Child Sexual Abuse: Safeguarding Failures

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Walmsley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to respond to the report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse regarding safeguarding failures at Downside and Ampleforth schools, published in August 2018.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)]

My Lords, before answering the noble Baroness’s Question, I inform the House that various members of my wife’s family attended Ampleforth. I have never visited the school nor had any other connection with it.

The report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse regarding Downside and Ampleforth schools did not make specific recommendations to my department. However, a regulator of independent schools is carefully considering the inquiry’s findings. We have asked inspectors to pay close attention to the matters in the report at the next inspection of Downside. Ampleforth is currently under regulatory action and must improve or face further action, which could include closure.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the committee had evidence that one of the schools consulted its legal adviser as to whether it was legally obliged to report the abuse that it knew about. Having learned that it was not so obliged, it decided to cover it up. How much more evidence do the Government require of the need for mandatory reporting of child abuse in regulated activity? Of course, that does not include social workers, because social work is not a regulated activity. Will the Government now follow the evidence and respond with legislation?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, it is absolutely unacceptable for anyone to conceal abuse. The Government are committed to ensuring that legislation can adequately deal with this. We will scope this issue fully during the current Parliament. What individuals and organisations should do is already clear in statutory guidance. The guidance also makes it clear that there is a legal duty on employers to make a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service in certain circumstances.

Sure Start

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Following up on the previous question, is the Minister aware that yesterday, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children published a report showing that many local authorities are unable to afford the early intervention programmes that have just been mentioned and are so effective? The result is that a lot of children in some parts of the country are not getting the services that they would with the same level of need in another part of the country. Many children and families in that situation are going into a downward spiral and getting to the point where they need much more invasive intervention—even taking the child into care. It is cheaper and more effective to intervene early, so will the Minister have a look at the 12 recommendations of that report? They have the evidence, and the Government ought to act on it.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the report to my attention; I will certainly look at it. It is worth saying that although there has been a reduction in Sure Start centres, the proportion of centres serving the 30% most disadvantaged areas has remained constant, so the focus on disadvantaged areas has remained.

Free School Lunches and Milk, and School and Early Years Finance (Amendments Relating to Universal Credit) (England) Regulations 2018

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Lords Chamber

My basic concern is that this proposal—as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth has said—drives a coach and horses through the whole aim of universal credit. The Government have taken most of the working-age benefit system, thrown it up in the air, at vast cost, at huge disruption, and for what? Just to bring back in the biggest cliff edge we have seen in the system in decades? Surely this cannot be right. Will the Government think again?

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I too echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, about the Government’s proposals to introduce an earnings threshold for eligibility for free school meals and milk. This is very unfair, because it takes no account of the number of children who the parents have to feed. It is a cumbersome way of doing things which will make it very difficult for families to plan their budgets and, as we have heard, will cause a poverty trap for many. This comes on top of recent cuts in benefits which have already made many working families worse off and the food banks busier.

Let me say first why free school meals are so important. There is plenty of research showing that nutrition levels in school meals are vastly better than those in either the average packed lunch, only 1.6% of which reach the same nutritional standard, or certainly those in a cheap bag of chips and a fizzy drink from the shop on the corner. One of the best services we have for school-age children is the provision of a nourishing meal at lunchtime. For some children in poverty, this is the only decent meal they will get all day, and it is essential that it is provided for them if their parents cannot afford to pay. Many teachers will tell you that they have children in their class who come to school without any breakfast. One local authority has taken this so much on board that it has decided to offer free meals for poor children every day of the year. That is because teachers notice evidence of malnutrition in some children when they come back to school after the holidays.

A nourishing, balanced meal containing fruit and vegetables is important not just for the health of the child, providing the vitamins needed for healthy growth and helping to prevent obesity; it is important also for the child’s behaviour and academic attainment. Pilot studies on the effect of universal provision of free school meals for key stage 1 children when they were introduced by the coalition Government showed a distinct improvement in behaviour, and attainment advanced by as much as two months. This was particularly so with children from disadvantaged backgrounds. So it is clear that free school meals are one of the major tools in our armoury for closing the attainment gap between the rich and the poor.

The main objective of our education system must be to help all children attain their maximum potential, and good nutrition is one foundation of this. A hungry child is not a learning child. Anything that has the potential for reducing the number of poorer children who receive such meals should be rejected. Indeed, we should provide free meals for more children, not fewer, because a free meals regime increases uptake, decreases stigma and reduces the number of children bringing in sandwiches and biscuits or going to the chip shop. That in turn improves the attainment of all children.

The Government have told us that 50,000 more children will receive free meals under the new regulations than under the old and promise that no child already on free school meals will lose their meals while at their current stage of education. The problem with that is that children grow up. They get to the end of primary school or secondary school and, suddenly, children who were formerly eligible for free meals will no longer get them. There needs not to have been any change in their parents’ earnings for this to happen because there is now an earnings threshold which takes no account of the size of the family.

Every mum and dad knows that it takes twice as much money to feed two children as one, and three times as much to feed three. That is £10 a week for lunches every week of term, or £20 or £30 for bigger families, which could easily be enough to make it not worth taking a few extra hours’ work. Where then is the fundamental work incentive that is supposed to underpin universal credit? Where now is the mantra “making work pay”?

I am not going to go through the case studies in the briefing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has already done so, but there is clear potential for making a lot of families worse off. The Government need to look at the disposable income of a family once the 63% withdrawal of universal credit for every extra pound earned has been taken account of and school meals paid for. If they do that, they may come up with a fairer system.

School lunches are not a luxury; they are an essential of life for those families who find it hard to feed their children. Of course, we are talking not only about meals; many other passported benefits are linked to free school meals which help make bringing up children bearable. They currently include the early years pupil premium. I beg the Minister to decouple that at the very least, because, again, it is in the interests of closing the attainment gap.

Universal credit was supposed to avoid the cliff edge and make it worth while going to work. By introducing a lower earnings threshold, the Government are creating a cliff edge at a very low earnings level where it will hurt most and undermine the whole point of universal credit. In doing so, they are putting at risk the health and academic attainment of the poorest children. Will the Minister please think again?

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made his case with characteristic vigour and force, and with deep feeling as he recalled life in the 1960s in a part of Essex with which I was very familiar myself. The Motion states that up to 1 million poor children could be deprived of free school meals as a result of government policies. As my noble friend Lord Patten has shown, independent experts have urged us to treat this truly alarming prediction with considerable caution. We should be wary about rushing to the conclusion that a crisis is in the making.

It is accepted on all sides that the introduction of universal credit throughout our country, so vital in helping more people into jobs, will affect the number of children eligible for free school meals while ensuring that poor families, whose needs must be safeguarded, remain at the centre of policy. Interim arrangements were announced last summer to secure free school meals for all pupils whose parents were at that time recipients of universal credit. Future recipients will be subject to a means test as regards the provision of free school meals to their children. There is nothing new or unexpected about this. It has been a feature of the plans for this major, constructive reform of our welfare system since 2013.

What are the implications? The Department for Education estimates that, in the years ahead, some 50,000 more children will be entitled to a free school meal than under the arrangements which universal credit is replacing. That is welcome reassurance, but the Government should perhaps consider some form of monitoring. I wonder whether arrangements could be made to publish at regular intervals between now and 2022 authoritative figures for the number of children actually receiving free school meals so that the effects of this hugely significant change of policy can be assessed. We need to be sure that the poorest families in our country continue to receive the help they need.

A Manifesto to Strengthen Families

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I start by welcoming the Minister to the House of Lords and congratulate him on his meteoric rise to the Government Front Bench. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for a very interesting debate and extremely important manifesto. There are so many policy areas that could be improved in order to redress the magnitude of family breakdown in this country that it is hard to know where to start. However, I plan to mention adoptive families, the benefits of family hubs, what can be done to keep offenders in touch with their families to reduce reoffending and the importance of teaching children about relationships in school.

I start with adoptive families—not mentioned by anybody except the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford—since I have a particular interest in them. I was recently contacted by a couple who are both psychologists and are adoptive parents. I took very seriously the points they were making, which were about burnout of adoptive parents and the lack of support for them. They reminded me that adoptive parents take on some of the most needy and challenging children in our society—traumatised children whose mental and physical health has been damaged by their life experiences. The people who take on these children are heroes and their attempts to give them a stable and loving family in which to recover from their previous trauma should be applauded and supported. However, these adoptive parents often have to deal with violence directed at them or other siblings, self-harm, incontinence, inappropriate or dangerous sexual behaviour, anger, school refusal and many sorts of mental health problems. Adoptive parents cannot take sick leave, resign or ask for a transfer to another department. Unlike foster parents, they do not get much help. Indeed, if they adopt after fostering, whatever help they had before often just stops.

Adoption UK thinks that as many as a quarter of all adoptive parents are in crisis and in need of professional help to keep the family together. But local authority post-adoption services vary tremendously; despite the fact that adopters save local authorities a massive amount of money, some are less than helpful when asked for help. Can the Minister say what is being done to ensure that an appropriate level of support for adoptive families is offered everywhere? If we do not do this, the NHS will be saddled with the cost of the mental health issues of the parents as well as their children.

Mental health has been mentioned by several noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Farmer, Lord Shinkwin and Lord Alton, among others. This brings me to the subject of teaching relationship and sex education in schools and the ability of schools to identify and signpost mental health problems. The best way to deal with mental health is of course to prevent the problems arising in the first place—the noble Lord, Lord Bird, mentioned prevention. Many of the issues that children face arise from family break-up or from violence or poor relationships in the family. Many children do not have a good model of healthy and respectful relationships at home. It is therefore often the job of the school to pick up the pieces and help build up children’s resilience. There is a major role for relationship and sex education in this, so I welcomed the Children and Social Work Act earlier this year, which should ensure that all children get it in an age-appropriate manner as part of their PSHE curriculum.

I have become aware, however, that the regulations to mandate schools to prepare and publish their RSE policy have not yet been made. Can the Minister say why this is and when it will be done? I welcomed the Prime Minister’s initiative on mental health first aid training in schools and wonder if the Minister can update us on how that is progressing. Such work can help children to ride out the worst effects of family unhappiness or even breakdown.

We live in a very unequal country, and an interesting statistic in the briefings we have received caught my eye. It showed that poor families break up more frequently than more affluent ones. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said, almost half of five year-olds in poorer families are in broken families, compared with 16% in wealthier ones. This did not surprise me. It is widely known that a high percentage of parents are worried about money, and that money is frequently the cause of family arguments, so what is being done to improve the finances of families with children? I am afraid that the marriage tax allowance, which the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, mentioned, brings in less than £5 a week, even if the family applies for it, so that is not going to make much difference. By the way, I am not suggesting that it be improved, as I do not approve of it in the first place. I do not think it is the role of the state to support particular kinds of families.

Benefit cuts and the six-week wait for universal credit have sent far too many families into debt, and to food banks. If the Government are really concerned to keep families together, which, of course, is a laudable aim, they need to do everything possible to ensure that parents can feed their children and pay the bills. We hear about the record number of people in work, but the fact is that many jobs are very low paid and a high percentage of poor people are in work and eligible for benefits, which makes a nonsense of the Government’s constant claim that the best way out of poverty is through work. I would say it depends what sort of work, and how well it is paid. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have to make what they choose to call the living wage into something people can actually live on?

Many families need a range of services to help them survive, stay together and bring up their children successfully, and it is desirable that these services be easily accessible and linked together. That is why I, like the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and others, support the idea of family hubs, which can be based on children’s centres or Sure Start centres. I hope they will not become what the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, called the shiny new thing that disappears before long, as they would offer a wide range of services for parents as well as children. This is not a new idea. Several years ago, I visited the Coram Centre, where all kinds of services such as debt advice, immigration advice, English lessons and help to find a job and a home were offered to the parents of children in the nursery. It was a great example of what can be done in response to the particular needs of the families in the locality. Therefore, can the Minister say whether the Government support family hubs and whether extra funding will be made available, given the savings to many other services that they could provide in the future?

I will say a few words about prisoners and their families. There is an important role for families to keep in touch with offenders while they are in prison in the interests of their relationships with their spouses and children, and of reducing reoffending. However, in many cases, the prison system does not make it easy for families to visit. There is some very good practice, such as Skype conversations, but in some cases it is hard to see the logic of where offenders are placed. For example, there is a large, brand new prison in Wrexham, near where I live in north Wales. I recently learned that only 10% of the inmates come from Wales and that many come from a very long way away in England. In addition, the prison is located on an industrial estate miles from the nearest railway station. It cannot be easy for families without their own car to visit in those circumstances, so what is being done to ensure that families who want to keep up their relationship with the offender are helped to do so?

Finally, from experience, I issue a warning about impact assessments. During the coalition Government, my then honourable friend Sarah Teather said that policies would have a child rights impact assessment. I am not aware that that is being done. Therefore, if we are to have a family impact assessment, I hope that it really happens.

Fire Safety: Schools

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Walmsley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Grenfell Tower fire, what plans they have to review their guidance Fire safety in new and existing school buildings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, our thoughts and prayers are with the relatives, friends and families, and all those people affected by the Grenfell tragedy. The department certainly has no plans to introduce any changes to its guidance that would make fire safety laws for schools less strict. Alongside the rest of government, we will review and act appropriately on any findings from the tragic events at Grenfell Tower. We are undertaking an analysis of all school buildings to identify any at a fire risk from cladding.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his reply and share his concerns about the victims of Grenfell. Is he aware that last year the London Fire Brigade did 184 school fire safety consultations and that, despite it feeling that all new and refurbished schools should have sprinklers fitted, only 2% of such schools were fitted with them? This indicates that the current guidance is not being followed. Given that sprinklers can save lives and reduce the rising cost of property damage, will the Government commit to making sprinklers mandatory in new and refurbished schools and producing up-to-date and robust information about the cost of school fires in lives, cash and educational disruption?

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, all new schools must comply with fire safety guidance before they are allowed to open and only in those assessed as low risk are sprinklers not expected to be installed. The number of fires in schools has halved in the past 10 years. The department is not aware of the claims that the noble Baroness makes. Our recent consultation involved discussions with experts from across the fire sector, including the Chief Fire Officers Association and the London Fire Brigade. We would welcome any intelligence that they or she have to offer in relation to this.

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 4th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to say that the Bill has been significantly improved by scrutiny in both Houses. The Minister has been of particular help in this iterative process by being willing to listen and to amend according to the informed debate in Committee and on Report in this House. We support the amendments listed in this group that extend the duty of local authorities in respect of children adopted from state care outside England and Wales, as well as the other changes in this group regarding secure accommodation and improvements to social work training and standards. On this, I have been alerted by the British Association of Social Workers of its concern that the training is not expressly linked to institutions of higher education. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that concern.

On Amendment 14, we support the action to improve standards in social work training and social work in children’s services, but I regret that the Minister has today linked training with children’s services that are deemed less than satisfactory when inspected by Ofsted. At this point I declare my interest as in the register as a councillor in the Borough of Kirklees and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I continue to express my concern that the Bill adds to the duties and responsibilities of local authorities—and of schools—at a time when local authorities are adjusting to very large reductions in their funding, when the Government have made a commitment that there should be no new responsibilities for local government without the funding being provided. I hope to hear from the Minister that there will be additional funding for children’s social services to reflect the additional duties and responsibilities that the Bill rightly places on them. We cannot have something new and improved without providing the means to achieve it.

With those comments, we generally support the amendments in this group.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I add a few words to those of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. I particularly thank the Government for the amendments to Clauses 4, 5 and 6, which were in response to a promise made to the noble Baroness, Lady King of Bow, and me during the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. They will certainly improve the position of children in this country adopted from abroad, but, as you would expect, the amendments can only bring those children within the scope of the measures in the Bill.

The battle is not over for the parents of those children, because many of them are now coming to the age where they transfer from primary to secondary school and are having difficulty getting into the school which their parents feel is most suitable for their particular needs. Is the Minister aware that some parents and I have spoken to Mr Edward Timpson about the need to extend priority admissions and pupil premium plus to those children? We are waiting to see whether the Government will make those changes. Will the Minister agree to meet me and some of the parents of those children so that he may hear for himself their concerns? Having said that, they asked me to say that they thank the Government and very much welcome the changes that they have made.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Government for how far they have come since we started work on this Bill in this House many months ago. However, I raise one question, which I raised yesterday in the very helpful drop-in session held by the Minister, which refers to government Amendments 9 and 30. Government Amendment 9 allows children from England and Wales to be held in secure accommodation in Scotland. As we know, the circumstances in which a child looked after by a local authority may be deprived of his or her liberty by placement in secure accommodation are listed in Section 25 of the Children Act 1989.

Government Amendment 30 sets out a new schedule. Paragraph 5 of that schedule refers in particular to the Children (Secure Accommodation) Regulations 1991. It states:

“In regulation 1 … ‘This Regulation and Regulations 10 to 13 extend to England and Wales and Scotland’”.


Does that mean that Regulations 2 to 9 and 13 do not apply to children detained in Scotland? That is very important, because those regulations contain the requirement to obtain the child’s and parents’ consent to a move and the right to independent periodic review. If the regulations as set out in the government amendment are to be believed, those rights are removed from children who are transferred to Scotland.

I suspect that this is either an administrative oversight or has been left out not deliberately but because the implications were not wholly appreciated. I should be grateful if the Minister could clear up this question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder if I might speak given that I was named—but not shamed—in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and I thank him for his tribute. I feel that I must speak on what is quite an historic occasion. I am one of those people in your Lordships’ House who has spent many years trying to get the issue of personal, social and health education, including relationships and sex education, into the curriculum, and the word “compulsory” is music to my ears. I give the amendments a huge welcome and I think that the Government have been brave in putting them before us today. At last we can see real progress on this.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is right to say that these issues have been around in Parliament for the past 20 years. I recall my noble friend Lord Knight speaking in 2010 at a teachers’ conference at which he received a standing ovation when he said that PSHE would be made compulsory by the Labour Party. Sadly the issue was washed away in the wash-up and it never happened, but I shall never forget my noble friend’s standing ovation.

Until now, despite vocal support from children and young people, parents, teachers and other professional bodies, the words “must” and “make provision” have not been applied to these aspects of education; that is, forming and maintaining relationships and how they may affect physical and mental health. Nor have schools been required to make policy statements in relation to the education provided and to make them available to parents or other persons. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, mentioned many organisations, to which we are all grateful for their consistent support for this area of education. Children—it is they who are important here —will have the right to learn about issues that they are concerned about. They will have the right to learn about, for example, the danger of online pornography, abuse and how to protect themselves. But that is not the only thing: they will have the right to learn that most relationships are, in fact, fulfilling, happy and make sense to have.

Regarding the religious aspect, the best sex education teacher I ever met when I was an adviser was a nun. She said to me on issues such as abortion and homosexuality, “I do teach these things. What I do is put forward the Roman Catholic view of what these mean to the Church and to myself, but I do talk about them and feel that I can talk about them because I have put the viewpoint of my Church. It does not prevent me helping children to understand what such issues are about”. I deeply respect that person for what she said to me.

Here I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I remember a conversation with him when he was first made a Minister. I realised then that he understood the importance of enabling children to receive education in school to help them understand themselves, their behaviours and attitudes, and their own rights and responsibilities. I thank him for the legislation that is now before us. I am sure that he had a huge impact on making it happen.

I of course have concerns about delivery. I realise that amendments from colleagues are totally understandable, but we have to get on with delivery. Of course teachers will need to be trained and they will need resources. I wonder how the many excellent resources on PSHE, character education, citizenship and so on will be rationalised and brought together to form a holistic approach. Maybe schools will do it themselves. I do not know. I share Stonewall’s concern; maybe the Minister can respond to this. Do the Government agree that the new legislation and guidance must comply with the Equality Act and will therefore require all schools, including those with a faith character, to provide education on LGBT issues? In Amendment 12, to be inserted after Clause 32, is the sentence,

“the education is appropriate having regard to the age and the religious background of the pupils”,

intended to ensure the faith schools can teach LGBT issues while still respecting the faith ethos of a school? I go back to my nun.

I am delighted that issues relating to sex education and PSHE are now being discussed in this Chamber openly and with respect. I again congratulate the Minister on his influence.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, my Amendment 12B is in this group. Today is a day of great celebration for me because ever since I came into your Lordships’ House, I, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Gould, who is not in her place, have campaigned across party for this. I thank the Minister most sincerely for making it a reality for children. They have wanted it and demanded it; I hope they will now get it at a very high quality. The fact that it will be mandatory will mean that teachers will train specifically to give them the skills to deliver this sensitively and with an understanding of the young people.

My amendment would remove subsection (2)(d). It is simply to probe the Government’s intentions. The subsection says:

“The regulations must include provision … about the circumstances in which a pupil (or a pupil below a specified age) is to be excused from receiving relationships and sex education or specified elements of that education”.

Education: Nursery and Early Years

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness is quite right in her remarks. We all appreciate that helping children at an early age, particularly those who have a difficult home life, is absolutely essential. The payback on that for both those children and our society is massive. I certainly would be delighted to look at the research to which she refers, and I would be happy to discuss it with her because I know that she has experience in relation to this.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, the early years sector is very diverse in relation to types of governance. We have the state-funded sector, private settings, and not-for-profit and voluntary settings. Can the Minister ensure that the money to employ qualified early years teachers is easily available to all kinds of settings?

[Lord Nash]

Yes, I think that that is the aim. As the noble Baroness says, there is a mixed range of providers and we must ensure that they all have access to the appropriate funding. As I have said, the quality of provision speaks for itself.

Immigration Skills Charge Regulations 2017

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

We are all being so polite. Perhaps we have learned from the charm school with which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, grew up. We, of course, support investment in skills and training but it is appropriate to put these proposals in the context of the very tight brief which the MAC, as always, was given. It was required to advise on,

“significantly reducing the level of economic migration from outside the EU”,

taking into account the impact on the economy, including on productivity and competitiveness, and was asked to consider five issues, of which a skills levy was one. As the Minister said, at the time of the review the Government had already signalled an intent to introduce the charge. It is fair to acknowledge the MAC endorsement of the proposal. It said in its review:

“We consider that the imposition of an ISC will serve to incentivise employers to reduce their reliance on employing migrant workers and to invest in training and upskilling UK workers”.


But I also observe that, certainly in the health sector, that gives the term “incentivise” a rather new meaning. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to a collapse in training. Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the Government have analysed why that has been the case?

The letter from the Minister, Robert Halfon, to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee confirms that this is a tax. We know that the Treasury hates hypothecation, but given its rationale it seems to us that those who are paying it must be able to see how it is used and, more than that, be involved in decisions about the application of the funds, because they know what normally works best in their own sectors. There must be a lot of sector-specific experience which should be tapped, as well as this being in the interest of transparency.

The Institute of Directors recognised that “penalising employers” who need to look to the “global talent pool” is,

“not the answer to gaining more home-grown talent”.

To balance that, PwC said:

“The levy will not impact the way that companies recruit as they require the skills they require”.


It raised the spectre of, in the long term,

“parts of businesses moving overseas, if mounting costs become prohibitive and companies risk damaging their brands by providing substandard products or services”.

I recall that during the passage of the Bill an argument used against this, partly in the higher education sector, was that some industries will pay the charge but would not see any benefits because their sectors are not apprenticeship-appropriate. That applied in particular to the health sector. I will leave it to my noble friend Lady Walmsley to deal in detail with the health sector. I know that I will support everything that she says.

During the passage of the Bill we also expressed concern about the costs of the bureaucracy of this exercise. Given the investment that the sectors in question already make in training, there seemed to be a danger of a charge being levied, having administration costs deducted and the balance then returned to them. I have been assured that the deduction will be small because the Home Office visa system will be used, but there will be a deduction. We can add to that the unquantified cost of the loading on to the Home Office, which is overloaded. It probably feels that the light at the end of the tunnel is that ever-present oncoming train.

The MAC also said that,

“it is impossible to conclude, ex ante, whether the benefit arising to employers … will outweigh the costs imposed on Tier 2 sponsors”,

because the Government have not yet determined how the revenue will be reinvested. That is clearly a significant point. It is clear that the health sector has come to a conclusion, and it is not the positive conclusion that the Government want to see. Robert Halfon, in his letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, said:

“The cost to the healthcare sector and to the NHS in particular has not been estimated”.


That is quite an astonishing statement.

One other area is that of intercompany transfers. The Minister has referred to the exemption in the regulations, but the exemption is limited to trainees. Why is it so limited? Is it simply because they are trainees? That fits in with the thrust of the proposals. I ask that question and make the implied point because we need to do all that we can to attract, retain and not deter international companies basing themselves in the UK. I do not think that I need to fill in the gaps between the lines there.

There are steps that the Government can take after taking through these regulations, particularly by way of exemptions and by working with different sectors, which would make them more palatable to those who find them unpalatable, and more effective, and might help to avoid unintended consequences, as these charges are clearly going to be significant for some sectors.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, I would like to say a few words about health and social care. Report after report shows the dire financial straits in which NHS employers find themselves, with 75% of hospitals already in deficit and A&E departments struggling to meet the four-hour target for attending to patients. There is a shortage of nurses, and retention is terrible. Doctors’ rosters are not filled, resulting in cancelled patient treatments, which puts a greater burden on existing staff, who are acting as the shock absorber for the system. GP practices cannot fill vacancies. Care homes providers are handing back local authority contracts because they cannot provide a decent service within the amount of fees that they are paid. The number of care beds is falling while demand is rising, and 1.2 million elderly and disabled people are not receiving the care that they need.

It is in this climate that the Government have decided to tax health and care employers for every worker from outside the EEA who is on a tier 2 visa. You could not make it up. On top of this, they choose to do it at a time when they have removed the nurse training bursary and have no idea of the effect that it will have on the number of nurses in training. It is no wonder that the BMA and the RCN have written to the Home Secretary, laying out the damaging effects of the charge on health and care. The Government may not have calculated how much it is going to cost them, but they have—it is £7.2 million per year, which will deter cash-strapped employers from filling rosters with essential staff, thereby putting patients at risk. I ask myself why the Government could not make those calculations. Perhaps it is because it is so politically embarrassing.

It is little wonder that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had serious concerns about the measure, with particular regard to the fact that the memorandum laid with the instrument said nothing about the opposition to the measure voiced by those who were consulted. It was also provided with no information about the impact of the measure, particularly on health and care employers, who are the sector fourth-most affected by the charge. It is no wonder that it was not provided with that information since, in reply to its questions, as my noble friend has just said, Robert Halfon MP confessed that the cost of the charge to the NHS has not been estimated because it is classified as a tax. His letter also shows complete ignorance of the nature of the modern nursing workforce, saying:

“There is no direct impact on employers of care workers as they do not qualify for entry to the UK under the Tier 2 route. Tier 2 has been reserved for graduate occupations since 2011”.


Yes, nursing has been a graduate occupation for a similar length of time. Does the Minister think that care employers do not employ graduate nurses any longer?

The ISC was intended to deter employers recruiting from abroad, but health and care employers have no option, and they have no need for this. As the BMA letter says:

“Checks and balances are already in place to ensure posts are first offered to UK and EU nationals through the resident labour market test”.


Although we are going to introduce apprentice nurses later this year, doctors undergo long and rigorous training, and it is impossible to upskill UK citizens overnight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

I will certainly cover that.

[Baroness Walmsley]

Before the Minister concludes his remarks, I will make one point. Of course I agree with what he said about the need for employers to make a contribution to the training of the workforce from whom they will eventually benefit. However, is he aware of the very high level of commitment to training that all health and care employers already make? It takes them a lot of time and costs them a lot of money. Every ward has training nurses on it; every clinical team has trainee doctors on it; most GP practices have GP trainees; most care homes also have trainee co-workers. An enormous contribution is made already. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, talked about double charging—that is what we have here.

[Lord Nash]

I have listened to what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have said but I cannot add any more at this stage. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Secondary Schools: Counselling Services

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

I am delighted to join the right reverend Prelate in celebrating the value of this important work. I pay particular tribute to the Pilgrim PRU, which provides specialist support to build resilience and self-confidence, enabling children to reintegrate into mainstream or other settings. In her speech last month on mental health, the Prime Minister talked about ending the burning injustice of mental health problems. Children with more serious mental health problems deserve the same opportunities as everyone else. Ensuring that they get high-quality education is vital to their success in later life.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Will the Department for Education work with the Department of Health to carry out a joint cost-benefit analysis of having counsellors in schools compared to the cost of mental health services for children later in life?

[Lord Nash]

I do not think there is any disagreement: as was just mentioned, we believe that the earlier children receive this kind of support, the better. The cost-benefit analysis is clear: all schools should provide counselling where it is needed.

Schools: Access to Defibrillators

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

I accept that entirely.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, given the recent cuts in school funding, how does the Minister expect schools to be able to afford defibrillators, unless of course they have a special grant to purchase one from the department, which they most certainly should?