Independent Review of Children’s Social Care
Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Viscount Younger of Leckie(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I sincerely thank my noble friend Lord Watson for securing this timely debate and all noble Lords who made such incredibly well-informed contributions today. I also thank those responsible for the many briefings that we have all received. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA, and express my thanks and gratitude to all those working to protect vulnerable children and young people in such difficult circumstances across the country, and to the many carers who do such extraordinary work in all the different settings that exist.
My personal involvement in children’s services goes back a long way, particularly to 2010, when in Leeds, Labour formed a new administration after the local elections and we inherited an inadequate—a failing—children’s services department. I became the lead member, and as a whole council and city we embarked on a journey to become the first core city to achieve an outstanding rating across the board. I am proud to say that Leeds still maintains the outstanding rating today, despite the pressures, which remain immense.
I mention this to illustrate that major change is possible if the collective will of decision-makers is clear and determined, and focused on putting the needs of our most vulnerable children at the heart of everything we do. “Every child matters” was not an empty phrase; surely it should be the bedrock of any civilised society. In the same way, we took the view in Leeds that enhancing the life chances of children and young people is everyone’s business, involving all agencies and all departments, and reflected in all decisions made across the wider community.
To this end, we established Child Friendly Leeds 10 years ago, launched by Her Majesty the Queen and endorsed by King Charles last month in a visit to celebrate its 10-year milestone. A child-friendly city basically means developing a relentless focus on children and young people and taking hard decisions—for example, on targeting funding—that will benefit those vulnerable children whose lives can be blighted without the timely intervention of services to give them, their families and their carers support. One of our collective main priorities was to safely—and I emphasise “safely”—reduce the number of children and young people coming into our care, and to reinvest the significant savings into expanding preventive and early help services on a cross-agency basis.
I was the chair of the children and young people’s board at the LGA, and in that capacity I worked with Josh MacAlister and the review team—along with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer—on the design group, inputting in particular from a local government perspective and bringing Leeds’s experience into the process. I pay tribute to the review team and all the many people who contributed to the process, bringing their rich personal experiences to the discussions and exploring, as we have heard, the commitment to lifelong, loving relationships.
I am deeply disappointed to hear that the Government have delayed issuing their next steps following the publication of the review earlier this summer. We need action now. I am even more concerned that the review will become submerged into the spending review and be seen as a cost problem rather than as an enabler to improve services, achieve better outcomes for young people and their families, and lead to major savings in the wider societal areas that are impacted so heavily by failure in this space.
By way of example, research shows us that roughly 25% of the prison population has had some care experience. That is shocking. Of the young care-experienced people who enter prison, roughly 45% present a substance misuse problem and 61% have a record of being disengaged from education. Indeed, ONS figures released yesterday show that 52% of care-experienced children had been convicted of a criminal offence by the age of 24, and 92% of those who received a custodial sentence had previously been identified with special educational needs. Some 18% had been permanently excluded and 81% had been suspended during their time in education. How much more evidence do we need that action is urgent and that government needs to respond immediately to the recommendations in the review and take action?
The recent figures re skyrocketing incidence of mental health presentations and the worries concerning SEND provision following the scrapping of the education Bill further add to the enormous concern among practitioners. There are so many aspects of the review to highlight. Tackling the workloads and staffing issues in social care remain critical. We hear constantly about the pressures on adult social care budgets but, as said by my noble friend Lady Taylor, we need to shout about the pressures on children’s social care budgets: a 25% higher spend by councils over the last five years, with pressures of over £1 billion estimated for each year. This is simply unsustainable.
From my experience in Leeds, I welcome the focus on early intervention in the review—the right time and the right place being the key focus. I particularly welcome the proposals for strengthening support for kinship carers—we have heard a great deal about this today. Working with kinship carers has been one of the key components of our journey, recognising the huge significance of close family and friend relationships based on understanding and love. The estimate that 162,000 children are being raised by kinship carers across England and Wales is probably an underestimate. I am sure we have all seen the briefings that estimate that every 1,000 children raised in kinship extended families rather than the care system save the Government £40 million and increase the lifetime earnings of those children by £20 million.
In that context, surely the recommendations in the review are fairly modest: for example, non-means-tested financial allowances that match the minimum fostering allowance; the introduction of kinship leave on a par with adoption leave for all special guardians and kinship carers; and, importantly, a requirement for local authorities to use “family group decision-making” as a means to identify kinship arrangements earlier by introducing “family network plans” to offer flexibility, intensive support and funding to give an alternative pathway to children entering local authority care. The focus throughout these recommendations is that better outcomes for children and young people are paramount. I hope the Government will take note of good practice in the sector and learn from its example.
In conclusion, I specifically ask the Minister to assure us that the Government have the ambition and resolve to deliver reforms urgently. By that I mean legislative changes introduced now, and certainly in the next Session. Also, is the urgent need for expanding the number of foster carers being gripped, alongside the support for kinship carers, as I have outlined? We cannot ignore the cocktail of circumstances that are exerting pressure on our families, poverty being front and centre, as well as the mental health experience of parents and children, and domestic violence, to name but a few. Can the Minister assure us that she will use all her experience in this space to personally steer the Government’s response to focus on these issues?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I was hoping not to intervene. I was quite lenient with the previous speaker but one, but I regret that we are now running a bit short of time. I therefore ask all the following speakers either to stick to eight minutes or to go slightly less than that. We do not want to eat into the Minister’s time.
Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Movement etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022
Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Viscount Younger of Leckie
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for his thorough explanation. I very much support his sentiments and comments around this area. I do not want to prolong the debate but, as we have heard, the instrument makes no change to policy and we welcome the Government’s continued commitment to maintaining pre-existing trade measures. I particularly recognise the Minister’s comments on how it is possible to use trade measures to make sure that these important matters are implemented, and I echo the sentiment and understanding that the fur trade is an abhorrent and cruel industry, and we have to do everything in our power to make sure that we interrupt any such practices wherever we can.
I have a couple of brief questions. I am sure the Minister will be aware of comments from Cats Protection raising concerns that regulations will be effective only where goods are explicitly sold as cat fur and do not address the problem of real fur being imported and sold as faux fur in poorly labelled goods. It has seen evidence of cases where fake fur used in products and garments such as shoes was in fact cat fur. What assessment have the Government made of that and have they given any consideration to further steps to stamp down on such practices? It cannot be right for UK consumers to be unwittingly supporting this cruel trade due to improper labelling.
On a wider but related note, have the Government considered changing labelling requirements so that any products containing animal fur or other parts of animal origin are clearly listed, so that consumers can be further aware of when they are and are not buying animal products, where they may have come from—both which animal and which country—and how they have been manufactured? I understand the possibilities around this; in the United States, there are detailed labelling requirements under the Fur Products Labeling Act.
I welcome the sentiments and intent of the proceedings today, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their brief comments and support for this SI. I will do my best to answer the questions raised. They broadly follow the same theme of enforcement, so I will pick up first on the point made by my noble friend and touched on by the noble Baroness.
There is no evidence of a trade in these products in the United Kingdom. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, it has been banned since 2008. Importers and exporters must declare that their goods do not contain cat and dog fur. Border Force is responsible for enforcing anti-smuggling controls at UK points of entry and exit to prevent imports and exports of prohibited cat and dog fur and products containing such fur. Where Border Force believes an item has been intentionally described to conceal its true identity and suspects that it is cat or dog fur, it has the ability to detain or seize it and, if necessary, have it forensically tested. I hope that touches on the point about faux fur as a cover for real fur.
Traders found to have breached the ban can be subject to criminal penalties, and this SI provides for the imposition of those penalties and clarifies them in each of the United Kingdom’s criminal law jurisdictions. There can be no doubt as to the penalties that can be applied to those found to be trading in cat and dog fur. I have no doubt that UK Border Force is well trained in seeking out such goods, particularly as they can be easily hidden—a point that was well made.
Labelling was brought up by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. Labelling is more linked to Defra policy, so I will write a letter to the noble Baroness, and copy in my noble friend Lady McIntosh, explaining its link to the DIT.
This was not raised, but I want to give some reassurance to the Committee about the future. In May last year, Defra published a formal call for evidence on the fur trade in Great Britain. The evidence gathered will be used to inform future action on the fur trade in Great Britain. The outcome of the call for evidence will be published soon. I am afraid that I cannot give any further details, but it is happening. It is important to mention that as I am on my feet talking about this subject. I hope that I have answered all the questions.
Council Tax
Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Viscount Younger of Leckie(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes a very important point about unpaid council tax bills. It is important that everyone takes steps to pay their bill given its importance to delivering local services, on which we all rely. On the other hand, councils should be sympathetic to those in difficulties and proportionate in taking any reinforcement action. If we look at 2020-21, for example, councils had collected £31.7 billion with an in-year collection rate of 95.7%, which is a reduction of 1.2 percentage points on the previous year.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s sticking plaster for the social care crisis is asking a great deal of cash-strapped councils. As a result of the proposals, they face a larger national insurance bill for their staff despite receiving less grant from central government. Does the Treasury intend to compensate councils for this rise or does it expect that councils will need to raise council tax further still to cover these increased costs? If it is the latter, when combined with personal national insurance contributions, what is the true additional cost to be faced by working people?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I recognise the experience of the noble Baroness in this area, but I reassure her and the House that the Government will ensure that local authorities have access to sustainable funding for core budgets at the spending review. We expect that demographic and unit cost pressures will be met through council tax, social care precepts and long-term efficiencies. The overall level of local government funding, including council tax and the social care precept, will be determined in the round at the spending review in the normal way.