Schools: Pupil Premium
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, since my noble friend clearly believes, as I do, that early intervention is a very good strategy, will he go further and agree with the Liberal Democrat policy of putting pupil premium into the early years sector?
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Brinton on this amendment and congratulate her on her determination and persistence in the interests of these severely bullied children. She has over the years managed to convince successive Education Ministers in your Lordships’ House that there is a need for something to be done for these children. So far, not an awful lot has been done, until very recently. What we need—and what we have, fortunately—is the expertise and skills of my noble friend the Minister. I am convinced that he is going to knock heads together and that something will happen.
Because of the late hour I will make just three brief points. Although all eight subsections of my noble friend’s proposed new clause are important, I think that three of them are particularly important. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the words at the end of the first subsection, which is about the Secretary of State,
“ensuring effective recovery programmes to counter the consequences of severe bullying”.
There are organisations that know how to do it—and these children should not and must not be lost children. They can be recovered, they are being recovered, by some wonderful organisations, but these organisations find it very difficult to get the money, as my noble friend has pointed out. Their expertise must be expanded on and cloned across the country to deal with these 16,000 children. I learnt just recently that, sadly, three of their centres have had to close because of lack of funding. That is a tragedy because of the good work that they can and should be doing.
In proposed new subsection (7) my noble friend says that she wants the school to have,
“a duty to find alternative provision that is suitable for the pupil or student and their needs”.
That does not mean a PRU. Very often that is where the bullies are, so that is certainly not suitable for these children’s needs.
Finally, I should like to echo my noble friend’s comments about Ofsted. We all know how very influential it is when Ofsted makes a point of inspecting something or asking about something. Unfortunately, what often happens is that when a child is on the school roll but does not attend, pressure is put on the parents to take them and give them home education even though the parent may not really be capable of doing it and would have to give up their job, which the family economy could not bear. We must try to stop that practice happening. If Ofsted is putting schools on the spot and saying, “This pupil has not been attending—what have you done about it? Where are they going? How are you making sure that the money follows them into appropriate provision”, then something will happen.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. She is a real expert in this area and it was important that she put this amendment down. I would like to stress one particular point—the role of the school in all of this. At one stage I came across a group of schools that had a very effective policy of dealing with this situation. Their method was to have a mentor for each pupil who entered the school, and the child who was mentoring got merit points for successfully introducing and making life smooth for the new student. I very much hope that we can do a little more to find out what group of schools that was—I regret to say that I have lost my details on it. It seems a very good example of best practice to sell right across the stage of all schools. As we know, it is not just a question of bullying in schools—there is bullying in all forms of life, including employment when you grow up as well.
I hope that the Minister will take all this very seriously. The role of school governors is important, and I should perhaps have mentioned earlier that I am president of the NGA. I think we have a meeting with school governors and the Minister shortly, and this is one of the items that it will be important to put on the agenda.
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as many noble Lords know, I have campaigned for good, mandatory, quality PSHE, not just SRE, in all schools ever since I came to your Lordships’ House. This is because I believe that it is every child’s right to receive this information and because I believe that schools should be educating children for life and not just for a job. As you can imagine, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness’s Amendment 53ZAAA, which sounds more like a battery or something to do with financial security than an amendment. But I have always regretted that the previous Labour Government did not see fit to make PSHE mandatory in all schools during the 13 years that they were in power.
However, if the noble Baroness thinks her amendment will ensure the objective that many of us agree about, I am sad to say that I think she is wrong. The amendment talks only about SRE and not the whole of PSHE. It is the whole of PSHE that educates children for life and helps them with their learning, which is why many of us have always campaigned for it.
The amendment also keeps parental withdrawal up to the age of 15, which I do not agree with. It is outrageous: the idea that information, particularly about sex and relationships should be kept from a child until they are 15 is completely mad in this day and age. The amendment, therefore, is only a partial solution to the patchy PSHE situation that was identified by Ofsted.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know that the previous Government, when I was the Minister, tried to introduce compulsory sex and relationship education. Were we to agree the amendment with her support tonight, does she not agree that it would be delivered by PSHE teachers and members of the PSHE subject association—who gave me a standing ovation when I announced compulsory SRE, which is the only time I ever had one in the middle of a speech —and that that would take us a long way down the road she wants us to go down in terms of everyone getting the education for life that she has campaigned for with compulsory PSHE?
Baroness Walmsley
The noble Lord is right. It may well be a step in the right direction, but we need to wait until the end of this debate so that we hear what alternatives the Government have to offer. Then we will have to make up our mind as to which approach will actually ensure that more children get good quality PSHE in their schools.
In relation to what I have just said, I would like to congratulate my noble friends the Ministers on their new measures, intended to improve the spread of good-quality PSHE into all schools, which they plan to announce at the end of this debate, and did so in the letter that we all received. They are all extremely welcome, and I sincerely hope that they will encourage all schools to look carefully at their PSHE curriculum and the skills of their teachers and take up the opportunities, advice and teaching materials that will become available to them as a result of these new measures. I have great confidence in the PSHE Association, and with the new funding that the Government are providing for them, I am sure they will give schools very good advice.
However, despite the warm words in the introduction to the national curriculum, the failure to make PSHE mandatory sadly does not send out the very important message to schools that they should ensure that pupils get this information. Therefore, we are faced with a Government who are doing a great deal to improve the situation and an amendment that does not achieve what I would want to see. What does someone like me do about that? It is a very difficult situation.
Noble Lords are aware that the Government are a coalition Government, made up of two parties. On this matter, these two parties have different approaches. For the sake of clarity, therefore, I put it on the record that the Liberal Democrats believe that the whole of PSHE—not just SRE—should be in a slimmed-down national curriculum and should be taught in all schools, including academies, as a right of the children. I am afraid we have to blame the Labour Government for introducing the exemption of academies from the national curriculum.
Therefore, while I enthusiastically welcome what the Government have now agreed to put in place, it does fall a little short of what I would like to see. On the other hand, so does this amendment, so I have to consider which of these two approaches comes nearest to achieving Liberal Democrat policy and children’s rights. I hope that the Minister, in winding up, will be able to convince me that the Government’s approach will result in more children receiving their right to good PSHE teaching.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I support both of these amendments, to which I have added my name. I want to associate myself with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, in order to skip over some of the arguments she made, and move on, because I know that there are other amendments tonight which we must get to with some alacrity.
I declare an interest as a film maker who has made a film about teenagers and the internet. It is specifically the subject of the internet that makes both Amendment 53 and Amendment 53ZAAA necessary and urgent. It is not the case that all things in the virtual world are harmful or dangerous. Indeed, there is an implicit danger that if we in this Chamber demonise the internet, our concerns will not be heard by the young, 99% of whom are online by the age of 16. The internet is in so many ways a liberatory technology; but in its wake, social and sexual norms are changing—social and sexual norms that, for millennia, were contextualised by family and community but are now delivered into the pockets of young children, largely out of the sight of parents, with no transparency, no accountability and no regulation.
Her Majesty’s Government make distinctions between the status of schools; the internet does not. In every sort of school, there are young people struggling to cope with the loneliness of looking at online lives that their contemporaries are leading, and finding their own lives wanting. They are struggling to do their homework on the very same device that holds their entertainment and communication tools, so inevitably they are interrupted and distracted. Young girls are made anxious by not being the right kind of beautiful to get enough “likes” and know that a sexual or revealing stance could get their numbers up. Young people who are curious about sex find themselves in a world of non-consensual sexual violence and are bewildered, excited and disgusted in a confusing introduction to what should be the most intimate expression of self.
What of the feeling of compulsion and addiction as the norm becomes to respond instantly day and night; or the culture of anonymity that is fuelling an epidemic of bullying; and the sense of absolute helplessness with tragic consequences when a young person is trapped and humiliated in full view by something done foolishly or maliciously? Then, of course, there is the immediate and pressing issue highlighted in the 2013 Ofsted report, Not Yet Good Enough, that found that a third of school pupils had gaps in their knowledge about sex and relationships that left them vulnerable to online exploitation and abuse.
Last week, I had a call from the head teacher of an academy who was in great distress. It was a good school with an excellent record. This is a woman trained to bring life into literature, who is now facing a tsunami of problems beyond her experience or training. She was not the first: indeed, she was one of scores of head teachers and teachers who have reached out for help. It is worth noting that, when I asked her which year group she would like me to talk with, she cited the different needs of the year 9s, 10s, 11s, 12s and 13s. She was reluctant to choose whom I should address because she felt that each group had its own very specific and urgent need.
The establishment of an expert working group to update the statutory guidance is excellent, a sign of good governance. Who could be against it? To update it in the context of the advent of internet and associated technologies is fantastic. However, guidance is not enough: we need age-appropriate, structured and expert SRE teaching that ensures that all of the guidance reaches all of the children in one coherent piece.
I was a little distressed at Question Time—I came late into the Chamber—and I believe I heard the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, suggesting that suicide groups were something that could be dealt with by self-regulation of ISPs. I hope I am mistaken in that. He also suggested that e-safety would be taught in ICT by ICT teachers. This is a reckless approach to something that should unite us. The notion of “duty of care” is embedded into many of our laws and social interactions because we understand that the young can only develop responsibility in proportion to their maturity, and this is one of those situations.
The internet is as yet an unregulated space where sexual acts that remain illegal in the material world are available at the push of a button; where the economic needs of internet billionaires encourage compulsive attachments to devices from which young people are never parted; where young people are encouraged to play, shop and learn without an adequate understanding of their own vulnerabilities or their own responsibilities. This is a new technology that is central to and inseparable from an entire generation, to whom we in this House have a duty of care.
The connection between heavy internet use and depression, the rising incidence of self-harm and anorexia and the playing-out of pornographic scenarios creating new norms of sexual behaviour are increasingly familiar as we see them manifest in our schools and homes. At Stanford and MIT, in important work led by Professor Livingstone at LSE and within the European Union, people are working to quantify the real-life outcomes of internet use by young people. Meanwhile, we need to empower those same young people with knowledge, delivered in a neutral space by appropriately trained adults, in which their safety, privacy and rights are paramount. We know that the internet is not that neutral, safe or private place, and we know that parents alone cannot deal with the entirety of a young person’s life online.
I have said to the Minister before that in the absence of comprehensive SRE delivered to all children, the realpolitik is that you leave some children to be educated in sex by the pornographers and leave bullying and friendship rules to Twitter, Facebook and Foursquare. Guidance, however welcome, is only guidance: its application partial and essentially unequal. The statutory provision of fully rounded SRE that deals with the complexity of the new world in which young people live, written by experts and delivered by trained teachers is quite another thing.
If you can find me a child untouched by the internet, you can show me the child who does not need comprehensive education about its powers and possibilities. I urge noble Lords to put aside any constituency or consideration that might distract them from the urgent need to empower and protect young people and to support both the amendments.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment but as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has explained it so comprehensively and so well, I will not say very much except that I believe that schools have the duty to their children to promote their academic, spiritual, cultural, mental and physical development. Schools will do it in different ways. Amendment 53ZA, crafted by the noble Baroness, accepts that. I have also come across examples where schools teach PSHE in specific lessons about particular topics, but in addition have a whole school ethos that promotes children having respect for each other, having resilience and self-confidence and all those soft skills that so many employers are crying out for as well, of course, as giving them that often life-saving information about sexual matters, drugs, tobacco and so on.
The amendment asks schools to tell the world how they are going to do this. They have this duty—it is right that they should have it—and if they have to make public how they are fulfilling that duty, it will make them focus carefully on the quality of how they deliver these things to the children and fulfil this duty to each and every one of their pupils.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
My Lords, it is good to be able to give a very warm welcome to one of the amendments put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. I agree entirely with what she said in her introduction to this amendment. It is a very good amendment. I particularly like the fact that she is asking all schools to make this explicit to parents, school governors and pupils. We have not talked about the role of school governors enough as we have gone through this Bill. They now have such big responsibilities under previous legislation that to include them in the duty of the school to say what they are doing about the total development of children is very much to be welcomed, as is, of course, the duty to tell parents. We must continue to recognise the role of parents as the primary influences over children—they are primarily responsible for their children’s development.
I am very proud of the fact that it was this House which added the word “spiritual” to the national curriculum responsibilities. Before we had “moral”, “academic” and “physical”, but it was this House which added the word “spiritual” to that list. I am particularly delighted that the noble Baroness has included it in her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, for supporting my Amendment 53A. I have considerable sympathy with her views about the need for childminders to be inspected. However, I think that if Ofsted has concerns, inspectors can inspect any childminder. My amendment focuses on quality. It seeks to introduce a requirement for Ofsted to inspect a childminding agency in respect of the quality of the care offered by the childminders registered with that agency. I noticed that in Schedule 4 there is no mention of this among all the references to the standard of services offered by childminders and the quality of leadership and management. It occurred to me that the most important matter is the quality of the child’s experience and that of its parents. However, that was not clear in Schedule 4 as originally drafted—hence my amendment.
Here I thank the Minister for agreeing with me on the principle that the issue of quality should be made explicit in the legislation, and for laying a series of government amendments to secure that. As he knows, I have my reservations about childminder agencies. I am prepared to give them a chance to prove themselves, but I will base my eventual judgment not on the services provided to the childminders but on whether they are successful in attracting more high-quality childminders into the sector and whether they provide childcare in the places, at the times and of the quality that parents want at a price they can afford.
I await my noble friend’s reply to this debate and welcome his amendments 53AA, 53AB, 53AC and 53AD, which will make it unnecessary for me to move mine.
Baroness Walmsley
“No right to give corporal punishment: part-time educational institutions
In the Education Act 1996, at the end of section 548(7B) (no right to give corporal punishment), insert “except that it applies in relation to this section as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 92(2) of that Act there were substituted the following words “for any amount of time during an academic year, no matter how little””.”
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 54, which seeks to close a loophole in the law about corporal punishment in places of part-time education. In rejecting this amendment in Committee, my noble friend the Minister said, regarding physical punishment in madrassahs that,
“individuals have been charged, convicted and imprisoned for physically assaulting children in these settings. I therefore hope that this clarifies that the law already exists to protect children from violence in these settings”.—[Official Report, 18/11/13; col. GC 335.]
I am afraid this does not help, because the law does not protect children from frequent, painful or risky assaults in these settings and others. Teachers in part-time education, like parents, are entitled to use the defence of “reasonable punishment” under Section 58 of the Children Act 2004, for common assaults inflicted for the purpose of punishing misbehaviour. A common assault may not leave a bruise, but the definition does not include blows that risk injury—like a boxed ear—or cause a lot of pain, or humiliation, or that are inflicted multiple times.
My noble friend also said that the department was working with faith organisations,
“to develop a voluntary code of practice”,
but of course the difficulty about voluntary measures is that they are voluntary, not compulsory. As I said at the time, voluntary measures would not do for,
“the primary school round the corner”. —[Official Report, 18/11/13; cols. GC 335-37.]
The Department for Education celebrates excellent safeguarding measures in some areas but they are not universally applied. For example, in September 2012, after a madrassah teacher was convicted of child cruelty, the Lancashire chief prosecutor told the BBC:
“When we talk about three successful prosecutions in the last year in the North West and probably a dozen nationally, we’re talking about literally the tip of the iceberg. In order to meet the demand, schools are being set up left right and centre. There is no Ofsted, no inspection regime, they’re reliant entirely on a particular committee enforcing standards, ensuring discipline is correctly maintained. And if they are not up to the job, there’s nothing to prevent children being harmed pretty much on a daily basis”.
The Muslim Institute estimates there are upwards of 5,000 madrassahs in this country, and we do not know how many Sunday schools may operate the same sort of abuses. The department cannot seriously suggest that the voluntary code will be adopted and followed by all of them. I am pleased to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has publicly stated he does not support the use of physical punishment. So it is incomprehensible to me why these part-time schools, the most unmonitored and uninspected, are exempted from an otherwise universal ban on an unacceptable practice.
There has been a suggestion that prohibiting physical punishment in madrassahs would “interfere with local discretion” or fetter child-protection professionals. Nothing could be further from the truth. A clear law would assist both those working in the schools and those responsible for child protection, bringing clarity to the situation that the chief prosecutor describes.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lord Storey for raising this very important issue. We have a great deal of sympathy for what they are saying. The Government are absolutely committed to the protection of children. I understand their concerns: nothing is more important than making sure that our young people are protected and safe from harm. Clearly, children will not easily learn in such circumstances. Assault of children is against the law in whatever setting it takes place. The real issue that we all want to address is how to prevent the unacceptable, and already unlawful, treatment of children. We believe the best way to do this is to support people in their communities to address these issues and uphold the law.
Everyone in society has a responsibility to make sure that children are safe from violence, abuse and neglect. Our job is to enable parents and communities to exercise that responsibility. We must address the culture that allows unlawful treatment of children to be viewed as acceptable or—and which may more often be the issue—that makes people reluctant to report, question or challenge it.
We have a strategy that aims to address this issue in all types of supplementary settings. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley has noted—though not with favour—we are working with a range of interests to develop a voluntary code of practice for supplementary schools. We believe that signing up to the code will mean that providers will establish robust policies in areas such as safeguarding and governance arrangements to help protect children and young people from harm. I hope that she will feel that it is a move in the right direction, even if it is not as much as she would like to see.
The code will send a clear message about the expected standards that all settings should meet. It will enable and empower parents to make informed choices about the provision of supplementary teaching for their children. Through targeted communications, we will inform parents about the code and encourage them to refer to it when selecting suitable provision for their child. Providers who sign up to the code will also naturally want to inform parents about it, to highlight the good practice they have adopted. We want to give parents the tools to make informed choices about the right provision for their child and to know what to do and whom to go to if they have any concerns.
We will be consulting on the draft code this spring. We will place a copy of the consultation document in the Library and would welcome comments from noble Lords. In particular, I hope that my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lord Storey will take a very good look at this consultation document and feed their ideas into it. I assure noble Lords that we will review the effectiveness of the voluntary code over time. It will need some time to embed, but we believe that it will have a significant and lasting impact in changing culture, although we will review its effectiveness.
We all know that there is an issue to be addressed. There are different ways this could be approached, but we feel that the proposed new clause is not the best way to achieve the change we want. It seeks to amend other provisions, which themselves have not been commenced. If we were to commence the relevant provisions, including the regulatory regime for part-time institutions, that would require the Department for Education to register a large number of part-time education institutions, with all the complexity involved. More importantly, commencing these provisions would be unlikely to capture a wider range of settings, including those where there may be real cause for concern. Most supplementary schools are unlikely to qualify as independent educational institutions, so they would be unaffected by this change.
The real issue is not the technical difficulty that implementing this amendment would cause. The real issue is cultural: changing the culture which allows physical punishment of children to go unquestioned and unchallenged must be the right way forward. That is why we are focusing on this. I hope that my noble friends will engage with this next change and encourage my noble friend Lady Walmsley to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply and my noble friend Lord Storey for his support. I hope that my noble friend does not think that I am against the work in the community trying to change the culture; of course I am very much in favour of that, and I am sure that we will both engage in developing the code of practice.
Are the Government willing to publish a list of those settings that refuse to sign up to the code? Can my noble friend answer that?
Baroness Northover
That is a very interesting idea, and I will write to my noble friend.
Baroness Walmsley
I thank my noble friend for that. I did not really think that she would be able to answer that at this moment.
It is highly desirable that we shine sunlight on these issues and on those settings that do not sign up to the code. I should also be very keen, when the time comes, to know how the Government intend to ensure that parents are informed that the code exists and told how to find out whether the setting to which they propose to send their child signs up to it, how it is monitored, and so on and so forth. Those things are very important.
I still feel that we need a level playing field between part-time centres of education and maintained schools, foster carers, and so on, because I do not think that cultural change was considered to be enough when we tried to eliminate those schoolteachers—usually schoolmasters, I have to say—who were terribly keen on wielding the cane. We did not rely just on cultural change there; we changed the law. It may very well be necessary to do that in the end, but I am obviously willing to give a voluntary code of practice a chance. I will certainly engage with the Government in developing it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
“Part 4AProtection of childrenActions due to a belief of possession by spirits
(1) Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 (cruelty to persons under sixteen) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) omit the words “and has responsibility for any child or young person under that age,” and for the word “him” substitute “any child or young person under that age”.
(3) In subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) in subsection (1) the meaning of “ill-treats” includes the communication by word or by action a belief that the child is possessed by evil spirits or has supernatural harmful powers—(i) to the child concerned, or(ii) to anyone connected to that child.””
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I return to this amendment about a form of child abuse, about which we had a very useful discussion in Committee and, following that, a very helpful exchange of correspondence with my noble friend Lady Northover, the Minister.
The purpose of this amendment is to fill two gaps in the law protecting children: first, to make clear that alleging that a child is possessed or has supernatural evil powers constitutes emotional abuse of the child; and, secondly, to ensure that people not directly responsible for a child are liable for child cruelty offences.
In Committee, and in her follow-up letter, my noble friend Lady Northover confirmed that making an allegation of this nature is child abuse. This confirmation is welcome and important and will be supported by those working in child protection. Children accused of possession or supernatural evil are almost always already vulnerable in some respect—outsiders, orphaned, ill, disabled, trafficked et cetera—and as a result of an allegation, they may well go on to suffer serious physical or social abuse. Yet it is the allegation itself that can inflict the most devastating emotional trauma on the child. AFRUCA has a number of case studies which, because of the late hour, I will not go into.
However, this is not understood by those making such allegations. A pastor or relative or member of the congregation who declares a child is possessed or is a witch may genuinely believe this to be the case and see it as their duty to take appropriate action. So we have a situation where an abusive practice, like FGM or forced marriage, is being perpetrated in ignorance of the fact that it is abuse. But here the gap in the law is more extreme. Offences already existed that criminalised FGM and forced marriage; for example, the offences of assault, rape and false imprisonment. Yet, government wisely saw that a more specific law was needed. In this case there are no laws criminalising accusations of demonic possession or evil powers in a child, so again a more specific law is needed.
My noble friend suggested in the last debate and in her letter that there were laws that could be used to prosecute those making allegations. She agrees that the main law on offences of child cruelty under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 does not cover people who are not parents or acting in loco parentis, such as pastors or relatives. She proposed, however, that the Public Order Act, Protection from Harassment Act or the Serious Crime Act might be used against these people instead.
Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. In practice no prosecutor would agree to a wholly speculative prosecution under these provisions against someone—for example, a pastor—who has alleged that a child is possessed or is supernaturally evil. For a start, if the pastor was told that he had perpetrated child abuse he could quite reasonably reply, “Says who?”. Government guidance on this issue addresses abuse arising as a result of an allegation of spirit possession, not the allegation itself.
More importantly, under all the provisions cited by my noble friend Lady Northover, the child would be required to give evidence that he or she feared violence or was alarmed or distressed as a result of the allegation. This is precisely the scenario this amendment seeks to avoid. The whole point is to protect children from the trauma of knowing that they are believed to be possessed by a devil or are supernaturally evil. If this amendment was adopted it would be possible to charge the accuser without involving the child at any point. I think that is highly desirable.
As importantly, the purpose of this amendment is prevention—preventing both the allegations and any subsequent abuse. None of the laws cited can have that effect because they do not specify the offence.
The Minister and others such as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, have made reference to projects and working parties on child safety and spirit possession in which most of the participants were of the view that changes in the law were unnecessary. However, these views were based on a misapprehension of the law. No one picked up on the fact that neither the Children Act in civil law nor Section 1 in criminal law covers third parties, so the participants were told that a law was not necessary because, “This is already emotional abuse under child abuse laws”. That is wrong. In any event, the focus was on the abuse that followed from the allegation, not the allegation itself.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for continuing to press the case with regard to these children, even if there are differences of view between us as to how this is best tackled. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for her helpful contribution in Committee in bringing to our attention the Trust for London report on the issue, and she has contributed again from her wide and deep experience. I also thank my noble friend Lady Benjamin for her contribution.
Since this amendment was debated in Committee, my noble friend Lady Walmsley has in correspondence helpfully explained in detail some of the issues that concern her. I hope that I have been able to put her mind at ease on some, if not all, of them and I am grateful to her for the opportunity to explain the position. We share her commitment to safeguarding children from this and all other forms of abuse. A belief system can never justify the abuse of a child. We need to ensure that children are not subjected to abuse, or left vulnerable to potential abuse, because someone alleges that the child is possessed.
The Government believe that the current law is sufficient for this purpose: it provides adequate protection to children from the type of abuse that this amendment is trying to prevent. I will come to that in more detail in a moment. I set out much of the legislative framework during our debate in Committee. I shall not repeat those details again, but I reiterate that while the existing legislation does not specifically mention communication of a belief that a child is possessed by spirits, the current offence of child cruelty already captures conduct likely to cause a child unnecessary suffering or injury to health. Where the conduct could not be covered by the offence of child cruelty, it could be caught by other criminal offences, depending on the circumstances of the case.
I hope that my noble friend Lady Walmsley will be pleased that since Committee, to get further clarity on the guidance, officials discussed the issues around witch branding with the Crown Prosecution Service, which makes any decision on whether a prosecution should be pursued. The CPS was able to provide a copy of guidance for prosecutors that the service produced some time ago. That guidance, a copy of which I have sent to my noble friend, illustrates the legislation and offences that could be considered in different circumstances. We believe that it covered all situations where a child might face potential harm, including those where the perpetrators of potential harm are third parties, such as rogue pastors.
Our approach needs to ensure that the scope of the current legislation is better understood to enable it to work as it should. To do this we must raise awareness among the relevant communities and faith groups. We must provide support and guidance to practitioners to help them understand what behaviours could constitute a criminal offence. Department officials are working with the National Working Group on Abuse Linked to Faith or Belief, and will be discussing with it further how best to disseminate information on this issue to the relevant communities and groups. We understand that some members of the working group are also considering revising the 2007 guidance on this issue and we are grateful to the group members for this. They are the experts, and they have the links to the relevant communities. We are happy to support the development of the new guidance.
When bringing the CPS guidance to the attention of group members, officials took the opportunity to address any potential misunderstanding about which people are covered by some of the legislation. Some members of the working group felt that there had been confusion about whether the 1933 Act could apply to anyone other than parents or those in a parental role, as my noble friend Lady Walmsley said. Officials have now made it clear that while third parties, such as rogue pastors, could not be prosecuted under the 1933 Act, they are covered by other legislation, as set out in the CPS guidance.
Any person whose words or behaviour cause severe alarm and distress to a child could be prosecuted for an offence under Sections 4 or 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. There are other elements. Those responsible can extend beyond those with parental responsibility. For example, they can include babysitters or teachers while they have care of the child.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley will be extremely familiar with Blackstone’s Statutes on Criminal Law because it probably accompanies her noble husband everywhere. It covers this in B2.136 on page 283 on child cruelty. It states that other persons such as babysitters or teachers may also have a responsibility while a child or young person is their care. It is covered. I hope that my noble friend is reassured by that. I am sure that she will agree that, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, it is culture that needs to change. We need to tackle that, and schools can play an important role in protecting children from a range of risks. We are working with other government departments and representatives of head and teacher unions to develop processes to raise awareness among staff and pupils of safeguarding risks such as these. Of course, there is a range of other areas in which we are working to try to tackle this. I hope that my noble friend is sufficiently reassured and will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
I thank the Minister for her reply and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am quite unapologetic about bringing this back again because we have made some progress. We have now had clarification on two points: first, that telling a child that it is possessed by evil spirits is child abuse and, secondly, that this range of laws can apply not just to people with parental responsibility but to others as well. I have some reservations because, accepting that this is quite a small, albeit serious and important, problem, nobody has ever been charged with any of the offences in the long list that my noble friend attached to her letter. These offences could possibly be used, but they have not been.
I of course support all the work being done in the community and absolutely agree that a cultural change is required, but it was an important group of people from the community who came to me and asked me to table this amendment and get this debate for a second time because they feel that it is very important to clarify in law that you should not even tell a child that they are possessed, let alone do anything physical about it. That is what people from the community itself believe.
It is quite clear that I have not persuaded my noble friend, but I thank her because we have had made some progress and cleared up a few issues along the way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I shall be brief, as I usually am, but I want to say two things. One is that when I read these amendments my heart leapt. I thought that if only the home local authority could be made responsible for every young person in secure provision on this basis with a proper plan for seeing them through—as I remember, and as I am sure my noble friend Lord Laming will remember, was the case in children’s departments, where someone was responsible for a young person, with a plan, wherever they were—that would be absolutely wonderful. Of course, at that time there was much more focus on education in the institutions, as childcare establishments, than there is in some of the more penal establishments that exist today.
So I was utterly delighted and was going to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, whose tenacity of purpose has taken this through, until I realised, as he did, the key flaw in this piece of legislation. That flaw is that those who wish to take the plans through are not the people with the capacity to provide the resource in order for it to happen in the place it needs to happen. As I am always interested in implementation, I thought about how this would work. There has to be a further step somewhere, either in some sort of regulation or a change in the legislation, that ensures that these plans are formulated into the institution—because, remember, these are individual plans. In the institution they have to be put together into programmes for groups of young people; it is not as easy as simply saying that you can carry each plan through as it stands without extra provision being brought in, with all the problems with that in terms of financing.
I hope that the Minister will look at this, take heart that many of us have been very impressed with the way he listens, and take it forward. Many of us are very concerned about young people in detention who have been failed by everybody by the time they get to detention, particularly those with special educational needs who should not be in this form of provision at all. Surely they can get the right education through this legislation, but they certainly will not with this flaw.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have a suggestion following what the noble Baroness has just said about implementation, but first I must say how pleased I am to see that my noble friend Lord Nash has listened tremendously well and gone away and done something about it. This has been a great example of the way this House works so well behind the scenes. I am very pleased that the blanket statement that all the good stuff in the Bill should not apply to children in custody has been got rid of and that my noble friend the Minister has grasped the opportunity that the Bill gives to put something better in place. Let us see whether we can get it as perfect as we would like to see it.
It occurs to me that it is a very good thing that the responsibility moves back to the home local authority. What we want to see when young people come out of custody and go back to their home local authority is continuity of provision. I know that the Local Government Association has welcomed this provision, but the people actually delivering the services while the young people are in custody are a company, an organisation that has been contracted to deliver that service from outside. They are not the prison authorities. These education services are provided by external organisations under contract. Why should those contracts not always have a proviso within them that says that there is somebody within the organisation with the responsibility of liaising with the home authority to ensure that the EHC plan is delivered, or the assessment is made, whichever is appropriate, and that the services are provided while the young person is in custody? That should be a condition of the contract for delivering education services within the prison. They should be obliged, under their contract, to provide what EHC plans say should be provided. I see no reason why that should not be a condition of winning a contract for providing services within a prison.
My final point is that I am particularly pleased about the duty that is being put on health commissioners to provide services within an EHC plan. I am aware, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has emphasised it on many occasions, that speech and language therapy is much needed by a high percentage of young people in custody. Let us hope that those services will be provided better in future under these new provisions.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 50 along with that of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. The amendment seeks to take Clause 70, which disapplies the provisions of Part 3 to detained young people, out of the Bill and I am pleased that the Government have accepted that. I also support Amendment 49, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
I can be brief because most of the points have been made. I welcome the Government’s recognition that, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, it was unbelievable that the provisions in Part 3 ought not to apply to detained young people and they have come some way, at least, to applying some of the provisions to young people in custody. However, I regret that, compared to the situation that will exist for young people in the community, the provisions in the government amendments are weak and that, as they stand, they will not give detained young people the same rights to and expectations of support as those in the community.
A number of points have been raised and I would like to summarise two significant holes in the proposals in the amendments as they hang together. First, where there is an EHC plan in existence before a young person goes into custody, the amendments will require the home local authority to maintain that plan and be ready to re-implement it on the release of that young person. That is good. However, as the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Storey and others have said, the amendments will require the local authority and the healthcare authority to use only their “best endeavours”. That is very different from the duty on the local and healthcare authorities for young people in the community to secure the provision in the EHC plan. That is a big hole and I should be grateful if the Minister would address that issue and say why the Government have diluted the duty on local authorities in respect of detained young people.
The other big gap, which has been addressed in different ways by different contributors to the debate so far, relates to what happens to young people while they are in custody. Most of the amendments address the issue of what happens when the young person is released—they ought to be able to go back home and the home authority should carry on implementing the EHC plan that was in place—but there is nothing in the amendments about what happens in custody. There is a duty on YOIs and custodial institutions to co-operate with the local authority but there is no requirement on the institutions to, for example, identify if a young person has SEN if it has not been identified before they go into custody. This may well be the case because many of them have special educational needs. There is no responsibility on the custodial institution to request an EHC assessment. They can, but there is no requirement for them to do so. There is no responsibility laid on the custodial institutions to take over the responsibilities that would exist for a local authority if that young person was still in the community.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to the contractors providing the education, but the responsibility ought to lie with the public sector organisation, or the quasi-public sector organisation in the case of a privatised institution, which is holding these young people. It ought to be its responsibility to address the special educational needs of those young people while they are in custody, working closely, of course, with the home local authority from which a young person has come and to which they will return.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I, too, welcome this group of amendments. From these Benches in Committee we proposed a group of amendments about the voice of the child and the child’s involvement with decision-making. We have not got all that we wanted but there is certainly a step in the right direction here today and I very much welcome it. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, when she said how important it is that children have the information they need to enable them to take part in decision-making about matters that relate to them. This is a right under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and I am very glad that the Government have taken one step further towards implementing it.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, very briefly, I would be remiss if I did not welcome this amendment. I was directly involved for many years with children and giving children information, both in voluntary organisations and in the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. It was clear to me that they did not know what information you had given them unless it was in an appropriate form. I hope that the code will take the best from some of the practice that already exists in some local authorities and CAFCASS regarding the form of information and the method of delivery to children and young people. Young children in particular can be involved very easily in many complex areas of their lives and indeed in decision-making if it is explained to them in an appropriate way by an appropriate person. I welcome the amendment but I hope that the implementation will be looked at carefully as there is good practice out there that could be used.
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to which I have added my name. We had a very good debate in Committee on Clause 11 about the status of the presumption that is enshrined in that clause. Concerns about preserving the overriding status of the presumption of the best interests of the child in the Children Act have been largely assuaged.
By definition it is very difficult for both parents and children when a family breaks up, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has underlined, things can get very heated and parents can get very focused on coming out of that conflict with what they regard as the best arrangements for them.
As I made clear in Committee, I start from the position of sharing the Government’s desire to enshrine in public policy the principle of joint parental involvement in a child’s life, including after separation. I argue that for most children, the paramount principle of the child’s welfare, as enshrined in the Children Act 1989, cannot be fully met unless both parents are fully involved in the child’s life and have a continuing relationship with the child. Perhaps slightly differently to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I think that there is an issue to be addressed here, particularly for fathers. I agree with the Government that the principle of parental involvement needs strengthening.
However, if we agree—as I think we all do—that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, and that this principle should not be jeopardised or diluted, then we must also ensure that the presumption in Clause 11 is not misinterpreted and applied in ways that can be detrimental to children. Specifically, Clause 11 must not send the signal that parental involvement, which regrettably the Government initially called “shared parental responsibility”, is taken to mean that the child is divided according to some a priori formula, whether that is 50-50 or something else. Clause 11 gives a right to the child to expect continued meaningful involvement by both parents after separation. It must not be interpreted as giving a right to both parents for equal—or near equal as possible—time with the child. I know that the Government’s Explanatory Notes make clear their intentions. But there are a number of reasons why the Minister must take seriously the possibility, indeed the likelihood, of such misinterpretation.
First, the experience in Australia is that 65% of fathers interpreted “shared parental responsibility” to mean equal time. Litigation between parents increased as a result, and they had to change the system. Secondly, as touched on by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth: the clause, unless it is qualified on the face of the Bill in the way that this amendment seeks, could inadvertently increase the risk of harm to children, because only 10% of separating couples resort to the courts to resolve their contact disputes, with the majority of parents reaching agreements privately. There is concern that if it is the expectation of those parents that the law now says that the child’s time has to be carved up, then some parents may seek to use the new changes as a bargaining tool and put pressure on the other parent into making contact arrangements which are not in the best interests of the child.
Again, evidence from Australia suggests that similar reforms resulted in an increased reluctance for mothers to disclose abuse, for example, with many feeling that if there is a legal presumption of shared contact, there was little point in disclosing problems in the family. Given that the vast majority of cases do not go to court, if as a result of Clause 11 there is a common perception that having the child’s time shared out will be the norm in future, then even in families where there is no abuse or there are not problems we may still see the unintended consequence of nomadic arrangements, with a child moving between homes in a way that we would all want to avoid for obvious reasons. This would not be in the interests of most children.
Finally, and very significantly, we have to respond strongly to those parts of the media, which have promoted the interpretation which we are discussing now, despite the best efforts of the Government. I do not believe that any amount of communication or clarification can shift this now. This is why Amendment 14 is so necessary—the Government’s intention and interpretation would be quite clearly on the face of the Bill, and enshrined not in guidance but in law.
Last night we received a policy statement from the Government about Clause 11 and Amendment 14. This makes clear the Government’s intention—it is not to promote a particular division of time, but they feel that the most effective way of dealing with this is through a wider communication strategy to explain to parents what the interpretation is. This is wholly inadequate, for the reason I have just expressed; this view is already well entrenched, partly because of the initial nomenclature of shared parental responsibility and partly because parts of the media have triumphantly proclaimed that this means an equal proportion of the child’s time is to be spent with father and mother. That view is now so well entrenched that I am very concerned about the impact on expectations and, therefore, on negotiations between parents, particularly those not going to court. The most emphatic and unambiguous way of disabusing people of that false impression is to put the amendment alongside Clause 11 into the Bill. The Government will then have something in law that they can go to town about in communications, explaining Amendment 14 if it became part of the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I believe that there is only one a priori formula, as the noble Baroness puts it, that we should have in our mind today, and that is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which gives children the right to be safe and protected and the right to a family life. We all agree that that right to a family life, where it is in the child’s best interests and safe to do so, should include an ongoing relationship with both parents. Unfortunately, in many cases the parents themselves feel that they cannot continue to do that within the same home, so they separate. I believe that it is the Government’s intention in this clause to give the child that right back and ensure that the child continues to have a relationship with both parents where it is safe to do so and in the child’s best interests.
Governments make their intentions clear in more than one way. The wording of legislation is one thing, but Pepper v Hart is another. I am hoping that, in his reply, my noble friend the Minister will make it very clear that what the media have been saying is not the Government’s intention. Indeed, my noble friend has made that very clear to probably all of us in this Chamber now in private meetings, but of course it has to go on the record for people to be able to rely on it, and I am very much hoping that he will be able to do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, mentioned the media. I call on the media—indeed, I challenge them—to give just as much space and just as large headlines after today’s debate to the Government’s real intentions on what this legislation and any surrounding regulations really mean, rather than what they mistakenly thought that they meant, which caused an awful lot of concern and worry to families who can really do without that sort of worry when they are going through the stress of breaking up and wondering what they can do to cause the least possible damage to their children’s lives while they do so. I very much look forward to my noble friend’s reply.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally) (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow my noble friend in this debate, not least because well over two years ago, when this legislation was first mooted, I went to see her as the oracle on matters to do with the welfare of children. I said that the Government were thinking of legislating in this area, and I remember that she gave me very clear marching orders—whatever else the Government did, it must be clear that the paramountcy of the welfare of the child should be ingrained in this legislation. I have certainly taken that to heart as this legislation has passed through.
It is also true, as has been indicated and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, referred to, that we learnt lessons from the Australian legislation and we have listened to what has been said as this Bill has moved through both Houses. We have been trying consciously to get the balance right. When we were talking about the misrepresentation in the press, there was an opinion that the legislation as it stood was biased in favour of the mother. What we have been trying to do in this legislation is to have wording that gives a very clear guide that, where possible, and as my noble friend Lady Walmsley has just indicated, it is in the interests of the welfare of the child that both parents should be involved.
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Our intention in paring this down to background and characteristics is to force people to look at the guidance. The Government tell us that they are strengthening the guidance considerably and will emphasise the need to understand that a child’s ethnicity is an important aspect of their identity. What concerns me particularly about taking ethnicity out altogether is that we will continue to have a large number of trans-racial adoptions. Hurrah to that, I say, as long as the child is going to a family who can love them, bring them up in a caring way and, if there are differences in background, ethnicity, culture and so on, understand how that affects the child. Whether through the Bill or in the guidance, we need to ensure that local authorities, when dealing with prospective parents, are able to investigate whether they are the kind of parents who would understand the importance of that characteristic of the children. I fear that taking “ethnicity” out will not fix the problem.
As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, there is a mismatch between the cohort of children waiting for adoption and the size of the cohort of parents prepared to adopt them. There is also a difference in the ethnicity of those two groups and that is why, until we can balance the ethnicity of the one group and the other, there will continue to be those trans-racial adoptions. That is why we need to make quite sure that, among all the other wonderful characteristics of those prepared to take the step and adopt a child who needs a home, there is that sensitivity and understanding of the child’s ethnic background. Whichever way we do it, it has got to be done well.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, following the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, with which I agree absolutely, I warmly support the amendment in the names of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friends on the Front Bench.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has unrivalled expertise. I have only personal experience—I am speaking as the parent of an adoptive child of Asian background—and it is my conviction that any child of a different racial background from the parents is deprived if it cannot identify easily, almost unconsciously, with someone close to it in the way children do. A baby first learns visually to recognise faces. A teenager depends very much on confirmation of his or her identity to develop confidence. A loving home is, of course, all important. I am speaking not only as a parent, but as a member of a support group for adoptive parents, so I am also aware of their experiences. You impose a burden and a cause of stress on a child if ethnicity—as far as is possible—is not respected.
Children survive all sorts of things and I hope we have had a happy family. But that in no way alters my conviction that the Government should pay attention to this need of children and accept this amendment.
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, I support the amendments in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I do not wish to rehearse all the points that my colleagues have already made but it is important to say that part of what we need is a cultural change of collaboration and working together in local authorities to create a climate where adoption happens with ease for all the children needing a loving home.
The word “direction”, which hangs over local authorities, is not conducive to a working, productive relationship. It is dictatorial and does not create the atmosphere that we are all looking for. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, we need the Secretary of State to have the absolute power at the end, if it is required, but the amendment ensures that there is justification for anything that is taken before both Houses of Parliament, and I am sure that we will all be more comfortable about such scrutiny. The idea that, with the direction, the Secretary of State merely has to give his reasoning but does not give anyone the chance to fully debate the matter and make changes would not be helpful in this process.
I support these amendments and I hope that they will take us much further forward in obtaining the co-operation we need and the adoption system that we are looking for.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
A point was made by two earlier speakers that the Secretary of State could use successive orders under new Section 3A(3)(b) to achieve what new subsection (3)(c) provides for—in other words, to wipe out all local authorities from these various functions. Given the fact that new subsection (3)(c) is in the Bill, any Secretary of State who were to try that would, I am sure, be challenged for an abuse of process. I cannot see any Secretary of State trying to do that. It would be eminently challengeable. To colleagues who fear that scenario in the future, I suggest that it is not likely to happen. We have in my noble friend’s amendments a process—which I think the Government will be able to accept—to bring about parliamentary scrutiny if the powers in new subsection (3)(c) were used. That is the right level of parliamentary scrutiny required.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am acutely aware of the concerns Peers have raised about this clause. I thank particularly my noble friends Lady Hamwee, Lady Eaton, Lord Storey and Lord Eccles for helping me to understand the nature of those concerns.
Following constructive discussions, I am persuaded that the Government’s amendment and the commitment to report to Parliament do not provide for the parliamentary scrutiny that many noble Lords would wish to see. I am therefore very grateful to my noble friends for tabling their Amendments 4A to 4D and 6A. I am persuaded that it is right for a direction to all local authorities to be subject to full and rigorous scrutiny by Parliament. I therefore confirm my support for their amendments and, if they are accepted, I will not of course need to move my Amendment 6.
Before I address Amendments 4 and 5 I remind noble Lords of the rationale of the clause as set out in the recently published policy statement. The clause is intended as a backstop should the current and significant efforts of local government and voluntary agencies prove insufficient. Unfortunately, we have to accept that this is a possibility as adoption agencies have to work within a flawed system. The fundamental problems are the structure of provision, based around local boundaries, and the unhelpful incentives associated with this structure. This constrains the ability to recruit adoptive parents in sufficient numbers. As a result, the system fails to deliver enough adopted parents to meet national demand, as we have already discussed.
However, let me be quite clear: it is the system that is failing to meet national demand, not the individual local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies that make up the system. The distinction is important and can be demonstrated by statistics. Recently published Ofsted data showed a 34% increase in adopter approvals in 2012-13 compared to the previous year. This is a huge achievement on the part of individual agencies. Local authorities have delivered a 32% increase in adopters recruited and approved and voluntary adoption agencies a 53% rise, and they should be congratulated.
Impressive though these numbers are, the sad truth is that this is still not enough to meet the needs of the number of children waiting for a loving home. At the end of March 2013, there were 6,000 children approved by the courts for adoption, waiting to move in with a permanent family. This is 15% higher than the year before. Furthermore, we estimate that we need around 3,100 additional adopters to meet the existing demand of the children who were already waiting with a placement order.
So we face a real challenge to recruit more adoptive parents. To meet it, we need to transform the system and tackle the underlying structural problems. I feel that we are well placed to do so. After welcome and constructive discussions with colleagues from local government and the voluntary sector, we have an agreed proposition for a national adoption leadership board. This is a significant milestone and demonstrates a collective commitment to take nationally driven action to close the adopter recruitment gap. The board’s members will be senior figures from the core organisations within the adoption system in England. I therefore see this board as the principal forum to deliver significant improvements in the performance of the adoption system.
Under the board’s leadership, we expect to see significant changes in the shape and structure of the providers available, including increasing consolidation and scale among local authority adoption agencies; growth in the capacity of the voluntary sector and an increase in the proportion of adopter approvals for which it is responsible; and more partnership working between local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies, local authority employees, spinouts into mutuals and the entry of some new providers.
These sorts of things are already happening. For example, I was pleased to see from the recent Ofsted publication that, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to, 12 local authorities now provide adoption services under joint arrangements. These are Bedford borough and Central Bedfordshire; the west London tri-borough; Leicestershire and Rutland; Shropshire and Telford; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, referred to, Warrington, Wigan and St Helens.
I also welcome the partnership arrangements that exist between local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies—for example, those operating in Harrow, Kent, Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. We just need to see these types of arrangements happening more quickly and more often.
Clause 3 therefore provides levers of last resort. It is the backstop to a number of things that Government are doing to support local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies. I have already mentioned the Government’s support for the new national adoption board. We have invested £150 million through the adoption reform grant to support local authorities in 2013-14. We are also investing £16 million to build the capacity of the voluntary sector.
We know that these investments are having an impact. We expect there to be a number of new voluntary adoption agencies in the near future and we know that many local authorities have made good use of the adoption reform grant. For example, they have recruited additional staff, provided staff training and development and funded a range of marketing activities to recruit more adopters. I was particularly interested in the work the Southwark area is doing, as I have already mentioned. It used some of its funding to develop an innovative recruitment campaign to target harder-to-reach prospective adopters using a reward scheme. Southwark is also working with Lambeth to fund an outreach worker to promote the recruitment of adopters from the BME community.
I will now explain the government amendment, which tries to address some of the concerns raised in Grand Committee. Amendment 6 delays the implementation of new subsection (3)(c) until March 2015 at the earliest. It therefore provides more time for current reforms to embed and for the new leadership board to have an impact. The Government also commit that the Secretary of State will report to Parliament before issuing any direction under new subsection (3)(c).
This report would set out an updated analysis of the state of the adopter recruitment market. It would cover both the local government and voluntary sectors and analyse their current structure and effectiveness. It would also include the latest estimate of the adopter recruitment gap. In essence, it would justify the requirement for a direction under new subsection (3)(c). Any such direction would provide sufficient time for new arrangements to be put in place. This is an important point as structural change cannot happen overnight.
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the Committee is about to hear from the Lib Dems because I was delighted to add my name to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, in support of her amendment. I am delighted to see her in her place and congratulate her on the quality of her introductory speech. If she can do that after a bang on the head, what on earth could she do without one?
Current legislation in relation to PSHE and SRE is very confused. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that making PSHE, including SRE, a statutory part of the national curriculum would make schools much more accountable for what they delivered. Young people all say that they want a comprehensive, high-quality programme of PSHE. Teachers themselves are campaigning for it, a large percentage of parents want it and most of the children’s organisations are also campaigning for it. That is why I also support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to make PSHE part of the national curriculum and, indeed, to put an expert group together to look again at the guidance. An enormous amount of expertise is available to the Government on this subject and they should listen to it.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is very clever as it builds on a duty that schools already have. I am sad to say that this Government have already made clear their position on making PSHE part of the national curriculum. In my view, a few warm words in the preamble to the national curriculum is not enough but the Government have stated what they want to do or rather what they do not want to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has considered a duty that schools already have. Hardly anyone could disagree with the wording of her amendment. Frankly, it occurs to me that no school could comply with this amendment without teaching a comprehensive programme of high-quality PSHE.
I wish to comment on two of the five important paragraphs in proposed new subsection (1) of the noble Baroness’s amendment. As regards a school’s ethos, she mentioned rights-respecting schools. It is very important for children’s own protection that their personal self-respect is built up by a programme of PSHE and by everything which happens to them within the school. I have visited a rights-respecting school where I saw some of the most mature young people that I have met in any school. The pleasant, relaxed and respectful relationship that existed not only between the young people themselves but between the young people and their teachers was outstanding. That is the sort of relationship that is conducive to high-quality learning. Paragraph (d) in the amendment refers to the duty of schools to promote,
“a school curriculum from which pupils gain the information and skills to support their academic, emotional, moral, physical and cultural well being and which prepares them for adult life”.
What are we doing with children in schools if we are not preparing them for adult life?
Children who have self-respect and confidence and feel comfortable and happy in their school environment are good learners and that will help them to achieve academically as well. We are not talking about a soft subject here; we are talking about a very important underpinning for all the academic subjects and the high-quality qualifications which we hope all young people will get in their schools, given good-quality teaching. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is absolutely right that it is important that this issue is in the curriculum but it is also important to understand that this is not just about the curriculum but about the development of the whole child across the whole school. Many schools put PSHE right at the very heart of everything they do. They do not just teach it as a subject; it is a fundamental underpinning of everything that the children do. However, it is also important to teach them all the things they need to know to help them develop into well balanced, confident adults and to protect them from all the dangers that there are out there for them.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I am one of the Peers who is concerned about the government proposals to change the ratios and I tabled an Oral Question on this which the Minister answered. I admire the work that the Government have been doing through Iain Duncan Smith, working in partnership with Graham Allen, on recognising the importance of the earliest years of a child’s life and ensuring a good attachment between the child and the parent. Andrea Leadsom MP is the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sure Start Children’s Centres and a leader of the 1001 Critical Days campaign, which looks at the period covering pregnancy and the first two years of a child’s life. It is thinking about how that time can be made into the best possible experience for both the parent and the child.
I was therefore very worried about the proposal to change the ratios for babies in baby rooms, particularly because one tends to have the least experienced and least educated young women working in them. I recognise that the Government are concerned about affordability, and we all want children to have the benefit of both good quality group care and childminding. In terms of affordability, three or four months ago an interesting editorial piece in Nursery World looked at the various factors that contribute to making childcare expensive or affordable. One of the things the editor emphasised was that the Government need to fund the entitlement properly—the entitlement that had been available up to three years old but has now moved down to two year-olds. The Government should come up with the full whack, and that is an aspect that needs to be addressed. The editorial highlighted that several different factors make this a complicated issue, which means that it is difficult to make childcare profitable.
I was very relieved when the Government decided not to go ahead with the changes in the ratios, and I hope that the Minister can now assure us that, for the foreseeable future, we will not see them changed, particularly for the very youngest children.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, not for the first time the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has hit the nail right on the head. There is more than one way of making childcare more affordable for parents; properly funding the free entitlement is one of them while increasing the ratios is not. I was also concerned about the proposal and I am very pleased that the Government did not go ahead with it. It is not appropriate to put these ratios into the Bill. But, having said that, if the Government come up with another proposal to increase the ratios between now and 2015, I will be writing to Nick Clegg.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, that as a mother I would never regard child/staff ratios as being a dry subject. No doubt other noble Lords have had the same experience as she of what it feels like to look after three under-fives. However, coming home to find a childminder reading Captain Pugwash to my two spellbound little boys while at the same time spooning food into my baby girl, and everything being peaceful and quiet, demonstrated that some considerable skills are required. That was not quite how I managed it.
These amendments seek to set out ratios and minimum qualifications in primary legislation. As the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lady Walmsley have pointed out, staff/child ratios are currently set out in the Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage and are made under powers in the Childcare Act 2006. Ratios are currently linked to other welfare requirements which are also set out in secondary legislation. To put this into primary legislation would separate it from all the other welfare requirements covering child protection and the suitability of staff. These include health, the safety and suitability of premises, the environment and equipment. These are all equally important and interrelated areas concerning the well-being and safety of young children. In our view, all aspects of the welfare requirements are intrinsically linked and should stay together in secondary legislation.
As my noble friend pointed out and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, will know extremely well, the ratios were in secondary regulations under the previous Government. It may very well have been the noble Baroness who took this through as Secretary of State.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
I will speak, on behalf of my noble friends Lady Jones and Lady Hughes, to Amendments 237, 239 and 240 in their names.
I have listened patiently for weeks to the deliberations of this Committee and have been very impressed with the standard of expertise and knowledge. I have been asked to speak to these amendments relating to childminders and childcare agencies because, when we started to discuss this, I became very animated. I felt that noble Lords were all at the grandparent stage while I am still at the mother stage. Having served as an MEP, rushing off to Brussels every week while my children were very young, and now abandoning them again to come to your Lordships’ House, I confess that I am utterly dependent on my childminder, Margaret. There are hundreds of thousands of other parents in the same situation. We all, of course, want the best for our children. We need to feel confident that they are in a safe and secure environment, especially if we are not there to protect them. Getting this right is critical, not just for the well-being of the children, but for the peace of mind of countless parents throughout the land and to ensure respect for the profession.
I will focus on the issue of childminder agencies, as mentioned in Clause 74. It is essential that a high standard of care is maintained and important to note that there have been many improvements over the years. In 2008, the early years foundation stage was a welcome development in the professionalisation of childminders, leading to increasing standards and better qualifications. However, I remember watching my own childminder despair at the paperwork that mounted up; a new and challenging part of her job. The purpose of this clause is the introduction of agencies which would take away the paperwork burden and allow childminders to concentrate on what they do best. At first, encouraging childminders to join agencies might seem like a sensible suggestion, as these agencies can give advice, share best practice and provide a useful network as well as lessening the burden of paperwork. The problem is that, however competent the agencies are, much of the paperwork involved is about observation, assessment and planning for the individual child. So I am not quite sure what they will bring to the party, other than an extra tier of bureaucracy and significant additional cost. This goes directly against the Government’s recently published paper More Affordable Childcare.
These costs will, inevitably, be passed on from childminders to parents, adding to their burden. Childcare costs are one of the key issues causing the cost of living crisis under which so many are currently suffering. In addition, as this is a dramatic departure from the current system, it would make sense to wait until this proposal has been properly piloted and consulted on, prior to putting it in the Bill. We seem to be putting the cart before the horse here. This is the general gist of what we are trying to address with Amendment 237.
On inspection, childminders are currently inspected by Ofsted, operating under the early years foundation stage statutory guidance. I want to probe further what the Government are suggesting in new Section 51D of the Childcare Act 2006:
“Inspections of early years childminder agencies”.
The new system would allow childminders to register with, and be inspected by, a childminder agency, rather than by Ofsted. Ofsted would not be responsible for assessing the quality of care of the individual childminders registered with the agency; rather, it would inspect the quality and support provided by the agency.
My concerns are threefold. If the nature of your private business—the agency—is to attract more people to use your service but you are at the same time policing the people who pay you on the quality of the service that they provide, there is a clear conflict of interest. Paid, privatised regulation should be regarded with a degree of suspicion. Is there not a chance that standards of care will be reduced if agencies are inspecting their own people? How can the Government ensure standards when individual childminders are not inspected? We all know the pressures that Ofsted is already under. In time, it is likely that fewer and fewer individual childminders, signed up to agencies, will be spot-checked.
Under the current system, the costs of inspection are borne by the local authority. In future, these costs will inevitably and dramatically fall on parents. The costs of childcare are already seriously impeding many from returning to the workforce, in addition to putting immense pressure on already hard-pressed families. Is the Government seriously suggesting that, in future, they will have to cough up significant extra money to pay for childminders to register with an agency? We are creating a two-tier system, and a lack of reference in new Section 51D to individual childminders being inspected seems to underline this. Amendments 239 and 240 draw attention to this two-tier system, and ensure that all childminders are treated equally, with no temptation for the agencies to cherry-pick which childminders they inspect.
The introduction of a two-tier inspection system could dramatically increase the cost of childcare for already hard-pressed families. Before launching into such dramatic changes which have not been well tested or consulted upon, surely we should see if they work through properly constructed pilot programmes which are endorsed by the profession and by the parents they impact on. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I have considerable concerns about this clause, which is why I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill, to initiate a probing debate. As I understand it, the Government’s objectives are to recruit more people to childminding, to improve quality and to make childcare more affordable for parents. Those are all laudable objectives with which I have no argument. I am yet to be convinced that these objectives will be achieved by setting up for-profit childminder agencies. I realise that it would be voluntary for childminders to sign up to an agency. If that was where it ended, that would be all very well. However, I fear that the existence of these agencies could affect non-participating childminders, parents and children. That is of great concern to me. I am aware that pilots are being carried out, but this measure will be in place before they have reported. In addition, when the pilots are assessed will that assessment cover just the agencies themselves, how many childminders they sign up and how satisfied the parents are, or will it go wider than that and study whether there has been any adverse effect on other early years provision in the area?
Baroness Walmsley
Can my noble friend the Minister answer my question about whether the assessment of the pilots will include looking at the effect on the rest of the childcare provision in the area of the pilot?
Lord Nash
I will attempt to answer that question in a minute. All the organisations I mentioned are getting involved to explore new and innovative ways to deliver the quality childcare that parents and children need. There will be a full evaluation of the trials with a first report early next year, including the difference they make in the local markets. Moreover, key requirements for registration will be set out in regulations and subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way.
Amendments 239 and 240 seek to make all childminders registered with early years childminder agencies subject to individual inspection by Ofsted. However, we believe Ofsted will have sufficient powers to inspect early years providers registered with an agency. First, the Bill contains provisions that will enable Ofsted to inspect early years provision by those registered with an agency, as part of its inspection of an agency. Secondly, Ofsted retains its existing powers of entry to any registered childcare premises to determine whether providers are complying with requirements imposed by the Childcare Act 2006. If there are concerns about an agency-registered childminder, Ofsted will have the power to go in and investigate.
That is not dissimilar to the process for other organisations subject to Ofsted inspection. School inspections do not observe every teacher but instead observe a sample, although they pay close attention to the arrangements in place to secure good safeguarding. That is the approach we wish to see. We are working closely with Ofsted to develop a robust registration and inspection regime for childminder agencies to make sure that agencies are providing a high-quality service to childminders and parents. We expect Ofsted will consult on its inspection framework later this year.
A key feature of the agency model is that the agency rather than Ofsted is responsible for monitoring the quality of provision and compliance with registration requirements for its childminders. It is the agency that is responsible for communicating the outcome of monitoring evaluations to parents. The intention is for agencies to help remove some of the burdens that childminders currently face. It does not make sense for agency childminders to be subject to two separate inspections by different organisations. Agencies will be required to monitor the standards of care being delivered by the childminders they register and will be able to help childminders with training, business support and advice, and in finding parents needing childcare. They will also be a valuable service for parents who want to find a high-quality childminder. I therefore urge the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, to withdraw her amendment and the other noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, not to push their other amendments.
I turn to government Amendment 240A. The Bill gives the Secretary of State a power to make regulations about the suspension of a childminder’s registration by a childminder agency. Amendment 240A seeks to make clear that those regulations must provide for a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for any childminder whose registration is suspended and should be included in the Bill.
Government Amendments 240B to 240Q seek to amend the disqualification regime set out for childminder agencies in the Bill. Safeguarding will be paramount, and agency-registered childminders will be subject to the same checks as independently registered childminders. However, agency staff who are involved in marketing support, for example, will not be caring directly for children. These amendments are required to ensure that the Government can make appropriate disqualification provisions for those who apply to register as, or work in, childminder agencies, which are in line with the roles that they will play and mirror the approach taken by similar bodies.
Amendments 240B and 240C will therefore amend the Bill so that the consequences of disqualification from registering as a provider relate solely to the delivery of childcare or any direct concern in the management of childcare provision. Amendments 240D to 240L will make corresponding amendments to the Bill so that the consequences of disqualification from registering as an agency relate solely to the running of an agency, in the sense of being involved in the management of an agency or working in an agency in a capacity which involves visits to childminders’ homes. Amendments 240M to 240Q are technical amendments which are consequential on those I have outlined above. They amend provisions concerning powers of entry to the premises of a childminder agency and offences by corporate bodies. Amendments 240B to 240Q should be included in the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, withdraws her amendment, as I assume she will, I will just make a point about the Minister’s analogy that not every schoolteacher is inspected by Ofsted, but a sample from the school. We have a very different situation here. Childminders are working on their own, behind closed doors and on their own premises. Teachers in schools are all on the same premises and their work is quite visible and open to everybody to see. When I did my teaching practice, I was in an open-plan laboratory and my supervisor was the other side of the bookcase. It was terrifying. The fact is that it is very easy to know, in a school, if a teacher is not doing the right thing or is just not up to standard. It is not the same thing at all and I really would not accept that analogy.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
My Lords, I thank the Minister for addressing some of those issues. I would like to pick up on a number of them. First, he suggested that childminders working together makes sense. Yes, absolutely that makes sense, but informal networks exist already. Local authorities are doing a lot of this work already. It also seems very odd that we are still in the middle of a pilot and are putting something into the Bill when we have no idea whether it will work. Even if it does, the sample we have is just six private companies out of 20. When the whole point of this is the suggestion that we move to a private sector approach, having just six out of 20 does not seem to make much sense.
The Minister mentioned that Ofsted can inspect any of these childminders. The question is: will it? The cost of inspection according to Ofsted is £701 per childminder visit. That is quite a lot when Ofsted is already under pressure financially. I am very disappointed that the Minister did not address the issue of the conflict of interest, because that is absolutely fundamental. If a private provider inspects childminders who are paying it, there has to be a conflict of interest. At this time of austerity, when people are really up against it financially, to suggest that costs will come down is fairy-tale land. The assumption that the Minister makes is that a childminder does not have enough children, and that they can go to an agency that will have a whole pool of children they can pick up. That is unlikely to be the case because we know that there is already a shortage of childminders. The probability is that costs will increase for childminders and they will pass that cost directly on to parents. That concerns me but—
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, this is a probing debate because we now have a very new and different Ofsted framework for early years settings. Local authorities will no longer inspect them, although they will retain their duty to help improve quality, based on the Ofsted verdict. There is some confusion as to whether Clause 75, which allows settings to pay for an additional Ofsted inspection, only applies to early years providers operating on non-domestic premises. That would exclude childminders and, I think, Sure Start children’s centres. I hope that the Minister can clarify this point because I have received two different interpretations from the sector.
Referring back to our debate on Clause 74, it occurs to me that childminders who are signed up to agencies but who are not chosen in the sample of those to be inspected by Ofsted when they inspect the agency, may wish to ask and pay for an individual inspection in order to establish their own standards. Can this be done? I am doubtful about how many childminders would want to pay for an inspection if the Government decided to extend the provision to them. They are not highly paid and may not be able to afford it. A small nursery setting might also find it a burden. How much are the inspections likely to cost? We do not want to add to the running costs of settings, in order to avoid them putting up the price of childcare for parents. Could settings that did not previously have a “good” Ofsted rating make quick improvements and ask for another inspection? This might give them an advantage over other settings, since normally the inspectors turn up without notice. However, if you have just made improvements, ask to pay for another inspection and then the inspector comes along exactly when you are expecting to see him, that gives an advantage.
How often can settings ask for a paid-for inspection? Can they keep on going until they get to the quality they are looking for? The Secretary of State is against multiple GCSE entries; is he also against multiple Ofsted inspections?
Baroness Northover
My Lords, the aim of this clause is to enable early years providers to request and pay for a reinspection from Ofsted outside the normal inspection cycle. We are aware of the impact an Ofsted inspection rating can have on a provider. Both reputation and the ability to offer funded early education for two, three or four year-olds will be affected. This could, in turn, have a dramatic impact on the viability of childcare provision, as much early years provision is run by private, voluntary and independent organisations.
We need to ensure a balance between maintaining high standards of provision and encouraging providers to make swift improvements in quality. While we recognise that Ofsted has introduced changes to its inspection framework for group providers from 4 November 2013 so that providers who receive “requires improvement” or “inadequate” ratings will be reinspected in six to 12 months, there are a number of providers, for example those judged “satisfactory” prior to 4 November, who will not benefit from these changes immediately and may wait a number of years for the opportunity to be reinspected, regardless of having made improvements much sooner.
The intention behind this clause is to enable providers to request a paid-for reinspection at an earlier date, should they wish to do so. This opportunity to demonstrate improvement sooner provides an incentive for providers to make improvements at a swifter pace. We appreciate that it would be unworkable if every provider requested and was given an early reinspection. That is why the Secretary of State, working closely with Ofsted and others, will set out in a remit letter the conditions under which such reinspections can take place. For example, we intend to have a minimum time between inspections to ensure that the provider has had an opportunity to make the necessary improvements. The situation will be kept under review and further conditions will be introduced if necessary.
My noble friend asked about costs. The fees will be set out in secondary legislation and the amount will be decided based on further negotiation with Ofsted and in the light of any consultation with the sector. Ofsted has indicated that the cost of childcare inspections is likely to range from around £700 for an individual childminder to £1,500 for group settings. Individual providers would need to decide for themselves whether or not paying for an early reinspection is worth it financially in terms of generating future additional income. I remind my noble friend that it is of course entirely voluntary. On her analogy with endless GCSE resits, I would say that costs could be a factor.
My noble friend also asked about the scope. It will include childminders and childcare within a Sure Start children’s centre. It does not include inspection of children’s centres’ wider functions. Childminding agencies could request reinspection, but not the childminders registered with them. If that does not sufficiently clarify, I am happy to write to my noble friend in answer to any of her questions. I hope that she has been reassured as to the intention of the clause and that she will be happy to allow it to stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley
I thank my noble friend for her reply. As I said at the outset, this is a probing debate. The Minister has clarified one point about the scope of the application of this power to request another inspection. As I say, I have had briefings from two different groups, one of which said that childminders were not included and the other that they were. Having said that, I cannot imagine many childminders forking out another £700; they just cannot afford it. Of course, I am sure that we would agree that it is far better to provide a high-quality service and get a good inspection rating in the first place. My noble friend has clarified some of the issues and I am satisfied enough to withdraw my opposition to the clause.
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the passionate plea of my noble friend. I do not believe that, when the Labour Government brought in the original Bill, their intention was to totally exclude young people with dyslexia from the possibility of ever completing an apprenticeship. I do not believe that it is the intention of this Government either. I accept that it may be a little tricky to sort this out and that this is probably the first legislative opportunity to change the legislation that inadvertently produced this situation, so we must make use of it.
I am very proud of this Government’s record on apprenticeships but they must not exclude talented young people who are able to get through all the practical side of the apprenticeship, often with flying colours, and show tremendous commitment, hard work, conscientiousness and all those qualities that we are looking for, but simply need a little help with written material. That help, once given, will enable them not just to get through the exam but to move on into a career. If we can sort this out, it will also send a message to employers that says, “There are a lot of talented people here who have gone through their apprenticeships with a little bit of help and they will prove to be very worthwhile employees to you if you take them on, post-apprenticeship, as long as you give them a little help”. I think that many local authorities can help employers to do that. What is the alternative? As my noble friend said, they end up with “NEET” on their foreheads. That is what we do not want. It causes the young people and their families a great deal of distress and, in the end, there can be long-term costs to young people from not being in employment, education or training.
These young people have a chance and we must make sure that they get it. It is soul-destroying when they start the apprenticeship, get through all the rest of it, and then find that they cannot complete it and get that important certificate because they cannot complete the written part. We really have to sort this out and we have to do it now.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, several members of my family have varying degrees of dyslexia. All are able and intelligent, and have talents. My daughter-in-law, who has moderate dyslexia, has an excellent degree from the University of Bristol. It can be done but these people must have extra. That group of young people who want apprenticeships will be a loss to the country if they cannot get through the necessary exams. It is a major advantage for the country to make sure that they get through. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, have put this case extremely well. It is a relatively simple matter and I endorse the excellent work done by this Government in many respects, particularly on apprenticeships, but we should not leave out this important group. The funny thing about this is that it is often not properly appreciated that an enormous number of young people are dyslexic. Let us get out there, find them, help them and make them really useful members of society—without, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, “NEET” across their foreheads.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
The Minister lost me for a moment. I am trying to follow him carefully but if we have such good practice as the noble Earl is describing, and all this is now possible, why can we not simply accept the amendment and move on?
Baroness Walmsley
I may have misheard my noble friend but when he gave a list of all the different kinds of exams for which these assisted technologies are available, I do not recall hearing him mention apprenticeships.
Lord Addington
My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the situation. It is the functional skills test and, before it, the key skills tests that are the problem. There has always been a much better attitude towards GCSEs, A-levels and degrees. I should draw noble Lords’ attention to my interest as chairman of a firm that provides some of the kit for the DSA, which for a dyslexic is voice-operated technology—the stuff that I use that was initially provided by the House of Lords authorities. So there is an establishment. The problem is with this one set of exams, which are crucial to getting this qualification, in which the dyslexics—who are 10% of the population in this country and 20% in America—should be overrepresented. Even if this would be appropriate for only half those dyslexics, that would still represent a hell of a lot of people.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I understand how passionate my noble friend is about the use of technology. I am not opposing it. I applaud the development of these technologies. But if we were to introduce an additional duty, it would increase the regulatory burden on many hundreds of private businesses, which goes directly against the considerable efforts of the Government to reduce red tape for businesses. Finally, good practice guidance from the 16 Diversity in Apprenticeship pilots is now available on the National Apprenticeship Service website. The Government commissioned an independent report on creating an inclusive apprenticeship offer, and their response, the apprenticeships action plan for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities, is currently being implemented. Action includes: use of the Equality Act definition of “disabled” for the apprenticeship offer, employers being able to signal willingness to recruit more disabled apprentices on apprenticeship vacancies online using the “two ticks” scheme, which guarantees disabled applicants an interview if they meet the basic requirements for the role; and work to improve the reporting of data.
The National Apprenticeship Service is offering additional one-to-one support for young people who have been unable to secure an apprenticeship due to competition for a place. The DWP is working with the Joint Apprenticeship Unit to promote additional support, such as access to work payments.
Ministers are not deaf. We have listened to what noble Lords have said in Committee. We will look very carefully and consider what steps we need to take to meet the concerns of noble Lords. Primarily, we will have further meetings outside the Committee to look at this further but I suggest that government officials and noble Lords carefully read Hansard to see where we are. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments at the appropriate points.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I have a quick word to say before my noble friend withdraws the amendment. The Minister has obviously been given a very long brief by officials but I can probably say that the Committee is not bamboozled by it. I do not think that that was the intention and I have been reassured by hearing about how much support can be given to young people with dyslexia as they go through their apprenticeships. But the point that my noble friend is making is that all this is to no avail if they cannot get that piece of paper at the end of the course. The fact is that without some technical help with their written English to enable them to express what they have learnt, those young people cannot get that piece of paper, and that means they cannot move on. It really is as narrow as that. All that good stuff that the Minister has been talking about is welcome but does not cover getting the piece of paper—in other words, passing the functional skills test. That is the problem. There have been lots of meetings but no progress has been made. I appeal to my noble friend to have further meetings with those of us who are concerned about this, if that is what is needed, but something has to be done. This issue is much narrower than what is in the vast majority of my noble friend’s briefing.
Lord Addington
My Lords, to give the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, a rugby analogy—good players catch bad balls and take the tackle. The noble Earl has been tackled, stood on and everything else—it has all happened—but I congratulate him on being man enough to stand up to it in the first place. The subtext that I take from the response is, “Oh, it can happen but it does not”. I am afraid that that is not good enough; it is more of the same with regard to what I have already spoken about. Technical assistance is provided in the Access to Work programme; it is not just a question of DSAs. The thinking appears to be that we help dyslexics by providing them with a government grant from another department to enable them to go to work but we do not let them take a qualification. We provide that metal box with those little gadgets on the side of it to allow someone to function after they have obtained a qualification, but not before. The point about English and maths just does not stand up for anybody who requires minor assistance, and never did. I will, of course, withdraw the amendment but I do not want to come back in two or three years’ time, or wait for another Bill, to correct the position. I do not think that anybody’s interest, including that of the Minister, would be served by going through this again.
Lord Addington
My Lords, I shall endeavour to be quicker on this issue, which concerns the training of those who deal with pupils with disabilities, or hidden disabilities, such as dyslexia. I apologise to the Committee for having rather overdone the “misspelling mafia” scenario in the past few minutes. Unless a teacher is trained to deal with pupils with very different learning patterns, he or she will not be able to teach them well. That is the underlying philosophy running through these two amendments.
A great deal of work has been done. Indeed, under the previous Government, a lot of the foundation stones for this approach were put down, and we had Rose and Lamb looking at this issue. If teachers do not know how to spot why somebody is failing to learn, or is learning in a different and slower way, they cannot give the appropriate assistance. Why is dyslexia mentioned here? It is the most frequently occurring condition. It may not be the biggest educational problem, but—the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is not in the Room—with certain aspects of speech and language, I will bet that there is a high degree of comorbidity.
If we are dealing with something this important, then we have got to make sure that a degree of training is instilled in those people who have got to deal with it on a day-to-day basis. The people who will start to notice that somebody is working differently will also be able to go to that person and say, “This is why you are not learning quickly”. One of the most standard conversations in dyslexia is this: a parent comes in and says, “My child needs help” and it is then discovered that the parent is also dyslexic but has manfully struggled through without assistance. We have got to try to get the identification going properly. One, help the child; two, enable them to open up and access assistance so that the coping strategies that we have just discussed can be put in place.
When it comes to making sure SENCOs get better training, it is a no-brainer. If the administrative structure of a SENCO is fine and everybody teaching is fine, they should also know what they are talking about. Dyslexia is the most common but there are other conditions out there. I am merely saying that this is where we are coming from but that we are not the whole story. Please will the Government give me an idea about what they are going to do to make sure that there is better training and awareness among teaching staff so that those with these needs can get into the school population and open themselves up to receive the help that is there? We end up doing it slowly, later on and then encountering problems, as we indicated just a few minutes ago. I hope that my noble friend has something positive to say on this. This is very much a probing amendment, so how are the Government thinking about getting better awareness and training about this particular problem, and special educational needs generally, into the teaching profession and particularly, those in charge of it? I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I support my noble friend in these two amendments. Amendment 195 seeks to put what sort of qualifications a SENCO should have in the Bill, because currently it just says:
“The appropriate authority must designate a member of staff at the school (to be known as the “SEN co-ordinator”)”.
Clause 63(3) says that regulations may,
“require appropriate authorities ... to ensure that SEN co-ordinators have prescribed qualifications or prescribed experience”.
Looking at the draft SENCO code of practice, I was reassured to see that it says on page 78 that governing bodies,
“must ensure that there is a qualified teacher designated as Special Educational Needs (SEN) co-ordinator (SENCO) for the school. The SENCO must be a qualified teacher working at the school”.
Newly qualified SENCOs,
“must achieve the National Award in Special Educational Needs Coordination within 3 years of appointment”.
That is very reassuring, but what I do not understand is why that cannot go in the Bill. That is what my noble friend is looking for in Amendment 195.
Amendment 196 goes further and suggests that all teachers in their initial teacher training should have some proper training in how to identify special educational needs. The fact is that all teachers know that they are teachers of SEN because in every class there are children with special needs. It is crucial that every teacher has some idea of how to spot that and make sure that the appropriate, additional and more specialist skills and provision are made for them if the teacher cannot give it themselves. There is something in these two amendments which requires a little more reassurance and explanation from the Minister.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 214. My name is attached to it and I particularly wanted to speak to it because it is the continuation of an old story of detained young people missing out on all the privileges that other young people have. In particular, when they have been in care and then find themselves detained, the local authority no longer continues to look after them in the new institution in which they find themselves. In the past, we tried very hard to ensure that that care continued, but as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has pointed out, that has not really been carried forward and certainly is not working at present.
We should remind ourselves that children who are detained are the most vulnerable in our society, particularly if they have a range of special needs resulting in an EHC plan. We all know the statistics for children who have been in care, so I will not repeat them, and those for the most troubled families and young people with mental health problems who find themselves in some kind of detention. Because there is a plan in place, and because of the difficulties faced by these young people, they are probably known to their local authority, and are likely to have a social worker and an existing programme to meet their needs. It is therefore absolutely essential that the plan is maintained and for the child or young person with special needs to have the services in that plan continued.
Anyone who has been to any of these institutions, or talked to any young people from care who have found themselves dropping out of the care system and into the offender system, will know that they lack that continuity and their education ceases. How much more difficult it is for children with special needs whose families have often struggled anyway to get them the services that they need so far. It seems perverse, therefore, that they are deprived of this continuity. Often they are detained due to behaviour that has stemmed from their learning difficulties: the fact they do not always comprehend what is going on around them; the fact that they cannot read instructions; or the fact that they are sometimes easily led because they do not have the same intellectual grasp of what is going on as others. Those young people who are seen as the offenders and the difficult young people in our society are not seen as “the deserving”.
I contend that the opposite should be true. Having already been failed by their family, often by their education and usually by social care, what these young people need most at the time of crisis is stability and continuity. They need a programme to take them through their detention and re-establish them in their community. If their programme is continued—and their education and health plans, as they often have complex health needs—then it is clear to me that they would have a much better chance of a new start.
I know that there are young people—I have run large institutions—who are detained for their own safety, so I am not suggesting that all young people are in this category. However, many—especially those with these learning needs and dyslexia and often undiagnosed conditions—may well have found themselves in trouble because of their lack of understanding. If the plan is to have any meaning, it should identify the areas of concern wherever the child is; it should have portability, particularly into custodial facilities. I am very pleased to support this amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 212. I will just make a couple of short points. I, too, am familiar with the work of Jackie Hewitt-Main and have read her very inspiring book. I am a great admirer of the work that she has done in prisons. One story that she told really struck me: some young people in custody were not getting the help they needed with their dyslexia for the following reason. When they went in, they were given a form to fill in to say what sort of educational provision they wanted. They could not read it—it is a simple thing, is it not?—so they did not get any help at all. They did not get any courses because they had not ticked any of the boxes because they could not read what it said next to them. It has to be said that some prisons are very good, but the majority fall by the wayside in a very bad way.
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that very often the reason why those young people are there in the first place is because they cannot read. They could not get a job and they could not get a driving licence because they could not read the Highway Code. They were at a great disadvantage. In the current economic situation, we have to ensure that money is spent as wisely as possible. I can think of no more effective way of avoiding reoffending and the great expense that it puts on the public purse than spending money on addressing the special educational needs of young people in custody. There really is a very good investment to be made there and we ought to be making more of it.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I will just follow up on the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. This is when online and blended education can come in very useful, because it is not expensive, compared with person-to-person education. I hope the Minister will consider it.
Baroness Walmsley
“Inspection and review of local authorities in England
In section 136 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (inspection of local authorities in England), after subsection (4) insert—“(5) The Chief Inspector must inspect the performance by an authority in delivering and commissioning specialist support services for children with special educational needs.””
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, the Government argue that the local offer will improve transparency. However, in one area there is virtually no information available to parents: that is, information on the quality of specialist SEN support services. As drafted, the Bill misses an opportunity to improve outcomes for children with SEN by requiring Ofsted to inspect specialist SEN support services. We believe that this move would improve the overall accountability of the Bill.
This is another area in which the SEN Green Paper recognised the vital role that specialist SEN services have to play. Parents are therefore often surprised that these same SEN educational services are subject to no real formal scrutiny in the same way that schools are. The absence of any reliable data on the number of children with sensory impairments and the outcomes they achieve also means that parents have no way of comparing local offers and SEN provision. Let me illustrate this with an anecdote. A head of a service for deaf children said to the National Deaf Children’s Society:
“I wholeheartedly agree that specialist services should be inspected by Ofsted. All teaching should be inspected to ensure high quality, rigour and recognition of the specialist nature of the work that specialist teachers do as well as raising the profile of deaf education and provision. This would also contribute to narrowing the gap between deaf children and mainstream children attainment”.
As we know, Ofsted has already identified that local authorities are very weak on evaluation of SEN provision. The 2012 Ofsted report on effective practice in services for deaf children said:
“There was limited strategic overview and no systematic approach across all services to evaluate the quality of services and their impact on improving the lives of deaf children”.
In another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families stated that he was exploring with Ofsted how concerns about SEN provision could be covered under Ofsted’s existing programme for inspecting local authority school improvement functions. This statement was made in spring this year and no update has been provided since. I believe that there needs to be greater certainty on the local offer and accountability before the Bill progresses further.
The amendment would substantially improve the Bill by requiring Ofsted to inspect specialist SEN support services. On day seven of Grand Committee, the Minister—my noble friend Lady Northover—stated that the department has asked Ofsted,
“to study and report on how best to identify best practice in preparing for SEN reforms … and to consider particularly whether there is a need for an inspection framework to drive improvements”.—[Official Report, 30/10/13; col. GC 640.]
The Minister indicated that it would be next spring before that report would be published. That commitment was made in response to Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, which would have required Ofsted and the CQC to inspect local offers.
Amendment 215 has a complementary but slightly narrower focus on inspection of specialist support services for children with SEN. The Minister's announcement is to be welcomed. However, it does not go far enough. There is already a strong and clear case for inspection of specialist support services for children with SEN. I believe that the case is especially strong for low-incidence SEN, including sensory impairments, because many local authorities and schools are unlikely to be as familiar with the specialist support needed by these children. Surely, the department should require Ofsted to begin inspecting these services now rather than delay any further.
Therefore, I ask the Minister the following questions. First, will he set out in more detail the terms of reference and timescales for Ofsted’s study? Will it also explicitly consider the case for inspection of specialist support services for deaf children? Secondly, although Ofsted’s inspection framework for schools already has an SEN focus, does he accept that Ofsted inspectors are unlikely to pick up on issues on the quality of support being received by a school from specialist support services for children with sensory impairment as there is often only one child with that need in the school?
Thirdly, does the Minister accept that because sensory impairment is a low-incidence need requiring targeted and specialist support, local authorities and schools are more reliant on specialist support services for children with sensory impairment? Does it follow that there is a case for more detailed scrutiny of these services?
Finally, given the scale of underachievement experienced by children with sensory impairments, is there a need for more urgent action to drive improvements? Will any new inspection framework be in place before this Bill comes into force? I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment on the importance of inspection and review of the new system. Before turning to the specifics of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, it would be helpful to set out some of the details of the inspection and review system.
Local authorities and clinical commissioning groups are already held to account for the services that they provide in a number of ways. Ultimately, local authorities are accountable to local people through the ballot box. Clinical commissioning groups are held accountable by NHS England, which has powers of intervention where a clinical commissioning group has failed, or is at risk of failing, to meet its statutory obligations. The local health and well-being board also provides a local focus for accountability to the local population.
Local authorities must consult on the local offer and publish comments received from children and young people with SEN and the parents of children with SEN, which is another way of encouraging the local population to hold their local authorities to account for implementing the local offer. It is important for noble Lords to note that local authorities and clinical commissioning groups can already be held to account for their actions through individual complaints. The local offer will make the local complaint routes more transparent, so that families will be clearer about how to complain if they need to do so.
However, I understand the case for inspection, given the importance of these reforms. I turn now to Amendment 215, which, as set out by my noble friend, requires Ofsted to inspect local authorities on their commissioning and delivery of specialist SEN services. The SEN reforms are new. We therefore need to baseline best practice and use that analysis to identify whether a full inspection regime is necessary. On that basis, as my noble friend Lady Northover said in a previous debate, we asked Ofsted to undertake a study of how local authorities are preparing to implement the SEN reforms, working with the Care Quality Commission as they need. The work will consider how effectively local authorities and clinical commissioning groups will fulfil their responsibilities and how they will monitor improved outcomes for children and young people who have special educational needs. This study will help us to identify whether a new inspection framework would add value, and I or my noble friend would be content to discuss this further with noble Lords, if that would be useful. I think my noble friend Lady Northover has already made that offer. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
I thank my noble friend for his reply. Obviously, we all look forward with great anticipation to the study that he referred to, and I think that for the moment, we will just have to be satisfied with that. We will be looking for particular focus on low-incidence needs and how they will be covered. I accept that it is a good idea to get a baseline of best practice and then see how it rolls forward from there, but Ofsted is the expert in this so I look forward to hearing what it has to say about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, I will speak briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. She has made a strong and clear case for action. This issue has been raised elsewhere several times and the fact that it continues to be raised must show the Minister the strength of feeling on it. The current approach of asking voluntary bodies to support improvements in individual local areas is just too piecemeal. The progress being made is far too slow, and deaf children are suffering because of it. Access to communication support for families with deaf children and young people is fundamentally important; the Government must send a clear signal to local authorities that it should be provided where needed. Otherwise, we will be here in 10 years’ time, still having this debate about the lack of sign language provision for families. I beg the Committee to support this amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I, too, rise to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and agree with the points that she has already made. In July 2011, the Prime Minister said in response to a Question from my right honourable friend Sir Malcolm Bruce MP:
“We do a lot to support different languages throughout the UK. Signing is an incredibly valuable language for many people in our country. Those pilot schemes were successful”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/07/2011; col. 308.]
The scheme that the Prime Minister was referring to was the I-Sign consortium, which has piloted family sign language classes in two regions. NDCS, with support from the Department for Education, continues to work to support the development of sign language courses. However, local authorities cannot be compelled to provide sign language support because there is no duty to do so. As has already been outlined, a very high percentage of deaf children are born into hearing families who have no previous first-hand experience of deafness. These families really need support to communicate with their child, particularly where sign language is chosen.
It has been estimated that where deaf children need to communicate in sign language, eight out of 10 parents of deaf children never learn how to communicate with their child through sign language. Without the right support from the start, deaf children and young people are vulnerable to isolation, abuse, bullying, poor self-esteem and low levels of attainment. We have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, how local authorities are very patchy in their provision of sign language services.
The SEN reform in this Bill offers the potential to generate a step change in the provision of sign language courses for families. For example, personal budgets may enable families to pay for this support themselves. However, while SEN reform might generate more demand for sign language courses, it really will be useless while local authorities can walk away, which is very damaging to deaf children and their families.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment so eloquently moved by my noble friend and to ask two questions. I support it particularly because of the work done by the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith MP and Graham Allen MP, among others, on the importance of early attachment between infants and parents. Clearly, it is crucial that parents can communicate with their young child in order to make a strong bond with them.
I particularly want to emphasise the importance of that. We may have already covered this elsewhere in the Bill, but the two questions are: how is assisting parents to communicate with their blind children dealt with and, on the broader point about all children with some disability or another, how are parents enabled to communicate with them, for instance, those with dyslexia? There may be less of an issue in those particular cases.
The point that I would like some clarity on, and the Minister is welcome to write to me on these points if he thinks that would be appropriate, is that we do not see children on their own; we see them as part of a family and a set of relationships. I imagine that has probably been dealt with elsewhere in the Bill, and I probably have not followed that part closely enough. I hope that that is helpful.
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, sadly, I was not able to go to the gathering of young people. However, what one has seen and read is appalling. The most appalling aspect of it is that the children’s voices are not automatically heard in situations such as these on every occasion when they are of an age where their voices could be heard. Their rights should be protected, and if they do not wish to go home there is no question that they should be sent home under those circumstances. We have seen and read so much evidence from so many organisations that I hope the Minister will be able to give us a great deal of reassurance about the changes that are clearly needed.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I make the point that if you want to know what a child needs, you should ask the child. If you want to know what the child’s parents need, it is also often quite a good idea to ask the child. People who are addicted are not always totally candid with the social workers, but if a child goes home for visits or is sent home—apparently permanently but that turns not to be permanently—he or she knows exactly what is going on in that home and can help the services in assisting the parents so as to ensure that the child can eventually go home if the parent is genuinely rehabilitated.
I also add my support to what the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said about special guardians. They perform an invaluable public service at very little cost. Some of them break down because of lack of support and help, and we ought to do something about that.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this is Committee: I was rather carried away by reading the notes and I meant to ask the noble Earl a question on his drafting in Amendment 26. In proposed new subsection (1)(a), he provides for,
“any person who has contacted the authority to request information”.
I suspect that he does not quite mean “any person”. I can imagine circumstances where it would be entirely wrong for information to be given out. Perhaps he can give the Committee some assurances about that, particularly if he is going to come back with this at a later stage.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I very much agree. As we have talked about the last three groups of amendments, it has occurred to me that we appear to be living in a parallel universe. Ministers stand up and, quite correctly, read out the situation as it should, theoretically, be. Although Ministers tell us in good faith what the situation is in theory, it is not happening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, made a point which struck me as a little odd. She said that 60% of those siblings who are both in care and who are not together or seeing each other are in children’s homes. I understand that it might be quite difficult to get foster carers to take pairs of siblings because they might be prepared to take only one child, but it should not be that difficult to put sets of children together in children’s homes where there are multiple places. Might the Government consider doing some research to find out why that is? I would have thought that was the very place where you could keep groups of siblings. Could that be looked into?
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I support this very strongly. We should not have reached the position we have, but I have some understanding of how we have reached it.
I have talked to many young people over the years, and particularly remember two groups I saw, with the Children’s Rights Director, who talked about the way conflict in their families was relieved by the fact that they had siblings to share their sojourn and be a comfort when things were really grim. They were the people who were their in-group when all this was going on, so were even more important to them than their parents, who were often the enemy and doing the destructive things, while siblings were their protection. That is not always so: there are siblings who are damaging to each other. Professional decisions to separate siblings may be quite right, but they must be made properly, not by accident. I fear we have reached the position where it is by accident because of the way we arrange placements and the shortage of good ones. We have young people in adolescent groups because they are easier to manage with staff who can manage them and small units with small children, but many fewer family group homes than there were, so you do not have the mix of youngsters together. Managing a unit of very difficult young people is about training, and confidence.
I sincerely regret this, because I have heard heartfelt pleas, similar to the ones outlined by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, from young people—particularly in court—saying, “Whatever happens do not separate me from my siblings”. It is the siblings, not the parents, who mean everything to them.
It is a serious practice issue. I am not sure how legislation would make it right, but this amendment might be a step towards it. I hope the Minister will assure us that Ofsted might look at this when they look at the organisation of residential care in various authorities and how families are planned for. I am a social worker so I know how easy it is, under pressure, to delude yourself that it is the best answer for the child when it is actually the best solution for you.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Clause 8 is also about contact: contact post-adoption. Subsection (5) sets out the points which a court must consider when there is an application for an order for contact by any person who has obtained the court’s leave to make that application. The court must consider: any risk of the application disrupting the child’s life to the extent that he or she would be harmed; the applicant’s connection with the child; and representations made to the court by the child or any person who has applied for, or been granted, an adoption order. I am quite prepared to be told I have misread this, because the amendment comes out of my own head: it has not been raised by anyone else with me. If I have got it completely wrong, I apologise to my noble friend who has put her name to it.
There must be a place for considering the welfare of the child. Section 1 of the 1989 Act states that when the court determines any question with respect to a child’s upbringing, the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration. Is that the answer in the sense that it would apply in any event? If so, why do we have the new subsection (5)(a) about the risk of disruption to the child’s life, because welfare of the child would clearly cover that? It seems to me that the balance of the clause as drafted, the presumption, is that if the risk of disruption to the child’s life is slim, you should not take account of it. I am curious—to use a term used earlier in a different context—about what has and what has not gone into the clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I am happy to support my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s amendment, because it is never a bad thing to draw attention to the paramountcy principle in the 1989 Act and the fact that the welfare of the child must be pre-eminent. What she is suggesting is really nice, because it is positive. What we have in Clause 8(5)(a) is negative: that you should not do it if there is any risk. My noble friend is saying that you should do it if it is to the benefit of the child. I am a very positive person and I should like it that way round.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I hope that I can reassure my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Walmsley on this point. We are very concerned to ensure that when the child has contact, it benefits the child. There is both the positive side, when contact benefits the child; and the negative side, to protect the child where such contact is not regarded as being in their interest. It is striking that research has shown that the proportion of children suffering negative consequences from contact after adoption is twice the proportion for those for whom contact had a positive effect. In the light of that, this must obviously be weighed up extremely carefully.
My noble friends are clearly well aware that the paramount consideration of the court must be the welfare of the child throughout his or her life. Section 1(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 states that the paramount consideration of the court when coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child must be the welfare of the child throughout his life. I hope that that gives the reassurance that my noble friend is looking for. If it does not, I am more than happy to write to clarify, but I hope that she can be reassured that the balance is right and that the protections that she wants are indeed here in both directions, as it were.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the meeting arranged by the noble Earl brought a number of comments about Staying Put. It was clear that there is a shortage of accessible information—particularly because not all authorities are operating the system—and that there are real complications when there are cross-boundary considerations. That follows on from the point made by the noble and learned Baroness.
Some things were mentioned which really took me aback. When a young person becomes 18, if he or she does stay with the foster parents a tenancy agreement has to be signed. As a couple of the young people we met said, “This does not reflect our relationship. They are our foster parents; they are not our landlords”. It is necessary, I understand, to have a tenancy agreement in order to qualify for housing benefit and income support. I asked how the total income compared to fostering allowances and I was told by the foster carer we met that the total income had reduced by about 50%. He was very enthusiastic about his foster daughter remaining with him. That foster daughter also said—she was part of a sibling group—that she had to be CRB checked in order to stay with her sisters. Something has gone wrong with the system.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I, too, have my name on the amendment and support it wholeheartedly. The noble Earl, in his introduction, used the word “normalising”. We are trying to normalise the relationship between the young people and their foster carers because, as my noble friend Lord Storey pointed out, most young people who grow up in their birth family do not leave home at 18. They stay on.
I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said about the pilots. It did not have an adverse effect on the recruitment of foster carers; indeed, it had a beneficial effect. It occurs to me that the Government might be a little concerned that if we make it a right for young people, if they and their foster carers wish it, to stay on until 21, it will take away foster parenting places for other children coming into the system. Frankly, I think that we should be putting more effort into turning the tap off and giving more support to families so that children can safely stay with their birth parents, but that is an argument for another day. That might be the case, but I have a suggestion that might fulfil some of the need without the problem of taking away a foster-caring place for some other child. I have promoted this idea to successive Children’s Ministers over the past few years, who all say, “That sounds like a good idea”, but nothing ever gets done.
Many children go off to university or college, or to work somewhere else when they are 18, but they maintain a close and supportive relationship with their birth families. Why not allow foster parents, if they so wish, and the young person wishes, to have a sort of little stipend or retainer to act as a supporter and adviser to the care leaver for the next few years when they have left the bedroom in the house? That bedroom would then be freed up. A lot of young people who get on very well with their foster parents go back and visit them and ask for advice anyway. But many of them, knowing that the parents may have taken on another foster child and will be busy, would be hesitant to go back to the foster parent and ask for help and advice when things go pear-shaped, such as their accommodation or education plans going wrong, or they have trouble with their employment. Whatever it is, they would have somebody officially who was being paid a little bit by the state to help them and stop new arrangements breaking down. It is when they break down that the state has a great deal more cost liability to try to put things right. There is an existing relationship of trust, understanding, knowledge and emotion. If the Government cannot accept the noble Earl’s amendment—I very much hope that they will—perhaps the Minister will consider my suggestion of a sort of halfway house. The parent could retain that relationship formally and, one hopes, the care leaver would have no hesitation in going back to that person for advice if things went wrong.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talk about this halfway house before. It is not a bad idea, but I hope that we can go the full way, for two reasons. First, there is the cost-effectiveness, which one or two people have mentioned. We sometimes forget that early intervention can actually save money in the long run; we should not forget that. Early intervention is not just about babies or children but older people. This example applies and it can be effective in this case. Cost-effectiveness was the first thing that I wanted to mention.
The second thing is the incredible importance of education, which has also been mentioned. Young people in education tend not to get pregnant when they are 15 or 16, they tend not to misuse drugs or alcohol, and they tend to do better if they are encouraged in that education. Like the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I was very impressed by the young woman at the meeting we had last week, who talked about the importance of education to her. As we know, education is such a key thing for all children, but particularly for these children. Therefore for me, cost effects on education swing this towards the Minister accepting this amendment.
Literacy
Baroness Walmsley Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is quite right that we allow unqualified teachers in academies. There are some remarkably good success stories of teachers in academies. We will continue with this programme because we have many examples of people coming into the teaching profession after successful careers in other industries. We need all the talent we can get in our teaching profession.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Is my noble friend aware that many of the young people in custody have these hidden disabilities? In many cases, indeed, that is part of the reason that they are there in the first place. There is wonderful work being done in prisons by charities such as the Cascade Foundation, but the problem is that their funding is not secure. Will my noble friend work with the Ministry of Justice to address this problem?