there was a huge consultation and piloting of the approach, and now we are seeing it rolled out. All my Amendment 193D asks is that we mirror that and do exactly the same. I have suggested a focus in terms of the pilot, which would be to look at MATs that have groups of schools in the following categories. There would be one category where they are significantly underperforming and where there might be a case for intervention; and another would be where they would like to grow and take on other schools—quite rightly, the department would want reassurance that they had the skills to do that well. And then there would be a universal group—at this hour of the night, I cannot think of any other description—to see whether there is a case, at this point, for universal MAT inspection alongside school inspection. In a perfect world, one would have designed a new school inspection regime and a MAT inspection regime together to avoid some of the duplication to which other noble Lords have pointed.
When the Minister sums up, I would be grateful to know whether she can confirm that there is not a plan to inspect single academy trusts, and if there is, what the point of that would be, and that the Government plan to reawaken—or whatever you do to dormant legislation—the inspection of local authorities with regard to that school improvement function. If the Government want to look at school groupings, they should look at all school groupings rather than just one type.
I turn to my Amendment 194, and I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes for her support for it. I did an interview with Schools Week not so long ago—which probably only my children have read, or, in fact, not even my children have read. They asked me what element of the Bill I was most worried about, and I said that it was this clause, which will delay intervention in schools that Ofsted has found unable to meet the new standards and intervention is required.
When we debated this in Committee, the Minister talked about the length of time for intervention, but she knows that the very long cases—some of the same cases are probably still running—typically reflect one of two things, or possibly both. One is where you have rural schools in very remote areas, where there is no other school or trust nearby that could take on and support the school adequately. The second is where significant funding is required from the department, particularly in relation to buildings or to bridge budget deficits if the school role has fallen significantly, and a lot of arm wrestling goes on, which takes time.
The new RISE teams will not be able to address either type of case any faster than the previous system. My amendment would avoid delay and judicial review, and, most importantly, it would make sure that children were back in high performing schools as quickly as possible. I also agree completely with what my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes said about Amendment 197. With that, rather than having to test the opinion of the House, I hope that the Minister will come back with more positive and constructive responses.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, despite the lateness of the hour, we have had a good discussion on the issues raised in group 10.
I turn to the amendments that have been discussed during this debate. I will start with Amendments 193A and 193B, tabled in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and Amendment 193C, tabled by the right reverend Prelate. These relate to the inspection of trusts, including academies that have been designated
“as having a religious character”.
Amendments 193A and 193B propose additional requirements for Ofsted to share trust inspection reports—what the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend described as “important communication issues”. I recognise the importance of both informing the relevant religious authorities about trust-level inspections and ensuring robust oversight of trust leaders in relation to developing and maintaining the religious character of faith-based settings.
On Amendment 193A, I hope that I can provide some reassurance to the right reverend Prelate that there is already a duty on Ofsted to inform religious authorities in advance of a routine trust inspection. Our provisions already include a duty for Ofsted to share reports of routine inspections with the trust, and the Secretary of State has a power to share them with persons it deems appropriate. Ofsted has confirmed that it will always deem a religious authority that it has already informed about an inspection taking place as an appropriate person to receive a report. I can therefore assure noble Lords that religious authorities will always be sent the report by Ofsted.
On Amendment 193B, as religious authorities will always receive a full trust inspection report setting out that a trust is not performing to an acceptable standard, they do not need to be separately notified about a poor inspection outcome. I therefore hope that noble Lords recognise that Amendments 193A and 193B are not necessary.
Turning to Amendment 193C, the current framework for inspecting denominational education and worship is already a complex mixture of statutory and non-statutory provisions. Moving directly to a statutory framework for academy trusts at this stage risks adding further complexity to that element of the inspection. It is therefore important that we take the time necessary to develop any future approach carefully so that trust-level inspection of denominational matters aligns with existing arrangements of this nature for individual settings, and functions coherently with the wider inspection system.
As the right reverend Prelate has identified, officials have had discussions with officers from the Catholic Education Service and the Church of England Education Office. We are committed to working with the churches and other faiths to developing a non-statutory framework as an initial and constructive step, ahead of considering opportunities for potential legislation in the future. That work will include pilots, which have been developed with faith bodies and trusts to pilot inspection of collective worship and denominational education trusts with faith schools.
Baroness Barran
“122HA Consultation prior to inspections under this Chapter(1) Prior to sections 122A to 122H coming into force, the Secretary of State must undertake a consultation on—(a) the proposed purpose, scope, frequency and framework of inspections of proprietors of academies, and(b) the impact of the proposed inspections of academy providers on the purpose, scope, frequency and framework of inspections of individual schools.(2) The consultation must include the following stakeholders—(a) His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills,(b) proprietors of academies,(c) organisations representing teachers and other school staff, and(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, including parent groups and other interested organisations.(3) The Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment that—(a) assesses the interaction between the proposed inspections of academy proprietors and existing inspections of individual schools under Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Ofsted inspections), and(b) sets out the likely resource and administrative implications for both the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills and academy trusts.122HB Pilot scheme of inspections(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made before the end of the relevant period, ensure that provisions under this Chapter have been trialled under a pilot scheme.(2) The pilot scheme must—(a) assess the effectiveness of multi-academy trusts;(b) take into account—(i) variations in multi-academy trusts models, and(ii) the level of centralisation in the structure of the multi-academy trust;(c) be informed by—(i) school-level inspections;(ii) financial information held by the Department for Education regarding the multi-academy trust.(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the following proprietors of Academies should be included in the pilot scheme—(a) proprietors of academies whose schools are on average significantly under-performing, or which are not providing value for money;(b) proprietors of academies which are seeking to expand and enter into new partnerships with schools;(c) a number of proprietors of academies found by Ofsted to be achieving an acceptable level of performance, to establish the value of universal inspection.(4) The “relevant period” is the period of two years beginning with the day on which section 50 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes fully into force.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that new provisions on the inspection of multi-academy trusts are not commenced until the Secretary of State has carried out a consultation, consulted key stakeholders including Ofsted, published an impact assessment, and laid before Parliament both a report on that consultation and a statement of the purpose of inspections of multi academy trusts and of individual schools. It would also require The Secretary of State to conduct a pilot scheme of inspections.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think the Minister said nearly everything that we were hoping to hear. Perhaps she can also confirm in writing that the different purposes of MAT inspection and school inspection will be set out clearly in the Government’s guidance. I welcome her reassurance.
Baroness Barran
“(a) in subsection (A1), at the end insert “unless the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available”;(b) after subsection (A1) insert—“(A2) Where the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available, the Secretary of State must, within 14 days, publish a plan to secure appropriate governance and leadership of the school and to secure its rapid improvement.(A3) A plan published under subsection (A2) must include—(a) the parties with responsibility for the school and its improvement,(b) the parties who will take action to improve provision in the school,(c) the resources that will be provided to the relevant parties, including who will provide the resources and when the resources will be provided, and(d) the intended outcomes of the plan, with the relevant timetables for the outcomes.(A4) The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on—(a) the number of times the Secretary of State has published a plan under subsection (A2),(b) the resources which have been provided as part of any plans, and(c) the outcomes of any plans.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to retain the existing requirement to make an academy order unless the Secretary of State determines there is no suitable sponsor available.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Unfortunately, I was not convinced by the Minister’s response and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Schools: Music and Dance Scheme
Baroness Barran Excerpts(5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point about the economic benefit and growth potential of the creative industries, which is why, as she says, we are developing a specific sector job plan for the creative industries alongside the other seven areas identified in the industrial strategy. I am meeting my ministerial colleagues tomorrow to ensure that progress is being made on those job plans. I know that just earlier this week, on Monday, Skills England and others held a good and productive meeting with the creative industries precisely to take forward that job plan.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Minister will be aware that at least one of the eight specialist schools is at risk of closure within the next 12 to 24 months. Is that really what the Government want to see happen?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, it is not. That is why, unlike the noble Baroness’s Government, we have not cut the money for the music and dance scheme. I understand that schools are keen that we provide even more. That is why we will soon announce the funding for 2026-27, and we will ensure that, alongside all the other things we are doing to support arts, music and dance, we find a way to enable the thriving arts and music scene in this country to continue and for young people to benefit from it.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Barran Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to lend my support to all three of these amendments. I was very pleased to add my name to Amendments 99 and 101 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.
Listening to the debate today, I think this group is dealing with some of the most heartbreaking events that children and families ever face. It has really been very harrowing just to listen to the circumstances that some of these families have found themselves in. I was profoundly moved by the way the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, introduced her amendment. It is a really important amendment, and I very much hope that the Government will be able to look sympathetically at it.
I will just say a few words in addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said, particularly about Amendment 99. As we heard from the noble Lord, almost half of newborns in care proceedings are born to mothers who have already been through proceedings with another child, so far too many children are entering care from parents who have already had at least one child removed from their care.
As we have heard, without support—and that is what this amendment is all about: the support that we want to see local authorities offering after a child is removed—parents, particularly mothers, are often left struggling to cope with all the existing difficulties that led to the child removal in the first place, while facing the additional trauma, grief and stigma of losing a previous child. This leads to further child removals too many times. It is simply a heartbreaking, vicious cycle.
But with the right support, parents can stabilise, overcome that trauma and make lasting change. The reason I feel so passionately about this is that in my time as chair of Cafcass, I was privileged to visit various Pause projects, to talk to the people who were providing the support and to talk to the mothers about the difference that having that support had made and why they now felt they could turn their lives around so that they would not find themselves in a position like that of a mother I was talking to—I think I said this in Committee, so forgive me if I am repeating myself—who had had eight children removed and now it was about the ninth child. We just cannot allow these situations to perpetuate. It is not something that a decent and humane society can do.
At the moment only about half of local authority areas are providing any support at all. This amendment is so critical to ensure that support is available and that this incalculable human suffering that we have heard about can be alleviated. I very much look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the Minister, and I really hope we can make progress here.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I echo other noble Lords and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, for her very powerful and moving speech. Sadly, like other noble Lords, I know families who have been touched in similar ways. Both personally and professionally, I hope that the Government listen to the noble Baroness’s advice.
My Amendments 99 and 101 have support from more than 20 children’s charities and the Children’s Commissioner, and I am very grateful to the co-signatories to my amendment. In Committee the response from the Minister focused on early help and family support that the Government will require local areas to deliver as a way of meeting the needs of these women. But as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, although the funding is obviously very warmly welcomed, it does not address the issues for families who have children removed into care, because once a child is removed from a parent’s care, services and support follow the child.
There is no requirement or expectation that the support needs formally identified for the woman during the care proceedings process will be provided after the removal of a child. Without support to change their circumstances, parents are vulnerable to repeat the same traumatic cycle that led to their first, second or—as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said—eighth child being removed. I think the late Nick Crichton removed a 14th child from the same woman, which led to the work that has been referred to today. We know that almost half of newborns in care proceedings are born to families who have been through proceedings at least once.
Lord Storey (LD)
I was going to speak to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, but certain Members are heckling me. I will just say how important this amendment is and that I hope the House will support it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, a good speech is a short speech.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I have spent most of this debate rewriting my speech. I have tried hard to listen to what noble Lords have said. We have three options before us tonight: the Government option of a consultation; the Liberal Democrat option; and the option from my noble friend, Lord Nash, as it relates to social media.
Briefly, before I talk about the three options, I would like to say to my noble friend Lady Penn that, rather than being a warm-up act, she gave us a master class in how to present an amendment. She made a well-argued, practical case for her amendment, underlining the importance of shifting norms for very young children at the earliest possible stage and calling urgently for firm action, and timing on that action, from the Government. Like others, we look forward to the Minister’s reply.
To return to the group of amendments that deal with social media use, we have before us, as we have heard, an opportunity to end the harm that our children and grandchildren are experiencing as a result of the hours that they spend on there. I was going to talk about the merits of my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment, but I think others have done that extremely ably.
I will therefore turn to the key differences between my noble friend’s amendment and that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Between the fiercely critical comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about Ofcom struggling and critically undermining implementation and wider failures, and the comparison made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, of Ofcom being to the tech companies as “Dixon of Dock Green” is to “Crocodile Dundee”, I think those noble Lords have done my job for me. The key element in the Liberal Democrat amendment is that we would give powers to Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner to decide which apps are safe or not safe. Whether it is my noble friend Lady Harding, who may be in a slightly different place in this debate than I am, or many other noble Lords around the House, they have noted that Ofcom is struggling with the powers that it was given in the Online Safety Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Berger, put it extremely well. Do your Lordships want to give to a struggling organisation one of the most complicated jobs before us? I would suggest that we do not. It should of course advise the Children’s Commissioner and the Government, but it should not be responsible.
The second reason it should not be responsible is one of democracy. We have too many recent examples, of which your Lordships will be aware, where we have delegated incredibly important powers to unelected and relatively unaccountable officials, however competent they might be, and we should not do that again. Our democracy depends on our colleagues at the other end being given the chance to decide, and Parliament deciding, what is or is not appropriate for our children, taking advice from every expert that they can draw on, many of whom we have heard from this evening.
Thirdly—I was finding it hard to wait to the end to get to this point—the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, should be not mentioned anywhere near this endless reference to a “blunt, blanket ban”. I was so grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, as I was about to read out proposed new subsection (5) of Amendment 94A from my noble friend and the noble Baroness. This would not be a blanket ban, and it is, if I may say so, irresponsible of noble Lords who kept asserting that and referring to it as such, even once my noble friend had clarified that it was not the case. Crucially, proposed new subsection (2)(b) would also give our Government time to learn both from some of the scientific work that is going on and from the Australian approach. Amendment 94B would add neither in terms of flexibility or future-proofing but would dilute democratic accountability, which we do at our peril.
Turning to the Government, I would say that now is the time for leadership on this issue. The proposed consultation and approach set out in yesterday’s Statement, with a government amendment at Third Reading, does not feel like leadership. We have heard tonight that we do not need another national conversation. The nation has spoken very clearly about its level of concern, and parents and children will not thank us for further delay. The Government argue that views are divided, and we have heard tonight that the children’s charities are split and bereaved parents are split. If we wait for consensus on this issue, the one thing I am confident of is that not a single one of us will still be in your Lordships’ House. As Martin Luther King wisely said,
“a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus”.
The Government need to get moulding, and fast, because we owe it to our children to act now to protect their childhood.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Barran Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
“Free milk entitlement: child minder agencies(1) The Secretary of State must, using powers under section 175 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (regulations, orders and schemes), amend regulation 18 of the Welfare Food Regulations 1996 (milk or dried milk for children in day care) to ensure that children provided with daycare by childminders registered with child minder agencies are entitled to free milk.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this is a very different topic from what we were discussing before the dinner break—we move to nursery milk. Only in your Lordships’ House could one say those words.
My Amendment 98 would bring childminders who are registered with a childminding agency into the scope of the free nursery milk scheme. As your Lordships know, the nursery milk scheme provides a free portion of milk every day to any child under the age of five attending a registered childcare setting; it is a long-standing initiative dating back to the 1940s. The legislation underpinning the scheme was written before childminder agencies—CMAs—came into existence, and a later drafting oversight meant that milk subsidies were not mentioned in the legislation that created CMAs in 2014. For a decade, childminders registered through CMAs have been unable to claim milk subsidies, while those registered directly with Ofsted can; that is despite the fact that all childminders are Ofsted regulated and operate under the same regulations.
The loophole has been widely acknowledged as a clear legislative oversight. Two successive Governments, including my own, have pledged to fix it, but sadly no action has been taken. As a result, more than 10,000 children are currently missing out on free milk. As CMA-registered childminders make up a growing share of the workforce, the number of children affected increases every year. A simple legislative update would close this loophole and restore parity across the early years sector. I hope that the Minister can do better and go further than previous Governments—including my own—and commit not only to addressing this but to giving the House a “no later than” date for doing so. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Absolutely, it will be. First, by virtue of the fact that it is now open to all those on universal credit without the £7,400 cut-off, it is much clearer to families, to those supporting them and to schools who is eligible. Secondly, as I said, the provisions that enable the sharing of information, and therefore eligibility checks, will now also be open to parents themselves, not just through local authorities.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her encouragement. I am not sure whether I wanted the accolade of being the anti-Thatcher milk donor, but I will take whatever she gives me.
I am encouraged by the Minister’s commitment. I managed to write down only “within six months” before the next thing she said—unfortunately, the ink in my pen ran out—so clearly parliamentary time will be available. I thought the Minister made encouraging remarks about the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I feel that the noble Baroness might appreciate a few lines to expand on her final question. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran
“Post-removal support for parents to prevent further removals(1) Where a child—(a) is removed from the care of a parent further to any order made pursuant to—(i) section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision orders),(ii) section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (placement orders),(iii) section 46 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (adoption orders),(iv) section 14A of the Children Act 1989 (special guardianship orders), or(b) becomes a looked after child further to an arrangement or order made pursuant to—(i) section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of accommodation for children: voluntary arrangements), or(ii) section 25 of the Children Act 1989 (secure accommodation orders),the local authority must provide support to the parent, where the parent is identified as being at risk of experiencing further child removals.(2) In discharging their duty under subsection (1), the local authority must ensure that the support provided—(a) follows an evidence-informed approach and aims to reduce the risk of further child removals, and(b) is in accordance with any guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause aims to make sure that local authorities offer evidence-informed support to reduce the risk of parents who have one child removed having future children removed.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not sure whether anyone can remember the first group at this late hour, but I will be testing the opinion of the House. The Minister said that legislators always turn to legislation as the answer. There are quite a few things in the Bill that do not need to be there, but I think this does need to be in legislation. She also said she felt that it would create a rigid model that could not evolve, but we worked hard on the language of the amendment to refer to an “evidence-informed approach” as opposed to “evidence-based”, which I am told means that it can evolve with the evidence. For those two reasons, and thinking about the desperate situation of women who have multiple children removed from their care, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, it is very late, so I will not go through the five pages of my speech. However, I will speak to Amendments 102 and 103 in my name.
The arguments have been well rehearsed previously. I thank the Minister in the other place, Josh MacAlister, for meeting some of us to go through the issues. He is very clear on the so-called postcode lottery of child in need reports that are often produced for children. In some areas it is as high as 70%, and the research I did found that in other areas it is 20%. The Children’s Commissioner found that the lowest percentage of young people known to social care in some local authority areas was 3%.
As we have heard earlier and in previous debates in your Lordships’ House, that number cannot just be demographics. My suggestion and the Children’s Commissioner’s suggestion has been, and we continue to maintain this, that we need some national thresholds so that we do not have a big gap in the care that young people get, depending on where they live. A child in need report is quite crucial.
I understand that the Minister in the other place is very sympathetic to the issue but does not see this as a way forward. Late into this evening and night, I hope I can use my power of persuasion to convince the Minister in front of me to be willing to at least continue to talk and see whether we can find a way forward.
Amendment 102 is about establishing a child protection body that would work to improve child protection practice, advise government and the sector, and conduct inspections. This is an important issue, in addition to the one I raised earlier. I do not intend to speak any further, but I would welcome a response from the Minister. Given that we agree that there is a problem, would she now be willing at least to look at whether we can reinvestigate the national thresholds? I beg to move.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I too will be brief. I was slightly surprised at the need for Amendment 102. If I have understood correctly, the Government have committed to establishing a child protection agency and are currently consulting on it. I absolutely understand that the noble Lord wants to raise this because, clearly, implementation will be crucial if we are to avoid blurring lines of accountability and creating a bureaucracy. But it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
We covered standards for children in need thresholds in Committee. On these Benches, we retain the view that we need flexibility in the system so that practitioners can use their professional judgment to look at the overall situation of a child and keep it under review. But I absolutely accept that there are real problems at what one might call the top end of Section 17, with an extraordinary number of children who are suffering child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation still being classified as “children in need” rather than “child protection”.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, each of these amendments would introduce a new clause, referring to the establishment of the child protection authority and consistent support for children in need, as we have heard. This group raises important issues about child safety, well-being and support. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are, as he outlined, completely committed to working in this area.
Amendment 102, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to impose a binding timetable for the establishment of the child protection agency. Just by way of background, establishing a child protection authority was one of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. In a Statement to the House of Commons on 8 April 2025, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls announced that the Government will establish a child protection authority in England, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, alluded to.
On 11 December 2025, we published a consultation on the child protection authority, which sets out its proposed roles, responsibilities and powers. This will help to make the child protection system clearer and more unified and ensure that there is ongoing improvement through effective support for practitioners. The design and delivery of this authority require consultation, including with child protection experts and Victim Support, to ensure that it has the right constitution and powers. Given this, we do not think it is prudent to agree an arbitrary timeline, but we will work to publish the government response this summer, following which we will move to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Barran Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank my noble friend Lady Tyler for all the work she has done on this important topic. It shows the real power and strength of this House that, by talking to each other, listening and supporting, we can bring about real change, so I thank the Government for putting down these amendments. As my noble friend rightly said, there are so many young people living independently by themselves, and the most important thing is that they have an understanding of how finances work. I do not like the term “financial literacy”, but it is important. The national curriculum is going to bring that in for every young person, but for these young people it is even more important. So, I thank the Minister for getting to a place where we can all support and get behind this important issue.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, I welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled to Clause 8. I think they will meet the aims of our Amendment 35, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the additional support that the Government will offer to care leavers.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and Baronesses for their positive comments today; they are a measure of the fact that all of us in this Chamber want to put the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society at the centre of the Bill. I think the Government have clearly put across that we are strongly committed to improving support for care leavers, both through the measures in the Bill on Staying Close, local offer and corporate parenting and through our other programmes of work, such as the care leaver covenant and the care leavers interministerial board, all of which seek to ensure that young people leaving care have stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong loving relationships and are engaged in education, employment and training.
We want to support those in care and preparing to leave care before they reach adulthood, and to ensure that they have the same support as all young people. They will of course benefit from the wider changes that we are making for all young people in this space; we have had some fantastic discussions about the need for financial literacy for all young people in different places over the last few months.
I emphasise that in November the independent curriculum assessment review published its report, along with the Government’s response. As part of the review, we are taking forward recommendations that will help to deliver a high-quality curriculum for every young person. One key recommendation is to embed applied knowledge throughout the curriculum, including financial literacy. We have given a clear commitment in our response to the review to strengthen financial education through both the maths and the citizenship curriculum so that all young people and children have the skills they will need in adulthood. These commitments will benefit those children in care and preparing leave care.
Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, seeks to ensure that Staying Close support includes support to access services relating to financial support and literacy. Having said what I did about the review in general, I acknowledge that care leavers have particular and additional needs in this area. I fully endorse the noble Baroness’s intent with this amendment, recognising the importance of care leavers being properly informed of the financial support available to them as they transition to independence.
We have listened to concerns from both Houses about ensuring that care leavers receive the support they need from local authorities, particularly with financial management, and helping care leavers to develop the skills and knowledge that they require in this area. That is why we have tabled two government amendments to Clause 8. Amendment 39, in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, adds services relating to financial literacy to the list of services in Section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, meaning that local authorities will have to publish information about those services as part of their local offer for care leavers. Amendment 40, also in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, amends Clause 8 to require each local authority to include information about the arrangements that 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 to receive assistance with financial literacy and financial support that the noble Baroness, Lady 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 that 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. That further underscores how the Government have listened to the voices of children and young people because, as we have heard and as everyone engaged in this area acknowledges, when we listen to care leavers’ requests for support, the message that comes across loud and clear is that they want more support in understanding their finances. For that reason, we consider Clause 8 the most effective place for the amendment, ensuring a robust and consistent level of support for every care leaver, not only those accessing Staying Close.
Importantly, including the amendments in Clause 8 does not remove or dilute the support for care leavers receiving Staying Close. Financial literacy remains a key factor in helping young people to find and, importantly, keep accommodation and 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 this year as the national rollout of the programme begins. This has been developed in collaboration with local authorities, 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 hope that this answers the questions that the noble Baroness asked in moving her amendment, that noble Lords are reassured, and that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Storey (LD)
I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply on this group of amendments. There are 80,000 children in care—12,000 more than a decade ago—all of whom have different needs and requirements, mature at different ages and experience different feelings. I do not think you can put an arbitrary date on when somebody has to leave. Nationally, young people increasingly stay with their family into their 30s and get all the support that a family gives them. A friend of mine and his wife, the Kellys, foster regularly. They had two foster boys; one came to the age to move on and just said, “I am not going—I am staying”. Malcolm, being the sort of person he is, said “Okay”. That child needed that. He needed that support from the family. I hope the Government will consider this carefully.
On the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, I do not understand what the problem is. Why can this information not be available? It seems to me good, solid practice for society generally and for people in care and care leavers. I do not understand why we cannot say yes. Will it cost more money? Do we think local authorities do not have the expertise to do this? I would be interested to know why the Minister thinks it cannot be agreed.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we have had a good debate on this group. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and would be interested to know whether the Minister knows what the cost of this funding would be if it were extended in the way that the noble Lord’s review suggests. One could absolutely imagine a situation where proper funding for foster carers of young people in receipt of Staying Put support might relieve pressures elsewhere in the system.
I also look forward to the Minister’s response on Amendment 59, which, as we heard, would extend Staying Put support up to the age of 25. 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, but we are not convinced that it would be achieved by this approach.
I turn briefly to my modest Amendments 41 and 42. I reread the Minister’s argument in Committee that these amendments were not really necessary—a familiar term—as every care leaver should have a pathway plan that would cover accommodation, health and several other important aspects of their life. As she said, the pathway plan covers accommodation, yet the Government have chosen to put the publication of the local offer in relation to accommodation in the Bill, if I have understood correctly, so I am not quite clear about the resistance to minimum commitments in relation to healthcare. To be absolutely clear, 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. The Minister knows very well that children in care tend, through no fault of their own, to have much more complex health needs than those not in care. A lot of the specialist care available to children stops at 18. Taking the time to make sure they understand what support is available to them as adults is surely the minimum we might ask for.
That links to Amendment 42, which would make it explicit that care leavers under 25 need additional support from their GP. 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 do not 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 great difference.
Lord Storey (LD)
I will speak on Amendment 71 in my name. I am grateful to the Minister for her movement on this issue. In her letter to me of 7 October 2025, which was some time ago, she said:
“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’s safety and the quality of their education at risk. Too often, children whose needs could be met in school are instead placed in unsafe, low-quality settings with no clear plan for returning to mainstream education”.
I do not understand why anything in our society is unregistered—whether a school, a care home or alternative provision. We should not allow that to happen, because we put the lives of people at risk.
Let us understand what alternative provision means. It means that a child or young person who has been permanently expelled or removed from school becomes the responsibility of the local authority. The local authority has to make provision for them. However, in many cases, schools have their own units on site, which is the best model by far. Where that provision is not available, local authorities have to find providers.
Remember that these children and young people are the most vulnerable. They often have special educational needs, are from difficult circumstances or suffer trauma or mental health problems. The Minister realises the issue and has come forward with some suggestions of how we might develop this. I am genuinely grateful for that. I hope that this will be another way that we can deal with this issue.
I will raise a number of issues with the Minister on which I hope she might be prepared either to write to me or to respond in her reply. Unregistered provision cannot be inspected by Ofsted, but we use the same criteria for registered provision that we use with maintained schools, academies and independent schools. This is a very different situation. These pupils require flexible timetables, smaller groups, therapeutic approaches, outreach work, incremental attendance and a curriculum that prioritises core skills, well-being and preparation. Often, inspections of alternative provision already highlight that applying mainstream criteria to alternative providers creates inconsistent judgments, perverse incentives and misunderstandings about what meaningful progress looks like for these pupils. Without adaptation, the 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 am sure that the Government and the Minister want to get to grips with this issue, and I hope that their proposals actually deliver what we all want.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments focuses again on children in the care system. As we have heard expertly and eloquently expressed across the House, the focus on relationships is so important for those children, as is allowing them to sustain relationships with siblings and families where it is safe to do so, and not being moved too far from their home and network wherever possible. Obviously, this is most sensitive where siblings do not live together, either because they are not all in care or because they are in different care placements.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell. As he said, he has played a major role within Coram, the organisation which, as we sit here now, is celebrating the centenary of the Adoption of Children Act 1926. For noble Lords who do not know about this, the celebration is on the Terrace between now and 8 pm. If you get the opportunity, please go along and meet the many people who make such a large contribution to adoption within the UK. It is appropriate to mark the centenary appropriately.
That landmark legislation introduced, for the first time in England and Wales, a legal process by which the rights and responsibilities for a child could be transferred from birth parents to adoptive parents. Because of that, I find it unfortunate to say the least that on the centenary of that Act, the Bill we are discussing this evening features the word “adoption” only four times in 137 pages. I do not understand that. Three of those mentions are just mentions of adoption in other Acts of Parliament. Why that should be the case, I simply do not understand. A Bill with children’s well-being 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 and I am not going to repeat what I said then, but those working with adoptive families who have suffered the cut in the adoption support fund to which the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Russell, have referred feel undervalued, despite the important job they do in keeping children out of care and residential homes.
We need to think again about how we approach adoption and give it the respect and resources it deserves. If any noble Lords choose to go down to the Terrace this evening, they will meet people who are very active and hardworking in that sector, who will tell you that they feel undervalued and under-supported. I hope that before long, that will change.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 46 and 47 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. In Committee and again this evening, we covered in detail the distress caused to parents and children by the very late timing of the announcement in relation to the support fund and by the cut in the size of the grant. In particular, Amendment 46 gives the Government an opportunity to review how best to use this funding ahead of the grant period in March 2027. I am 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 perhaps the Minister can share it today. Of course, we on these Benches are open to improving the way funds are distributed, but we are genuinely concerned by the lack of visibility on what will happen next year. I hope very much that the Government will address this tonight.
I have also retabled my Amendment 100, which would give foster carers clear delegated authority for the children in their care on practical day-to-day matters. Foster carers have been clear that they would value this and, crucially, it is one of the reasons why we see too many leaving the profession. I hope the Minister can be more encouraging today than she was in Committee on this important point.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I reply to this group of amendments, I assure noble Lords that I will try not to drench anybody during the course of my response—although I have now decided to set myself an ambition of juggling three bottles of water by the time we get to the end of Report.
Important issues are covered in this group. Amendments 46 and 47 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concern funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund and provide a further opportunity to debate these important issues. Around 3,000 children are adopted each year and more than 3,800 enter special guardianship. I salute all those who welcome these vulnerable, often traumatised children into their homes and hope that the centenary celebrations noble Lords have alluded to, taking place here this evening, enable a celebration of that contribution and, rightly, as we have heard in this debate, a challenge about how we can do our best to support those who undertake adoption and special guardianship in future.
Almost 57,000 children have received adoption and special guardianship support since 2015, and many of them more than once. Since April 2025, we have approved applications for nearly 16,000 children. However, it is important to remember that this is not the only source of funding. The Families First Partnership programme will total £2.4 billion over the next three years. That funding is available to both adoptive and kinship families and to the services that support them. We have already confirmed that adoption and special guardianship funding will be continued for 2026-27. Further details will be shared in due course through the usual funding announcements.
As several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Watson, have made clear, we need to think longer term about the future of adoption support, as we promised to Parliament in September that we would—and perhaps even more so as we celebrate the centenary of adoption. 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.
I turn to Amendment 100, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and thank her for raising this important issue again. I would have to look back at the record, but I have a considerable amount of sympathy on this, which I hope I shared in Committee. 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. They therefore need to have the ability and the responsibility to make the decisions that they think are suitable for children.
The Government are prioritising fostering. Through the fostering recruitment and retention programme, we have been supporting over 60% of local authorities across England in 10 regional clusters to recruit and support foster carers. We know that 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 co-operatives and fostering hubs at the heart of these plans.
In relation to the issue 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. 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 as if they are treated differently from their peers. I agree with the spirit of this amendment, but it is not 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. We will nevertheless be taking further action on this issue as the noble Baroness 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. 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. I accept the noble Baroness’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 have addressed the concerns of noble Lords and that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I give heartfelt thanks to the Minister from these Benches for moving this amendment. I have not dared count the number of amendments my noble friend has tabled, but this is a magnificent example of a Minister and a Government listening.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome the amendment and thank the Government for tabling it.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their thanks and contributions. Tabling and discussing this amendment has been an important first step. We are clear that, if it is agreed, as it appears it will be—this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Young, raised about some of the technical areas where we need to ensure that this works effectively—we will continue to work across departments so that it has the impact that the Government desire: 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.
As I said, 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. Where possible, we will update existing guidance to minimise burdens and support accessibility.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, it is worth saying that this is one part of the action that the Government are taking with respect to temporary accommodation. Through our homelessness strategy, published in December, we have set out a range of measures to support families with children in temporary accommodation, including protecting record levels of investment in tackling homelessness and rough sleeping, and 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 have 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 roll. We have made a clear pledge to prevent deaths caused by gaps in healthcare. To achieve that, there will be proactive health outreach to families in temporary accommodation, and a clinical code to improve data and prevent incidents. We will end the practice of discharging newborns into bed and breakfast, or other unsuitable housing, and work with the NHS on safe and robust pathways.
In response to another question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young, there is no duty within this amendment to notify the Welsh, but we will look at how we can do that in regulations in the future, if needed. I wholly take his point, given that I come from that part of the country myself, about areas that are close to the border, where moves may be happening across the border.
I will write to noble Lords with an update on the timetable for the implementation of this very important step. I thank noble Lords for the welcome they have given it this evening.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that children deprived of their liberty have access to education.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we come to this important group, which covers children who are deprived of their liberty. Noble Lords will remember from our debate in Committee that the number of such children has risen by 11 times in only seven years to almost 1,300 in 2024. 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 are deprived of their liberty, typically for an average of six months, and restraint of those children is permitted in two-thirds of cases. The amendments in my name, and those of the noble Lords, Lord Russell and 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.
Amendment 56 would place an explicit responsibility on local authorities and health partners to be jointly responsible for the funding of care for children who are deprived of their liberty or at risk of being so. The amendment would make 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, as well as their characteristics, circumstances and outcomes. This would bring crucial transparency to the system and show whether the Government’s initiatives are working.
Amendment 55 would ensure there is comprehensive guidance for placement and care planning in relation to the specific aims when applying for a deprivation of liberty order and, crucially, to how a child’s plan will support their recovery so that 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. Amendment 60 would strengthen the role of the independent reviewing officer to make sure that decisions are scrutinised robustly. 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.
These proposals have not been developed in isolation. They seek to 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 the Department for Education itself. I urge the Minister not to wait for another review or pilot. These children do not have lobbyists; they do not write to their MP; they do not 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 change. We must therefore act for them.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her very full reply and recognise the commitment of the Government and some of the initiatives that she raised.
I do not feel that her response to my Amendment 56 met its aims. She said that it could restrict pooled funding for the group of children to whom it might apply. She knows better than me that the Government can come back with a better version. Until we come to that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 53.
Baroness Barran
“(8ZB) Where arrangements are made for the accommodation of a child under this section, health authorities specified in subjection (8ZC) must make joint funding arrangements under this section for the provision of that care.(8ZC) The authorities are—(a) NHS England,(b) any integrated care board, Local Health Board, Special Health Authority, National Health Service trust or NHS foundation trust,(c) the Secretary of State in relation to his or her functions under section 12 of the National Health Service Act 2006, and(d) any person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires joint funding arrangements to be made by relevant health providers for the accommodation of children under section 25 of the Children Act 1989. By mandating joint funding from NHS England, integrated care boards, and other specified health authorities, this amendment seeks to ensure that children receive more holistic and joined up support.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Barran Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
“(1A) After section 16, insert—“16A Registration of parent undertakings(1) In making an application for registration under this Part, an agency or establishment which is a subsidiary undertaking must ensure that the application contains information about the parent undertaking.(2) If the application is granted under section 13 (grant or refusal of registration), the establishment or agency must ensure that information related to the parent undertaking is regularly updated.(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations under section 16 (regulations about registration), make provision for the enforcement of the duty under subsection (2).(4) In this section, “parent undertaking” and “subsidiary undertaking” have the meanings given by section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006.””
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will remember from our debate in Committee that on this side of the House we had considerable practical reservations about the Government’s approach to regulating groups of children’s homes and foster care providers. These two amendments aim to improve the process that the Government plan to embark on.
Amendment 63 would simply require an agency or an establishment to provide information about its parent undertaking when it registered with Ofsted and to keep that information regularly updated. I assume that it would make it simpler for future regulation and enforcement if the identity of the parent undertaking was clear from the outset, given the complexity of the ownership structures of some of these groups.
My Amendment 64 aims to strengthen the effectiveness of the enforcement regime by giving it commercial teeth that would impact on these businesses. One would hope that preventing them expanding and restructuring financially or organisationally when they were subject to an improvement plan would lead to speedier compliance with the regulatory framework, as well as preventing a suboptimal group from expanding. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, in the absence of other comments I will turn to Amendments 63 and 64, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in relation to the provider oversight scheme. The scheme will enable Ofsted to require provider groups to implement an improvement plan across multiple settings where Ofsted reasonably suspects standards are not being met. If the provider group does not adequately implement improvements, Ofsted will be able to issue it with a fine.
Amendment 63 seeks to ensure that, where an applicant for registration with Ofsted is a subsidiary undertaking, the applicant must provide information about its provider group. This information must then be kept updated and new powers would provide for enforcement of these requirements in regulations. I do not believe this amendment is necessary. There are existing powers in Sections 12 and 22 of the Care Standards Act 2000 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 under the same parent undertaking.
Amendment 64 seeks to ensure that, when a parent undertaking is required to implement an improvement plan, it is subject to financial and commercial restrictions, including the limitation on the acquisition of further subsidiaries, the opening of new establishments or agencies, and the 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—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.
I turn to government Amendment 65. It is vital to the safeguarding of children that relevant authorities can quickly and efficiently issue notifications and documents where needed to persons carrying on or managing establishments and agencies and parent undertakings. This measure will amend Section 37 of the Care Standards Act 2000 so that Ofsted notices and documents under Part II of the Act can be served by email, giving 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 by post. This will reduce the risk of sensitive financial information being lost, and reduce delays to decisions that could impact the delivery of children’s social care services and to resolving concerns about the care that children receive. I hope I have addressed the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and that she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her remarks. I perhaps accept them more in relation to my Amendment 63 than my Amendment 64, but time will tell how the Government’s plans work out. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Barran Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to understand why there is a difference in the terms used in the bill and the evaluation, and whether there is a different intent with the family group decision-making model.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, it is good to be back scrutinising the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill after what seems like a long break. But noble Lords will remember that, while I think all sides of the House supported the approach of family group conferencing or a family group decision-making meeting, as described in the Bill, a number of points required clarification. I think those are still outstanding and I hope the Minister will be able to cover them in her response today.
Amendment 1 seeks to clarify what the Government really intend to implement. We have been told that the introduction of family group decision-making is based on the success of the pilot sites in the Families First for Children pathfinders, but the evaluation published in July is clear that family group conferencing, not family group decision-making meetings, was used in the pilot sites when children were on the cusp of care proceedings. Which approach is it and if it is not family group conferencing, what is the evidence base?
I suppose I am concerned that the Government are not actually committed to following the evidence-based family group conferencing model, but a slimmer or stripped-down version that we might call “FGC light”. The evaluation published in July did not have any outcome data and was largely a process evaluation, because of the stage the pilots are at.
Amendment 2 aims to press the Government for a commitment to no dilution of the model. The Bill talks about a meeting while the evaluation talks about the importance of careful preparation, including pre-meetings, and that being followed by funded support through the family network support package. Again, can the Minister be clear that the Government are proposing that the evidence-informed model is followed?
Turning to Amendment 3, we questioned in Committee whether it was necessary to have a duty to offer family group decision-making in statute at all, and in particular at the point of care proceedings, when there is already an expectation set out in the statutory guidance to the Children Act that this should be offered. Our amendments in Committee included a focus on using family group conferencing at different points in the safeguarding process, and it seems that the evaluation published in July agrees with this. On page 58, it recommends that:
“The timing of the offer of”
family group conferences
“needs to be explored in greater detail to establish clarity around the pros and cons of offering it at different phases in the family’s journey”.
Amendment 3 would require family group decision-making or family group conferencing to be offered at the point when a child who has been in care returns to their original family, something that occurs in over a quarter of cases. This is an obvious point at which additional support would be helpful and could avoid a second care placement, as happens all too frequently—in about a third of those cases. It does not take much imagination to appreciate how traumatic and damaging it is for children and their parents for that to happen.
Finally, Amendment 5, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who brings great personal experience to this topic, introduces the idea of a kinship support plan. As we will come to in a later group, we believe that the Government need to take action to increase the number of foster and kinship carers beyond what is already proposed. The idea of a kinship support plan is to increase the resilience of a kinship care placement by offering additional support, either from the local authority directly or from wider community resources. I wonder whether the Government are considering anything of this type, which would increase the chances of successful kinship placements.
These are cases where the threshold of significant harm will have been met, and therefore it is reasonable to offer additional support to carers and right-touch oversight of the safety and well-being of the child in their care. I beg to move.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for returning us to this important topic of family group conferences and for the refined amendments she has now presented, including Amendment 3, to which I have added my name. They would embed what is now established as good practice into legislation. I also welcome the noble Baroness’s request for clarification of what lies behind the differing terminology.
The Government, to their credit, recognise the important role of family group decision-making meetings. The arguments for such conferences are strong, enabling family members to be informed about local authorities’ concerns and proposals, including the wider family members, who may have been kept in the dark or given an incomplete version of the problems from just the parents’ perspective, perhaps coloured by a negative view of the local authority’s intentions. They are a good opportunity to maintain focus on the child or children while listening to and respecting the views of the family, particularly if the family has otherwise been marginalised.
As well as sharing information, conferences allow social workers to explore and assess what family members might have to offer, and what support might assist them to help divert cases away from legal proceedings. There is no doubt that family group conferences secure considerable financial savings for local authorities and for the courts. I emphasise the point that the noble Baroness has made: proper preparation for them is essential.
Ideally, such conferences should take place as early as possible, and at the pre-proceedings stage that we discussed in Committee. However, Amendment 3 would also require such a meeting to be offered when it is planned that the child will be returned to the care of family members. Again, that would be a good opportunity for informed discussion to clarify the expectations of the local authority for the future care of the child, and to discuss any difficulties that may have to be confronted. I hope, therefore, that the Government will use these amendments as an opportunity to build such points into the legal structure.
Baroness Barran (Con)
On the last point on Amendment 5, the noble Baroness talked about the local care offer. Is she able to say today whether she expects that, when the consultation happens and a template is developed for what that will look like, there will be a specific section on reunification? Obviously, that is a rather different context from the other situations.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I can assure the noble Baroness that her comments are fed into the process and that they are listened to.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks; she also comes with huge expertise on this subject. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for not acknowledging his co-signature of Amendment 3.
I was reassured by what the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said on Amendments 1 and 2. I accept that there could be confusion if you use both terms. I was glad to hear her say that clear principles would be set out in the guidance—as was suggested by my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park—and that there would be no dilution of the models. I thank her very much for that.
I am encouraged by the noble Baroness’s last comments on Amendment 3. I think there is an inconsistency when she points to the recommendations in Working Together to Safeguard Children that there should be family group decision-making meetings at the point of reunification because, as I understand it, that is the same recommendation as there is for using those meetings at the point of care proceedings. The Government have chosen to put one on statute and not the other, but that is, ultimately, the Government’s prerogative. She is, of course, right to bring up the point about delay and avoidable delay, but the choice is between delay and stability. I hope that, where the delay is proportionate, stability really is prioritised in the interests of the child.
In my intervention I touched on the noble Baroness’s remarks on the local support offer. Obviously, I am disappointed that the Government did not accept my Amendments 3 and 5 in particular. I hope that, as they implement this new legislation, local authorities will use all their discretion and creativity to address the needs of specific children in the way that we all, across the House, hope. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
“Cessation of Child Protection PlansWhen proceedings are initiated or a care and supervision order is issued under section 31 of the Children Act 1989, if there is any cessation of child protection plans for children under five years old, that must be signed off by the relevant Director of Children’s Services or Head of Social Work Practice.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the relevant Director of Children’s Services or Head of Social Work Practice is required to sign off any cessation of child protection plans for children under five years old once proceedings have been initiated or once a care and supervision order has been issued.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 6 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, who through no fault of her own is unable to be with us this afternoon, would require sign-off from the director of children’s services or head of social work practice when a child under five and previously on a child protection plan becomes subject to Section 31 care proceedings.
Last year there were about 18,600 children involved in care proceedings and about 16% of children in care are under five. Yet children in this age group are disproportionately represented in the most serious cases. Children under the age of one accounted for about 30% of serious incident notifications last year, and earlier triennial reviews found that about 65% of cases involved children under the age of five. If we pause to think about that, this age group appears roughly four times as often in serious incidents in which a child is killed or seriously harmed as it does in the care population. In this context, the amendment is a really modest and practical safeguard that could help prevent avoidable abuse and tragedy, and save very young lives. I very much hope the Minister will consider her position. My back of the envelope estimate is that a director of children’s services would, on average, have to look at 20 of these cases annually and, given the length of time of care proceedings, it is the least we should expect them to do.
On the wider group of amendments, on 17 December the Minister for Children and Families wrote to Peers following two very helpful round tables about Part 1 of the Bill. In that letter, he rightly emphasised
“the importance of local authorities operating within the right framework”
so that
“families receive intensive well evidenced help early, that children are protected through more expert and decisive multi-agency child protection and that children … leaving care benefit from enduring relationships that the care system has facilitated”.
He warned against overreliance on legislation, regulations and guidance, arguing that an
“ever growing stack of rules”
has, in the past, “failed to improve practice” and undermined professional judgment and accountability. That analysis is compelling, but unfortunately Clause 3 takes us in the opposite direction from the approach he advocates, and that is why the amendments in this group are needed.
There is, as yet, no robust evidence for the Government’s chosen model. I thank the department for the email it sent me yesterday, setting out in a bit more detail some of the evidence from the pathfinders, but they remain at a very early stage. The evaluation concentrates, as it says itself, on process and implementation rather than outcomes, and there were only 10 families interviewed for the evaluation, some of whom were unaware that they were part of these pathfinder sites. There is no counterfactual, no control group and no convincing data yet that shows better decision-making or earlier intervention. Moreover, at a recent Ofsted inspection one of the pilot sites recently moved from “good” to “requires improvement”, which underlines that this is not a magic wand. Wanting a model to succeed is not the same as demonstrating that it does, and Amendment 17 would therefore delay implementation of this clause until a proper evidence base is available, which is entirely consistent with the Minister’s own stated aims.
The list of those expressing concerns about these reforms is growing. In Committee, reference was made to the public concerns of Professor Eileen Munro, who is possibly the closest thing to a household name in social work in this country. Similar concerns have been raised by Professors June Thoburn and Ray Jones. A Community Care poll of social workers found that 78% of respondents agreed with research warning that combining the investigative and chairing role of lead social workers would undermine impartiality. The Children’s Minister argues for avoiding prescription, yet the Bill allows the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulation “support of any kind” to be delivered by the multi-agency child protection teams. If we all try to imagine a future Government whom each of us would least like to see in charge, it is not difficult to see how such a broad power could be misused, so Amendment 11 would remove it.
Despite the Minister’s concerns about overprescription, the pathfinders themselves have been heavily prescribed. Some of the evaluation documentation only underlines how little is known about the real-world impact of this approach. For example, appendix 4 asks evaluators to
“identify what impact a greater role for education has on services and what costs are associated with strengthening the role of education”.
This signals that the implications for a key partner are still unclear.
Indeed, funding issues were brought up in the email which the department kindly sent me, where it pointed out that the dedicated health roles in most areas within the multi-agency child protection team are funded by the local authority, as are a number of education roles. Police, on the other hand, have funded their posts, but this links to government Amendments 12 and 14, which, if I have understood them correctly, would allow special constables—unpaid volunteers—to act as the police representative at the multi-agency child protection team meetings. The Minister is shaking her head, so, if I have misunderstood, I look forward to being corrected, but I thought that was what her letter to your Lordships said.
It is critical that we do not have a dilution of skills, which leads me on to another point from the evaluation, which highlights a lack of confidence among so-called “alternatively qualified practitioners”, non-social workers who will now be working in early help and child-in-need teams in relation to risk assessment, and real concerns that they do not have the same expertise, both in risk assessment but also, crucially, in the identification of harm as qualified social workers.
Turning to Amendment 13, for which I am grateful to Professor Peter Green, co-chair of the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, and Dr Vanessa Impey, this would stipulate minimum qualification levels for staff, including health professionals, aligned with the intercollegiate document and Working Together. Safeguarding leads in health are deeply concerned about the Government’s decision to effectively halve the capacity of designated doctors and nurses whose specialist expertise underpins safe multi-agency practice. Working Together defines designated professionals as
“dedicated clinicians whose roles centre on providing clinical expertise and strategic advice to the system”.
To quote Professor Green,
“halving, or worse, this workforce is the same as halving the number of children’s heart surgeons in the NHS, and that is a loss that would be unimaginable in any other area of child health”.
So I hope that, when she comes to reply, the Minister will agree that the multi-agency child protection teams cannot function effectively if overall safeguarding standards fall because senior, highly experienced safeguarding professionals are lost from health services. When she comes to respond, can she set out clearly how, in the face of cuts of 50% or more to statutory safeguarding posts, there will not be a deterioration in safeguarding standards within health, and in multi-agency working? If the Government are willing to protect these posts, there will be no reason to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 13.
There is agreement with the Government’s underlying aims in Clause 3, but deep concern about the speed of implementation, the weakness of the evidence base, the dilution of expertise and the scale of concurrent change, especially for local authorities and integrated care boards. These amendments offer a measured way to secure the benefits of reform, while avoiding serious and avoidable risks to very vulnerable children. I hope the Government will pause and treat them with the seriousness they deserve. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, creating new multi-agency child protection teams through Clause 3 is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, suggested, about saving money; it is about bringing together social workers, police, health and education colleagues with experience in child protection to take swift and effective action that protects children from harm at the earliest opportunity. I hope that I will be able to respond to the points raised in this short debate, as we did at length in Committee and have continued to do since then through engagement, which noble Lords have acknowledged, including, in my case, directly with directors of children’s services.
Government Amendments 12 and 14 broaden the range of police staff who can work in these teams to include police officers and other police staff experienced in child protection. The need for this amendment arose as we talked more closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing to make sure that we were providing the scope for the correct representatives from policing to be on these teams. We are confident that this will improve front-line operational capacity through the right people with the right skills working in the team. Regulations will be clear that individuals must have appropriate levels of experience, seniority, qualification and expertise. I will come back a little later in my remarks to how we will ensure that those appropriate levels are delivered.
Noble Lords have heard me speak before in Committee—in fact, at some length—about the Families First Partnership programme, where we are investing £2.4 billion over the next three years to change the way that we help, support and protect children. One element of that—introducing new multi-agency child protection teams—brings a sharp focus to better multi-agency working, information sharing and decision-making. I therefore welcome the opportunity to address amendments relating to these new teams, to clarify what we are learning through the national rollout and how this will inform the future legislative framework on day-to-day operations.
I turn first to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on the important matter of child protection for very young children in legal proceedings. Of course, as the noble Baroness identified, these are children who are widely represented in the system and for whom we need special care. However, Amendment 6 would require specific senior sign-off for the decision to end a child protection plan when proceedings have been initiated or care or supervision orders are issued for children under five. As I have outlined before, these plans should end only through a child protection conference, when multi-agency practitioners are confident that a child is no longer suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, and not automatically when proceedings are initiated.
I know the noble Baroness is concerned that children in these circumstances may fall between teams or services deciding whether staying at home will keep them safe from harm. I want to reassure her, and other noble Lords, that I am confident that reforming the system of family help, with new multi-agency child protection teams wrapped around, is about exactly this: making sure the whole system holds the safety and well-being of children as the number one priority.
I will now speak to Amendments 11, 13, 15 and 16, also tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These amendments focus on the operation and delivery of the new multi-agency child protection teams. Amendment 13 seeks to ensure that the new teams would operate within the existing statutory framework, Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, and that these teams have sufficient access to health safeguarding expertise, specifically in relation to the NHS intercollegiate document, Safeguarding Children and Young People in Care: Competencies for Health Care Staff.
I reassure noble Lords that these teams, as part of the safeguarding partners, will absolutely be required, under the existing duties in Sections 16E, 16G and 16K, to comply with the expectations set out in the working together statutory guidance and local arrangements. We are working closely with health, police and local authority national leaders to ensure that practitioners in the teams have the skills, expertise and knowledge they need, or need access to, to deliver effective child protection interventions.
On the specific point about the police, I want to be clear that the intention of broadening the category, as we have done in the government amendments, would not suggest that a volunteer special constable would be suitable for one of these roles, but we could envisage police staff who would be appropriately qualified. In fact, as I have said, regulations will set out the requirements for the skills and qualifications, including police representatives.
The College of Policing’s professionalising public protection programme is developing resources to make sure that the police workforce has enough of the right professionals, with the right competences, qualifications and experience, to work in multi-agency child protection teams. There are good examples of police forces providing expert staff for child protection work: Thames Valley Police deploys experienced senior police representatives to its local multi-agency safeguarding hubs, including detective sergeant equivalents. They are decision-makers and offer expertise to support their police representatives at all levels. Thames Valley will take this approach to staffing multi-agency child protection teams as well.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification. When I was speaking, she said that special constables would not be represented, and I think she has said that again just now. In the letter she sent to all Peers on 7 January, she said that, to Clause 3, the Government are laying two amendments to broaden which practitioners from the police can be deployed to multi-agency child protection teams so that it includes police, staff and special constables. Can the Minister explain that?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I regret that we included special constables. Given the criteria that will be set out in regulations for the level of expertise, experience and skills necessary to be part of these teams, I could not envisage a situation in which a volunteer special constable would be an appropriate part of these teams. I was about to reiterate that we are setting out in regulations the skills, knowledge and qualifications that all practitioners nominated in multi-agency child protection teams will need, and that these regulations will be subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. In that way, we will be able to be clear about the types of people from those safeguarding partners who would be appropriate to be part of the teams.
Amendment 11 seeks clarity on the support that multi-agency child protection teams will provide to local authorities to keep children safe from harm. I have listened to requests to be more specific about what these teams will do in practice. That is why, last week, the department published a policy statement to give clarity about the scope of regulations for the operation of these teams. I hope noble Lords have had the chance to look at that. The statement makes it clear that the teams will deliver all statutory child protection functions, from strategy meetings to conferencing. The teams will lead investigations and make decisions about what needs to happen to keep children safe from harm and then hold agencies to account for delivering support. I hope the statement reassures noble Lords that we are working closely with multi-agency partners, and will continue to work with noble Lords and others, as we develop the regulations through public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny to make sure that these teams are the very best they can be.
Amendments 15 and 16 seek to allow the social worker and education practitioner in multi-agency child protection teams to operate on behalf of multiple local authorities, where teams are combined across local authority boundaries. As I clarified in Committee, local authority professionals in the teams must remain responsible for children in their area. This ensures that the local authority with statutory responsibility for the child continues to be accountable and that children do not fall between the cracks. Collaboration across areas and between practitioners will happen. In fact, Clause 4 creates a clear duty on all practitioners to share information to safeguard or promote the welfare of the child, regardless of local authority boundaries.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I know this is semantics, but the point that I made about pathfinders is important. The pathfinders are trying out different approaches within the criteria and the framework set for them. They are discovering, as we suggested at some length when we talked about examples in Committee, different ways of doing things. They are also ensuring that we are doing this on a basis that will have the right professionals in the right place so that children do not fall between gaps—and in fact will actively close the gaps that exist within the system now—and from which we will continue to learn. I will come to the point about timing in a moment, because that is important.
I was just coming to the point about the round table with pathfinder directors of children’s services and representatives from each of the regions that I held to discuss the opportunities and challenges in implementing these new teams. I reassure noble Lords that I said specifically to my team in setting up the round table that I was interested in hearing not only from people who thought that everything was going well but from those who might be more sceptical as well. I have to say that I heard overwhelmingly from pathfinders that, while changing the approach to child protection has been challenging, the benefits of multi-agency expertise and working are already evidenced in the decisions and outcomes for children. For example, areas shared positive examples of innovative whole-family work enabled by multi-agency collaboration, and noted that more empowering and transparent practice has given partners confidence in the approach.
I want to take a moment to reassure noble Lords that we recognise the scale of the ask here. This is a complex national system reform that requires leadership, co-operation and commitment from agencies, and that requires us—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, is right—to learn from the pathfinders. By the way, I undertake to ensure as far as possible that, as we continue, we are able to provide some of the evidence that the noble Baroness identified.
That is why, through the families first partnership programme, we are working, for example, with three police force areas—the Met, Thames Valley and West Mercia—to identify how we can create multi-agency child protection teams that align with policing footprints. This work includes over 40 local authority areas working together to create effective delivery approaches, and we will bring into that work representatives from health and education as well.
Finally, on delay, it is not the intention—assuming this Bill passes through both Houses—that the multi-agency child protection teams will instantly need to spring into action. It is not even the case, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, that we expect them to be fully in place during this calendar year. I want to reassure noble Lords that the provisions will not come into force before late 2027, following public consultation and further scrutiny of regulations by Parliament. We also have a comprehensive quarterly monitoring process to measure progress, impact and outcomes as the Families First Programme rolls out nationally and are working across sectors to share learning about what works. I just ask noble Lords not to slam the brakes on an important reform for which I think there has been considerable support, and on which work is already under way.
I turn to Amendments 250 and 251, on resourcing, funding and effective delivery of these teams. To be clear, as we were in Committee, safeguarding partners already have a joint and equal duty to work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. The statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children is clear about the expectations on safeguarding partners in making these local arrangements. Guidance will be updated in line with the new regulations to clarify what this means for delivering multi-agency child protection teams. Therefore, resource and funding are already agreed locally, and this will be the same for multi-agency child protection teams.
Once again, we are learning from the pathfinders. For instance, some areas are funding new roles; others are using existing or seconded resources, and some are using agreements between agencies to pool resources for multi-agency child protection teams. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seemed to suggest that it was wrong for different approaches to be taken in different areas. That is precisely the type of flexibility and local recognition of responsibilities in the way teams have been set up that is important.
The Children Act 2004 means that safeguarding partners can already work with relevant agencies, such as probation and youth offending teams, to support their arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Clause 3 will supplement these local arrangements and allow safeguarding partners to choose from a sub-list set out in regulations, which relevant agencies will work most closely with to support the multi-agency child protection team functions, agreeing this locally through co-operation memorandums. We say more on this in the published policy statement.
In Committee, I outlined the £523 million of funding made available in 2025-26 for national rollout of our children’s social care reform. Since then, we have confirmed a further £2.4 billion over the next three years. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this is a significant and important investment that shows our commitment to reforming the system, to reforming it right and to improving protection for children. I hope, therefore, with the reassurance and clarification that I provided, that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I wonder if the noble Baroness could clarify two things. I apologise if I missed the first, but she went through a series of expectations for qualifications for staff in the multi-agency child protection teams and I did not hear her confirm that those would align with the intercollegiate document, so I would be grateful if she could confirm that in relation to health staff. Also, I wrote down that she said “these teams”— I was not sure whether that was the multi-agency child protection teams, the early help teams or both—will not be implemented until the end of 2027, which feels later than was previously projected. I wonder if she could clarify that.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On the point about the NHS document on intercollegiate guidance, the point I was making was that we believe the provisions are already set out in the Working Together requirements. We will be able, of course, to set them out more fully in regulations; I am pretty confident about that. If I have gone beyond where I should have, I will make that clear.
When I referred to teams, I was in some ways shortening my speaking note. I think every time I did so, I was referring to multi-agency child protection teams. The point I was making was that many of those teams will already be set up and operating as part of the pathfinder process. But in recognition of the scale of the challenge, we are clear that we will take time to get the regulations right and continue the learning from the pathfinders, and to do that in a way that ensures we can all be confident that they will be successful. That is the reason for the timescale I set out.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness very much for that clarification, as I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I also acknowledge the Government’s financial commitment to this programme.
In relation to my Amendment 6, the Minister said that a child protection plan should end only when there is a multi-agency child protection case conference. One could argue that under the Government’s proposed system, where the same social worker will work with a family but also chair that conference, there is the need for fresh eyes to look at those cases of very young children who are at risk of not having adequate protection and are not nearly so visible to society as those over the age of five, because obviously they are not in school. I am not convinced by the arguments the Minister made.
I am amazed that the Minister regrets she put special constables in the letter. I can imagine she is feeling a bit irritated about that, but I think a lot of people who will have received the letter are not in the Chamber, so I hope she will write to clarify that special constables will not be eligible, because that looked like a cost-cutting measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, alluded to.
In relation to cross-border work, I agree that one should not in any way blur accountability, and Amendments 15 and 16 aimed to introduce some more flexibility. But as the Minister knows, families move around a lot, particularly in London, so having rigid boundaries will be unworkable and more flexibility will need to emerge in future.
Turning to Amendment 17, whether they are pathfinders or pilots is semantics. I hear and absolutely believe what the Minister says about the Government seeing increasing commitments from some local authorities, but she is also aware that some very senior, experienced and committed people who want to see the best for children also have specific concerns. This was before my time—I am not for a second suggesting I would have got it right—but those who were involved in the special educational needs reforms and who introduced the Children and Families Act did so in the same spirit: to address an urgent problem that needed an urgent solution. However, without proper piloting that has ended up in a place that nobody intended. The spirit of my Amendment 17, together with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is to avoid that happening again.
As I say, I am not convinced by the Minister’s explanation in relation to Amendment 6. We are talking about 65% of child deaths and serious harm occurring to that age group, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Barran
“(6) The provisions of this section other than subsections (6) to (9), shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has—(a) published a report evaluating the impact of the Families First pathfinder areas on the key child protection objectives set out by the government, and(b) laid the report before Parliament.(7) The report under subsection (6)(a) must include clear evidence demonstrating the extent to which the pathfinder areas have achieved improvements in—(a) early identification of children at risk of harm,(b) effective intervention to prevent abuse and neglect,(c) coordination between statutory agencies and family support services, and(d) outcomes for children and families subject to safeguarding interventions.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument specify the date on which subsections (1) to (5) of this section come into force, but only after the requirements in subsection (6) have been met. (9) Regulations under subsection (8) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent Clause 3 from coming into force until the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament a report evaluating the impact of the Families First pathfinder areas on the government’s stated child protection objectives. This would ensure that the approach has been properly tested and evidenced before national roll-out.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Minister said that the rollout of the multi-agency child protection teams would not be complete until the end of 2027 and called on the House not to “slam the brakes on”. However, the Government set out in their documentation on this that the transformation stage would be complete by March 2026, and this has been described in many places as the most significant reforms to child protection in a generation.
On this side of the House, we do not want to slam on the brakes, but we do want confidence that it will make things better for children and achieve what the Government aim for. If I may say so, this gives the Government an opportunity to come back and potentially set out in more detail some of the milestones. Had we heard those today, I would not be pressing this amendment, but we did not, and so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I will Amendment 18, which is in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith. This group covers minor and technical government amendments relating to data protection. These remove Clause 62, and amend certain text in Clauses 4, 13, 18, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 45.
The original drafting sought to clarify that any duties or powers to process personal data are subject to data protection law. However, these references are now unnecessary, following the commencement of Section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 on 20 August 2025. I reassure noble Lords that this absolutely does not remove any data protections; this is about refining drafting to reflect the latest legislative developments.
Section 106 of the 2025 Act introduced a general data protection override into the Data Protection Act 2018. This ensures that the UK’s data protection laws are not overridden by future legislation that imposes a duty or grants a power to process personal data, unless expressly provided otherwise. This does not remove any data protections; this is about refining drafting to reflect the latest legislative changes to the UK’s statute book. I beg to move.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s clarification of the reasons and the impact of these amendments, which seem entirely reasonable.
Baroness Barran
“(9A) The safeguarding partners for a local authority area must ensure that arrangements made under section 16E include—(a) multi-agency arrangements for coordinating initial information sharing and assessment in relation to safeguarding concerns about children,(b) provision for concerns to be referred from the arrangements under paragraph (a) to a multi-agency child protection team established under section 16EA where the initial assessment indicates that enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 may be required, and(c) processes to ensure continuity of information as cases are transferred from the arrangements under paragraph (a) to a multi-agency child protection team.(9B) Arrangements under subsection (9A)(a) must include provision for—(a) a designated point of contact for receiving safeguarding concerns and information requests from persons to whom subsection (4) applies,(b) timescales for sharing information and making multi-agency decisions about the appropriate level of response,(c) thresholds and criteria for determining when concerns should be referred to a multi-agency child protection team, and(d) secure systems and protocols for information sharing that comply with the data protection legislation.(9C) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (6) must include provision about—(a) effective models for multi-agency arrangements to facilitate initial information sharing and assessment,(b) decision-making frameworks for determining when information indicates that section 47 enquiries may be required,(c) protocols for handover of information and coordination between initial multi-agency arrangements and multi-agency child protection teams, and(d) minimum standards for response times at each stage of multi-agency information sharing and assessment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires safeguarding partners to establish practical multi-agency arrangements for initial information sharing before Section 47 thresholds can be determined. It aims to ensure cases transition smoothly to Multi-Agency Child Protection Teams when Section 47 enquiries are required.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, as when we debated this in Committee, Clause 4 is drafted so that there is a one-way flow of information between someone with safeguarding duties to someone else with safeguarding duties. I am pretty confident that both Ministers do not believe that this is how it should work in practice. If this is to make a difference to the safety of children, we need to be clear that information needs to flow back and be shared in a multi-agency context, such as a MASH initially, and potentially later on in terms of child protection.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for that response. She has been reassuring both on the care that is going to be taken over the statutory guidance for information sharing—I hope my amendment can contribute to that in some small way—and the development of an information sharing template. I am assuming that, by that, she means a multi-agency one. Similarly, the Government are obviously taking great care on the development of the single unique identifier. We wish them every success in working through that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, in my time as a family magistrate, I have dealt with the issue of contact centres a number of times. I want to make a point that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, did not make: the problem with unregistered contact centres. When you are in court, it is not always obvious to the court making the decision whether the proposed contact centre is registered or unregistered. This of course is a potentially very serious problem. I have even been in court and been told that one of the parties had personally set up a contact centre as a way of gaming the system, if I can put it like that. So this is a real problem, and registration and training of course are the answer. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be as encouraging as possible.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made a compelling case for the value of child contact centres in and of themselves and for the importance of having clear minimum standards, and achieving that through additional training and accreditation. I felt that the Minister gave a good answer in Committee on this specific case, when she highlighted the role of the National Association of Child Contact Centres. I do not in any way disagree with the aims of the amendment, but, having worked in a charity that did a lot of training and accreditation, my experience is that we can place too much weight on it and what it can achieve.
The point the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made about unregistered contact centres is extremely important. Anything the Minister can say that would ensure that courts and magistrates have absolute clarity about whether a centre is or is not registered would be critical. If we are going to go down this route, having simple links for contact centres with their local specialist services, whether they be specialist domestic abuse services, drug and alcohol services, or whatever the issue is, might be the simplest and most effective way of making sure that these centres are as safe as they can possibly be.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It would require all providers of child contact centre services to be accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres to national standards set by the Secretary of State. In responding to this, I start by recognising, as all noble Lords have, the vital role played by the National Association of Child Contact Centres and the many dedicated child contact centres across England and Wales. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made clear, their work is fundamental to the family justice system, providing supervised or supported contact in a safe, neutral environment, allowing children to maintain a meaningful relationship with a non-resident parent. The commitment of staff and volunteers to safeguarding and creating a child-focused space is invaluable. I express my sincere appreciation for the work that they and the NACCC undertake.
I understand the motivation behind this amendment, but the Government do not believe that it is necessary and are already responding to some of the points made in this debate and in the debate in Committee. The NACCC already accredits the majority of centres in England and Wales, with research showing that unaccredited centres are uncommon. In preparing for this, I asked the obvious question: how many unaccredited child contact centres are there? Interestingly, the Cordis Bright research that the noble Baroness referred to found that there was only a small number of unaccredited contact centres, but the report did not provide a figure or estimate for the number of unaccredited contact centres. When those working in accredited child contact centres who took part in the research were asked about unaccredited contact centres, they indicated that such centres were few in number. This may well suggest that we have made progress, due to the efforts of the NACCC, in ensuring that many more child contact centres are accredited by it.
Following the meeting that noble Lords had with my noble friend Lady Levitt, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords, a range of work has been commissioned and is being taken forward by officials at the Ministry of Justice. One of those pieces of work is for officials to work with the NACCC to further understand how we can identify the number of unaccredited contact centres in England and Wales.
Also following from that meeting, other streams of work are taking place that will, I hope, provide reassurance to noble Lords on some of the specific issues that they have raised. These include, first, exploring the possibility of introducing a protocol or similar mechanism for mediators to ensure that they refer families only to accredited centres. Secondly, several noble Lords raised an important point about ensuring that those in child contact centres are suitably trained. Another piece of work is carrying out a further review of the mandatory training already in place for child contact centre staff and volunteers in order to ensure that it is as good as it can be. As I have already said, we are developing a more robust understanding of where any unaccredited centres are and of any concerns that may exist in relation to them.
While I completely understand that the amendment is well intentioned, I do not believe that mandatory accreditation is the best way to approach the issues that have been raised. The NACCC already provides effective leadership and oversight to the majority of centres. Further to this, the work the Ministry of Justice is now taking forward will provide additional reassurance in this space. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment, given the good work that is already being undertaken in relation to the points that noble Lords have raised.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will respond briefly, given the hour. Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerns implementing a government child neglect strategy, and I absolutely understand his aim in advocating for this. It is right to raise issues concerning the neglect of children, but in my own experience, neglect almost always coexists with other forms of abuse or harm. I fear that focusing on one element of a child’s experience might lead professionals to overlook others that are frequently interlinked. There are real risks with that approach, so we on these Benches do not support the amendment.
I genuinely look forward to the Minister’s reply to Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We had powerful speeches in favour of what has happened in Wales, and, I would argue, equally important speeches from my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Meyer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. These reminded the House of the current law and raised important balancing points about some of the impacts of the Welsh legislation. I am sympathetic to the push by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for transparency and understanding the data as the Government navigate this very difficult area.
On a smacking ban, the only point that has not been raised this evening, and which worries me—I am sure that nobody would disagree with this—is that children also suffer terribly from psychological violence, emotional abuse or coercion from their parents. The point was made early in the debate about the importance of parenting programmes and positive support for parents. I hope that the Minister can talk about the Best Start in Life hubs, and say that the Government are finding routes, which we all want to see, to support parents without having to criminalise behaviour.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a good debate in this group on new clauses regarding a national child neglect strategy and the removal of the reasonable punishment review in Wales. I will also speak to three government amendments that will ensure that providers of regulated children’s social care settings or youth detention accommodation are held accountable for their role in the ill-treatment or wilful neglect of under-18s in their care. As we have heard in the debate, this group of amendments raises important issues around child safety and well-being—areas to which the Government are wholly committed.
Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a national child neglect strategy. Protecting children from all forms of abuse and neglect is a key priority for this Government. Neglect accounts for 50% of all child protection plans in England, and we know that it is often cumulative. Harm builds up over time if not addressed early. This is why, along with measures in this Bill and backed by over £2.4 billion of investment, our focus is on strengthening multi-agency family help and child protection through national reforms, and statutory guidance that explicitly references neglect as a safeguarding and child protection concern throughout. These practical steps will support practitioners to identify and respond effectively to children and families who need support, including where neglect is present.
We also know that poverty can increase the risk of neglect, although I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that being poor does not imply that you will neglect your children. It does, of course, make your life more difficult. That is why the recently published child poverty strategy prioritises early intervention and integrated support for families, addressing stressors such as parental mental health difficulties, parental substance misuse and domestic abuse—factors that often co-occur with neglect.
I acknowledge the strong case made on this topic by the Liberal Democrats, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, when we met to talk about it. The Government have heard a range of representations on this issue, and I can commit to the House that we will continue to work with key stakeholders—including the Government’s What Works Network, Foundations, and the national child safeguarding practice review panel—on specific matters relating to child neglect, helping to shape our understanding of this complex issue.
Sexual Harassment in Educational Settings
Baroness Barran Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. There are unacceptable levels of sexual harassment and abuse of girls within our schools and universities. That is why, as part of the violence against women and girls strategy published in December 2025, specific resources are made available in our schools—in particular, three pilot programmes to support RSHE teaching, to encourage healthy relationships and to tackle harmful sexual behaviour—as well as an innovation fund to enable us to work out the most effective methods of tackling this abhorrent activity.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, what impact does the Minister think that access to social media for children under 16 has on these behaviours in school?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am very aware that there was misogyny, sexual abuse and harassment long before there was social media. However, of course, some of the vile attitudes towards women and girls disseminated online are precisely why we need strong relationships, sex and health education and why we need to ensure that the Online Safety Act, which has some of the strongest controls over social media anywhere in the world, is fully actioned and that action is taken where there is inappropriate behaviour, including by the companies responsible.
Preschool Children: Digital Technology
Baroness Barran Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This is an issue that we touched on with respect to educational technology in particular during the course of the Bill. There are wider developments in how we can regulate the use of AI with respect to individuals’ data that are being taken forward, particularly by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The noble Baroness raises an important point that I am sure parents will have borne in mind when thinking about presents that they are buying for their children. However, she is also right that we cannot leave parents, schools or other settings to make these decisions on their own, which is why we need to keep up with the evidence in order to provide the best possible advice to parents, to education settings and to others.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s comments about producing guidance for parents and early years settings in this area. Could she clarify the timing of that appearing and confirm whether it will be accompanied by a public health communications campaign?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have probably gone as far as I can today in talking about the work that the Government are doing in thinking about how we can improve the guidance for parents. We will have more to say about this in the near future. As I said, we will also have the opportunity to consider this in more detail when we come back to Report on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. However, any guidance that we produce needs to be easily accessible to parents. That will mean, for example, using the Best Start in Life hubs and website. We will also require public health dissemination as well.
Free School Meals
Baroness Barran Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, in addition to worrying about how to fund free school meals, the Minister will be aware that there are concerns emerging about the funding of future teacher pay awards following the Treasury’s statement that there would be no additional funding for public sector pay awards outside departmental budgets. Can she reassure schools that the 6.5% recommended increase over three years which the department made to the STRB can be met through their budgets?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We have been clear with schools about the 10% increase in teacher pay that we have delivered since we came into government. Additional funding has been provided but, of that, we will support schools to find approximately 1% through efficiencies. I am sure that the noble Baroness supports the focus on efficiencies, even if she does not support the additional investment that this Government have been able to find.