Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify what support the Secretary of State will require multi-agency partners to offer.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 29, I will speak to Amendments 31, 39 and 40. In my previous contribution, I suggested that there were many parts of this Bill about which there are major concerns, and the multiagency child protection teams for local authority areas is the most concerning. The main concern is that statutorily responsible directors of children’s services should not be mandated in statute to develop this way of working. The preference would be that the local working practice should be at the discretion of local areas in how they arrange child protection services.
The problem this is trying to solve—the sad deaths of Star and Arthur—will not be solved by this proposal. The proposal is set to separate out family help and child protection, but that could mean that workers in family help will believe that they are not responsible for child protection, as it is managed by a team elsewhere.
However, the reality of life is that the family help team need to be able to identify when a child or a family situation has tipped into risk and is unsafe, in order for the MACPT to be alerted to get involved. In Star and Arthur’s case, even if the team had been in place, the children may not have been referred, because the workers involved did not recognise the potential risks to both children.
I know the Minister said the other day that the findings of the pilots would be published in spring 2025, but we are about to go into summer, and they have not been seen yet. That means that the model has not been fully tested and has no research to back its veracity. Surely that has to be done before the Bill comes into effect.
The MACPTs are predicated on staff being supplied from the police and health as a core for the team. We know the financial pressures these services are under, so this is likely to be impossible to achieve at this national scale. There is also the uncertainty around the future of the integrated care boards—ICBs—in the health world, and no certainty that safeguarding budgets will not be reduced. There is no additional funding to achieve this. What happens if health and police cannot provide staff for the MACPTs? Where does the buck stop? Many believe that the requirement for MACPTs should be removed from the legislation or that it should be made that they can decide locally how these services will operate.
Amendment 29 seeks to clarify
“what support the Secretary of State will require multi-agency partners to offer”.
There was a conversation here on Tuesday evening about the role of schools, ably led by my noble friend Lady Spielman. Will the Secretary of State be mandating what the partners are responsible for? We know of the discussions about budgets. Will the Secretary of State be determining that money should be ring-fenced, and who will determine what partners are responsible? Health and police are named, education seems to be in question, but there are others that will potentially have a role as well.
Amendment 31 looks to ensure that there is an effective multi-agency team. We are all aware of the need for consistency of involvement in safeguarding. An effective multi-agency team will need to have consistent involvement. There will need to be ownership of involvement, and attendance or participation will need to be assured.
Amendments 39 and 40 seek to clarify how cases that cross local authority borders will be managed. These amendments are clear. It would be good to understand how issues that straddle local authority borders will be managed and where the responsibility lies, because we all know that our borders are porous. I beg to move.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I am really concerned about these child protection teams. Well-intended as they are, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has explained, there are some dangers in the arrangements that are being proposed.
The good intention behind this is that it addresses one of the fundamental problems we have had in child protection in the past: many of the authorities that are charged with confronting the child abuser have become frightened of them. Consequently, when someone should have gone into the house and dealt with it, they have walked away. I am afraid it has happened to the police at times, as well. Generally speaking, it is better that, when it is necessary, there is someone there who is prepared to take on that frightening person who has done so much damage to a child or a baby.
My concern is that if the police are to be included in this team, it will lead to a certain amount of confusion about their role. First, why are the police there? Generally, the police are there to enforce the law and to use the skills they have in that respect. They are not there because they are particularly good at child protection. That is why social services and health visitors exist and why schools receive incredible training and are very good at helping children and their development. For police officers, that is generally not their skill set. They are there to investigate crime and to confront the people who are the suspects.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
I thank the Minister for her detailed response and all noble Lords for their contributions. They have shown their passion for keeping young people safe. Nobody wants to get that wrong, which is why everyone is making such passionate contributions. To do so, you really need as much information as possible, and sharing those pilots is pivotal to all of that. I thank everyone for their contributions and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, having listened to the noble Baroness introduce these amendments, I think they are quite interesting. Let us see what the answer is.
The one that really attracts my attention is Amendment 37: how are you going to assess how the teams have worked? The point that the noble Baroness made was reasonable—that you might want different types of implementation teams in different areas—but if you are doing something new, how do you assess where it has or has not been successful? If the Minister could point out where in the Government’s process that is going to happen—if it is—I would be very interested to hear that. If it is convincing, I hope we can put this to bed and move on.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran on Amendment 30, which builds on the previous conversation in seeking to confirm that local authorities can use their discretion in how the multi-agency child protection teams are implemented operationally in their areas.
In addition to the contributions previously made about the pilots and having the information about those pilots, I want to add two very good reasons why it is imperative to ensure that local decision-making will become effective: how there could be confusion over legal accountability, and how the Bill could weaken local authority leadership.
The statutory responsibility for safeguarding will still rest with the local authorities, as has previously been said, not with the partnerships or multi-agency teams. If all functions are located within a multi-agency team, it may become unclear who is ultimately accountable, especially in the case of a serious case review or legal proceedings. As was referred to previously, current DfE guidance, through Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, emphasises that, although functions can be delegated, accountability cannot be transferred.
I have previously referred to the issue of budgets from other partners, especially police and health, and how that might impact their involvement, but we also need to consider the fact that not all agencies are coterminous. In my area, our police, under the leadership of the Mayor of London, are a tri-borough relationship. The NHS is a six-borough relationship. I quite often get notices from the police identifying a child in Lewisham, and I have to ask my team whether there is a connection to Bexley. There is a potential confusion there and, of course, with that confusion comes the ownership. This could create issues in determining not least the ownership but also the cost implications.
The other risk is weakened local authority leadership. Overconsolidation into multi-agency spaces could disempower directors of children services or the lead members, who are the statutory leads for safeguarding. There is a risk of fragmenting the governance. For those reasons it seems sensible to trust the local authority to use its discretion in how the multi-agency child protection teams are implemented locally in their own area. I support my noble friend Lady Barran’s amendment.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, for several reasons I support Amendment 37 from my noble friend Lady Barran. She and others have spoken about the enormous amount of change being imposed on the sector, both to current structures and prospectively with local government reorganisation and with many processes through these reforms.
We have now heard from enough people here and outside to think that there is good reason to be concerned about poor decision-making arising from the blurring of early help, targeted support, work with children in need and child protection. There are potentially parallels with the SEND reforms a few years ago, when a new model was expected to simplify and reduce costs, and reduce numbers in the system, but has, sadly, done the opposite. On the points that have been made about the blurring of accountability, there is again reason to be concerned.
I was part of a national implementation board after the care review and, in that process, I was struck, more than in most government processes I have been involved with, that many people seemed to find it hard to say what they really thought to Ministers. They perhaps pulled punches a little bit. It is incredibly important to make sure that there is a report that all can see and that is really transparent about how these reforms are working in practice.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to leave discretion about the qualifications of those who are part of MACPTs to the relevant agency responsible. It also aims for clarity about where the Secretary of State might lift the requirement for qualifications in this work.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 33 aims to leave discretion about the qualifications of those involved in the multi-agency child protection team to the relevant agency responsible. It also aims for clarity about where the Secretary of State might lift the requirement for qualifications in this work. My previous contributions have sought flexibility for those statutorily responsible for the safety of our young people, and this amendment follows that theme. The Minister, thankfully, gave us some reassurances earlier, and I hope this will continue.
Life changes, and the areas will not all be the same. It will need some local discretion, so one would hope that it would not be too prescriptive. In addition to considering the local needs of those responsible, we need to consider what already exists and, if change needs to happen, from what base will it happen? There needs to be flexibility for those who are part of the processes. It is also possible that this being one size fits all risks undermining local innovation, which we all know is important, as well as stunting workforce development.
Consideration will also need to be given to the relative qualifications of all members of the teams and those in other agencies. If it is to be the responsibility of a local area to arrange its child protection services, it will need to consider who is part of the multi-agency child protection team and their qualifications. I beg to move.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments, particularly the clause stand part notice. I have known the Minister to be a listener and Committee is entirely the time to listen. The noble Baroness mentioned that we need to solve the lack of joint working. I think nobody would disagree, and no one would dare to say that multidisciplinary team working for child protection is not the way to do it. But there are, I believe, genuine concerns about whether the functions outlined in Clause 3 are the way to achieve that.
When I first read the review recommendation and the description of multi-agency child protection teams—I have not yet come up with an acronym that I can pronounce quickly enough—I thought that would be an oversight mechanism akin to the independent chair of child protection cases. But the understanding out there among certain practitioners seems to be that it could be an investigative/operational mechanism. I thought it was a mechanism about oversight where you pull together everybody involved in that particular case, to make sure that everyone in the room knows everything that they need to know and there are no gaps in the information.
However, the understanding that is out there and that has been communicated is that, in fact, what could be happening here is a duplication of the investigative function. With this new system, what is understood out there is that, when a social worker has maybe had a very sensitive disclosure made to them—usually after many months of knowing the child and gaining their confidence—there can be a transfer at that moment to a different social worker to take over the investigative role. Obviously, that would be a duplication of resource and it would potentially sever the relationship that the child has.
Currently, as I understand it, the multidisciplinary team investigation is basically built around a lead expert social worker, who then draws in—at casework level—health, benefits, housing and the police interview. There is oversight of that by the independent chair. Of course, if there is any kind of change of that function, a child who has already disclosed may decide, “No, I can’t disclose to somebody else”. There may be that loss of trust, adding to their trauma. So the arrangements that we put in place in Clause 3—which everyone is intending to aid the joint working of all the different agencies—could inadvertently open up new cracks in the system.
While we have seen and are aware of the tragic failings that have led to the MacAlister review, it is important to remember how foundational the Children Act is—that it has stood the test of time, is understood by practitioners and has been built on, particularly in 2004. Many of our outstanding local authorities are not just chosen to be pathfinder places; they are visited by people from many European countries to see how they have embedded over many decades child protection systems that are—I know we find it hard to believe—the envy of some other countries.
Where is the adequate evidence to support this change? Yes, there was a recommendation in the MacAlister review, but where is the adequate evidence that we have used previously to make changes to our child protection system? I know that the pathfinders will be publishing soon, but are these actually what we would usually understand to be operational pilots? Where is the rigorous academic research that has so often been the evidential basis for previous changes to our child protection system over many decades?
While Clause 3 may seem logical and that in principle it will work, could it actually open up different problems? Will the Minister agree—if she has not already done so, because she said that there is evidence out there to support these changes—to meet the director of children’s services who advised the MacAlister review, Eileen Munro and other concerned academics, and the DCSs from outstanding local authorities who are concerned? Those are the practitioners who will have to implement this. The Minister may need to talk to her colleague in the Department of Health, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, as this was precisely the issue with the Mental Health Bill—whether approved mental professionals were behind that change. Are the directors of children’s services behind this change? Although the honourable Member, Josh MacAlister, whom I have met, is passionate about looked-after children and adoption and fostering, the review was not chaired by somebody who was an expert in deciding child protection cases or operationally dealing with child protection cases. That is why I wish that the Minister could meet that type of expert and reassure your Lordships’ House that these practitioners support this.
Although everyone here intends Clause 3 to help, I have thought, as we are required to do, about what the situation would be if the experts who have concerns—it might not be every single expert—about unintended consequences are proved to be right. If a child discloses sexual harm then loses confidence, with a switch of social worker or the multi-agency team that comes in, and then will not talk, and the mum’s partner, as it often is, senses that something has changed with the child, as disclosure psychologically affects individuals, and that person then harms the child to shut them up, what kind of report will come back from the local authority’s child safeguarding panel to the Department for Education? It will not be the responsibility of the DCS that the systems were not working. If the concerns are valid, the report that comes back could very well be, “We advised you not to make this kind of statutory change and you did, and this is what has happened”. I would not want anybody to be in that situation—that inadvertently, while trying to improve the system, with experts advising that there could be unintended consequences, we do not take time to pause and make sure that this recommendation is supported by adequate evidence before it is implemented.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
I thank the Minister for her responses and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Like many of them, I am an absolute believer in early intervention, although my priority around early intervention is better outcomes. If we can change a pathway or avoid a tragedy, we will all have made a big difference. I hope that is where the intention is. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, I speak to the intended purpose of the Bill, which includes improving the well-being of children, as given in subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause, and removing barriers to opportunity, as given in subsection (2)(c) of the proposed new clause. I declare my interests as governor of Shoreditch Park Academy, former chair of the national plan for music education and co-founder and chair of the London Music Fund.
We are debating the future of our schools and children, and the well-being of our children. What could be more important than that? This Government were elected on a mandate of change, but on so many issues Ministers cannot explain the reason, in this Bill particularly, for the change. What is the problem the Government are trying to solve? On this Bill, the bewilderment about the reason for change is now greater than ever.
As my noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone said, we will be voting on a Bill that includes a curriculum that all schools will be obliged to follow—a curriculum about whose content neither we nor, it seems, the Government have any idea. This is absurd. This is not change to benefit children and improve their well-being but simply ideological change to satisfy trade union leaders and their followers. If they get their way, children’s education will certainly be damaged, not just for the sake of change.
At Second Reading, I focused on the importance of academy trust independence. Today, I narrow my focus to follow the procedure to one subject which I believe is missing from the Bill that could have a hugely positive effect on the well-being and academic outcomes of every child. That subject is music. Do noble Lords recall that, on the day of the magnificent VE celebration concert in Westminster Hall, the composer and conductor Keith Burstein said of music that it unites, consoles and galvanises?
The evidence is there: music helps listening, concentration, reading and memory. Music boosts self- esteem and helps young people understand the benefits of discipline. You cannot learn a musical instrument without self-discipline. That, in turn, helps to develop self-reliance, determination and grit—the very word the Government invoked last week. Music is not just about learning notes and techniques; it helps emotional and social development and brings young people together, enriching their lives.
The Prime Minister recently warned of the danger of Britian becoming a nation of strangers. Music, as he has acknowledged in the past, unites people. It unites children. Children of all backgrounds would benefit from the common enjoyment of music in their schools. An RPO survey showed that 85% of children wanted to learn a musical instrument. Music makes children happy and particularly benefits children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Every school should have a flourishing music department.
Music can transform an unhappy, failing school. In Bradford, at Feversham Primary Academy, in one of the most disadvantaged areas of the city, an intensive music programme for every pupil has transformed the school from failing to outstanding. I have visited a great many schools with wonderful music, choir ensembles and orchestras. Most are academy trusts, such as United Learning, Ark Academy and the City of London Academies Trust, whose schools, including Shoreditch Park, where I am governor, have the ethos and music of their hugely successful independent schools: the City of London School for boys and City of London School for Girls.
As co-founder and chair of a music charity, the London Music Fund, I have seen how music has changed lives. Our four-year scholarships for children from disadvantaged backgrounds are transformative. Many of our students from the first cohorts are now university and some are at the Conservatoire.
Among hundreds of examples, I think of one girl living in a high-rise on a bleak west London sink estate. Her mother seldom left the flat. The 10 year-old girl had only once visited central London. She had shown an aptitude for music, so we awarded her a four-year scholarship, gave her a clarinet, paid for her music lessons, gave her a mentor and helped her join an orchestra. Alongside music, she excelled at maths. Thanks in part to the London Music Fund, she is now studying maths at Imperial College. Talk about opportunity.
Even for children who are not musically talented, the benefits of the programme are wide ranging, improving self-confidence and well-being. Research from countless countries—Finland, Hungary, Turkey, China and so on—shows the value of music education and the positive impact it has on young people. Why is it that, after all these years of evidence, politicians still seem to have a blind spot about music? What do they not understand about the benefits of music education? I live in hope that, with the Prime Minister’s early enthusiasm for the flute and the imminent curriculum review from Dr Becky Francis, there will be a significant change of heart.
But—I stress the “but”—more teachers are needed to teach music. Schools must have the freedom to hire the best music teachers, not just the ones who have qualified teacher status. Taking away that freedom is change for change’s sake, simply pandering to the unions, not benefiting the children. A serious, long-term funding commitment to music that puts music at the heart of every school would improve the well-being and the academic outcomes of the next generation.
Support for these disadvantaged children, whose well-being and academic outcomes would undoubtedly be improved if music became a central part of their school lives, is so important. I would add: put the child to the fore in this Bill.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, as your Lordships will know from my register of interests, I am currently the leader of the London Borough of Bexley. That means I have an involvement with both the Local Government Association and London Councils. What my entry does not say that I am now the longest-serving leader of the London Borough of Bexley and that, before I was leader, I was the first cabinet member for children’s services in our borough.
Your Lordships might ask why that is important. Over that period, during which we were the first authority in London and only the second to Leeds in the country—as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, will attest—to achieve two outstanding ILACS Ofsted inspections. We also have a very good reputation for our local schools, which include four grammar schools, and we take in many young people from neighbouring Labour boroughs whose parents aspire to a better education for their young people. In this contribution, I will focus my comments on the children’s social care aspects of the proposed Bill.
Over the years, I have had the absolute pleasure to work with some fantastic local authority officers, including some superb directors of children’s services, or deputy directors who have gone on to become directors. I will not name them, to save their blushes, but they will know who they are. These are the people we all trust to make the right decisions, on a daily basis, to keep our young people safe and keep families together, if possible—but, if that is not possible, to ensure that the children who come into our care are prepared for the future. They are statutorily responsible and, if anything goes wrong, they are often held to account for the decisions taken.
Over the last few weeks, I have had exchanges with a number of senior practitioners whom I respect, and they are really concerned about the consequences of some aspects of the Bill. I know my noble friend Lady Barran has had similar conversations. So, my contribution to this debate will probably be very different from many others, as I have first-hand experience of seeing for myself the passion these professionals have for our children in our borough, to keep them safe, as well as having aspirations that they become successful, independent young people. They also have to forecast and take ownership of budgets, often with little control of implications. I am sure that some Members will be interested to know that you can have a young person move into the borough for whom you need to find care that can cost as much as a room in the Savoy for a week.
The conversations we have had suggest that there are some good aspects to the Bill, some of which will reinforce the good practice already taking place in some areas, or plug some of the gaps in current legislation, but fundamentally support the principle of meeting children’s and families’ needs, as they emerge, at the earliest possible time. But there are some major concerns about other aspects of these proposals. I know that we will get to the detail when we get further into the amendments, but some of the main concerns are that some of the proposals are unfunded.
The Josh MacAlister review said that £2 billion was required to implement the reforms in his care review. There is currently £290 million, and that has been agreed for only one year. This shows just how far away we are from what is required and what has been given to local authorities. Most of this will have to be funded from already tight local authority budgets that have become even tighter as a result of the Government’s national insurance contribution increase. Mandating that all child protection functions be held within multiagency teams marks a major shift from the current practice. While the intent is to foster stronger collaboration and clearer accountability, professional bodies and academics have warned of a number of potential unintended consequences if the model is implemented without careful safeguards. One of those consequences is budgets and, of course, in addition to actually determining future funding for social care for both adults and children should be, there is real concern about cost shunting, especially given that there are already suggestions of cuts to safeguarding budgets by local police and health communities.
There have been 10 pathfinders, but, as has been said, the key findings from those pilots have not been published and, as you would expect, the word on the street is that there have been issues with those pathfinders. Surely the sensible thing is to share that information and consider the findings before agreeing this Bill.
The intention might be to have clearer decision-making, improved information sharing, and unified threshold application, but the unintended consequences could be: a dilution of professional expertise; confusion over legal accountability; weakened local authority leadership; loss of focus on early help and prevention; operational bottlenecks and inflexibility; undermining universal services’ safeguarding role; implementation disruption; inconsistent models; and legal and human rights risks.
I know I come at this from a different perspective from many—but not all—in this Chamber, but I know that none of us would want to see young people being put at risk from ill-thought-out legislation.
I am sure that many noble Lords—this has been referred to—saw the letter in the Times yesterday from Eileen Munro, a very respected person in the field. When such people say that they are concerned about some aspects of the Bill, they deserve to be listened to, and we need to respect what they have to say. I hope the Minister will do so.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the proposed new clause and to support, in particular, subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c). As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, it contains the key word “improve”. One of the purposes of a purpose clause is to set out very clearly for the courts how legislation should be applied and to what end it is achieved. It will be a matter of debate—I am sure the debate already happened at Second Reading—whether measures in here will improve things: that is a matter for debate. But if we have this, I hope that my noble friend Lady Barran will put it to a vote on Report, so that all the House in its conscience, when it is determining what parts of the legislation we retain, change or drop entirely, comes back to the central purpose: what is this doing to improve the outcomes for children?
I say to my noble friend Lord Balfe that the Title of the Bill should really be “Some Children’s Wellbeing”, because clearly it does address well-being for some children. I suppose I am sharing my frustration—not that I am challenging the guidance of the clerks, although we can have a debate about it—that the scope of the Bill is actually pretty narrow in considering how to improve the well-being of children. I would hope that proposed new subsection (1)(a) would allow us to consider further matters which are not addressed in this Bill about the well-being of all children, which we are here to consider.
I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech—far from it—but there are undoubtedly omissions in the Bill about things such as child maintenance, which would certainly contribute to powers that have already been passed by Parliament but have not yet been commenced by Governments. I say “Governments” deliberately because I am conscious that applies not just to this Government. Those powers could be commenced by adding a clause to this Bill, but it is not within its scope at the moment.