Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, we have got to group 3, which is good. I start by addressing the Clause 30 stand part notice tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking. Clause 30 sets out the requirement that a child who is on a child protection plan, who is the subject of a Section 47 inquiry or who is registered at a special school cannot be removed from school to be home-educated without local authority permission.
We have set out clearly those instances—my noble friend did not necessarily agree that it was clear, but I hope that I will make it clear now—where children will fall within the scope of Clause 30 and so require consent in order to be home-educated. Specifically, it will apply to pupils in England who are of compulsory school age and for whom at least one of the following applies: the child attends a special school and they became a pupil at that school through arrangements made by the local authority; the child is subject to child protection inquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989; or there is a child protection plan in place. The intent of the legislation is that, if you do not fall into one of those categories, you do not need to seek the consent of the local authority in order to home-educate your child. There is a narrow and specific group of children for whom Clause 30 suggests that their parents will need to seek the consent of the local authority.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister. She has lucidly identified what we now know is the correct position and I am very grateful to her.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The children who are subject to child protection inquiries and plans are among our most vulnerable and the children who attend special schools are likely to have the highest levels of need. It is necessary that local authority consent is sought in those scenarios to ensure that these children are safe and suitably educated.
Even then, Clause 30 does not mean that these eligible families will not be able to home-educate their children. We are simply requiring the local authority to take a closer look in those circumstances. It may, in any of those three categories, be wholly appropriate for those children to be educated at home, but it is also right, given the specific circumstances, that the local authority that has responsibility—or where those children live—looks at that case and gives consent for home education in those narrow categories of cases.
We want local authorities to know which children in their areas may be home-educated and to make an informed decision to determine what will be in the best interests of the child in those circumstances. Clause 30 is underpinned by a review process; I will return to that in a moment. Statutory guidance will also be published to help schools and local authorities to carry out their new duties consistently from authority to authority and in a proportionate way.
I turn to the specific amendments. Amendments 203A and 204, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wei and Lord Lucas, seek to remove the requirement for parents to obtain local authority consent to home-educate should their child attend a special school under arrangements of the local authority. The Government believe it is important to retain this requirement. We totally recognise that parents of children at special schools have their children’s best interests at heart, just like other parents. However, children in special schools often have very complex needs that would be difficult for their parents to provide for at home. The loss of the support the child receives in a special school may be a major upheaval in the child’s life. Clause 30 retains an additional check that there are no educational suitability issues resulting from the loss of this support and that home education would be in the child’s best interests. It is clear that this is a different nature of concern from that represented by Section 47 inquiries or a child protection plan.
Amendment 210, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wants to specify a timeframe for the home education consent decision to be made. I wholly share the noble Lord’s desire for decisions to be undertaken as quickly as possible. We think that the current wording in the clause, “without undue delay”, ensures as prompt a turnaround as possible. If we had an arbitrary timeline for this process—28 days, for example—that would imply that every decision was as straightforward as any other. Timings are likely to be different, depending on the circumstances of the child. By necessity, because these are children who already have other needs and requirements, the process could be complex and will involve multi-agency collaboration and information-sharing to reach a decision.
Amendment 215A seeks to ensure that local authorities offer parents an information session on home education as part of the consent process. I agree it is important that the decision to home-educate is an informed one. But the duty to secure a suitable education rests with the parent, not the local authority. With this in mind, requiring local authorities to offer mandatory information sessions would not be appropriate. It is parents who should be taking responsibility for researching their educational choices. Parents should carefully consider their responsibilities and the financial implications of home-educating before requesting permission to withdraw their child from school. We will ensure that the department’s relevant guidance provides key information that a parent needs to consider when contemplating whether to home-educate. Local authorities and schools can signpost to this should they become aware of parental intentions to home-educate.
Amendment 219, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require local authorities to provide a statement of reasons to parents when refusing a request for consent. As the noble Baroness suspected, it is the case that local authorities are already obliged to provide their rationale for such a decision. We intend to make this clear in the relevant statutory guidance, which will need to be updated so that relevant professionals know what is required of them.
Finally, Amendment 221, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, looks to provide a tribunal appeals process as a review in the case of a local authority’s decision to refuse to grant permission to home-educate a child. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary because Clause 30 already provides for a review process. Parents who disagree with the local authority’s decision to grant or refuse permission to home-educate their child can refer the decision to the Secretary of State for review. They will carefully consider the full facts of the case. Having done so, the Secretary of State has the power to either uphold the local authority’s decision, to direct the local authority to grant consent or to refer the question back to the local authority for review.
Lord Wei (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. I believe that this appeal process to the Secretary of State already exists. Clearly, it is a very difficult situation for the Secretary of State to be the tribunal for the parents, if the parents feel that the local authority or the Government have not been supportive of their desire to home-educate. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know how many times, when a home-educated family has requested support from the Secretary of State to overturn a local authority decision, that has actually happened. According to the statistics I have, there has never been such an instance. I wonder whether, if this were to be tested in a court or by some other mechanism, this form of procedural appeal would not really muster the kind of belief that the Minister has. Might she reconsider looking into the various forms of appeal that we will propose in later groups of amendments, or indeed look again at the idea of a tribunal?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This legislation introduces the consent process. People have not gone through this process, with the specific, narrow categories of children and families for whom it applies. Does the noble Lord want another go?
Lord Wei (Con)
I am referring to other instances, which home-educated families have referenced, where they have written to the Secretary of State for Education —under the current regime, not the future one—and where no action has ever been taken in their favour. Perhaps we can discuss this in August.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Let us not talk about what will happen and when in terms of engagement with my officials. Just to be clear: as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that engagement will enable noble Lords to get an understanding of the way the Government intend to implement these provisions and to get some assurance around the processes that will be used. It will not be another opportunity for noble Lords who fundamentally oppose what the Government are doing—I am thinking of the noble Lord, who started his contribution by saying that he fundamentally opposes what we are trying to do here. I am not sure that the engagement will be particularly helpful for persuading, through officials, the Government to wholly change their approach to this. As I said, it is intended to look at the detail and to provide some assurance about how the processes will work.
I will reiterate the point I made previously. Clause 30 is introducing a consent mechanism and, specifically, a review process of that consent mechanism. Home-educating parents may well have written on other issues to the Secretary of State and been dissatisfied with the response that they received. However, that is different from the review process that is spelled out in legislation in Clause 30.
I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lady Morris. She is right. She asks questions that are the subject of amendments to be debated in later groups, but they are very reasonable. She asked about how much time a child would need to study with a provider for it to be reported, and how often and how quickly parents would need to update the details about that. Those are precisely the types of issues that would be subject to the further consultation around the regulations and guidance, including with home-educating parents and others, to ensure that we do that in a way that balances the burdens and requirements on parents, alongside ensuring that the local authority has the basic information that it needs to make the scheme work properly. In this area, there is considerable scope for consultation and engagement about how precisely that will work. I hope that answers my noble friend’s question and that the noble Lord, Lord Wei, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her flexibility on the notification period, which in the Bill currently is 15 days. It is very nice to hear that the Government and my noble friend can be more flexible about it and are prepared to discuss it. I thank her very much indeed for that. I gave a very strong indictment against new Section 426C—
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Can I just clarify whether my noble friend is concluding the group or intervening on me?
Lord Lucas (Con)
In Committee, noble Lords may talk as many times as we like. We will try to keep it short though.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Does my noble friend want me to respond again? That is what I would like to know.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I am getting up to thank the Minister for her willingness to consider the timetable for the notification by the schooling parent of any changes in the educational plan, which they will have had to give already in detail under new Section 426C(1)(e). I am asking her, as I did in my speech, whether she and the Government would be willing to look at the actual terms of subsection (e), which have been widely described as very onerous. I gave examples of that, such as the need to give details of Sunday schooling. I also pointed out that that type of information is not sought at all from parents with children at state schools. I remind her that, after the very successful meeting with the Minister, Stephen Morgan, on 17 June, I wrote a follow-up letter on 20 June, copying in my noble friend. I asked specifically whether the provisions in subsection (e) could be reviewed, with a schooling parent, to find a practical answer. I must suggest again that, in its present form, it is most onerous.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The questions that my noble friend asks are, I think, the subject of amendments in later groups, which is when I had presumed we would come to those details. I will stick to that, if that is okay.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for what she said. I entirely understand the limitations of discussions with officials, which is why I want to talk to her again about tribunals. Tribunals are an established part of mediating between the citizen and the state. In situations like this, or in many circumstances similar to those we are talking about—and this is by no means the only time we will discuss this; the next time will be when we are talking about best interests—when you have a hard-pressed local authority that may have a particular prejudice against home education and may be making life extremely difficult, as some of them do, you want an effective right of appeal. The system of appeal to the Secretary of State has existed in various forms in various bits of legislation for a long time. I am aware of one occasion when the Secretary of State agreed with the complainant. It does not work as an effective forum. It is not set up to be an effective forum. It does not allow for balanced and deep argument. The department is just not set up as a tribunal: it is not staffed as a tribunal, nor skilled as a tribunal. It is not the right place. I just say to my noble friend Lady Barran that I would very much appreciate her support for a tribunal amendment at Report, because that is what this appears likely to come to.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, points out that intervention in schools can be a protection. The Government’s thinking about the future of this and the future interaction would be well worth hearing.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
In group 4, we have an interesting combination of some amendments suggesting that the Government are going too far in their proposals around the hurdle for having to seek consent to home-educate and others suggesting that they are not going far enough. I will try to find a way through the centre of this, because what they all have in common is seeking to explore the rationale for the local authority to have to provide consent before a parent can withdraw a child from school to home-educate—in this case, where the child is subject to a child protection inquiry
I turn to Amendments 205 and 206. Just to be clear, the Government believe that the consent measure with respect to Section 47 inquiries provides an important but proportionate safety net for children subject to child protection inquiries and plans. To clarify something that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said and to reiterate this, the consent provisions are not an automatic bar to these parents home-educating. It could well be the case that, notwithstanding the fact that a child was subject to Section 47 inquiries or even under a child protection plan, the local authority felt it was appropriate for, or was willing to give consent for, that child to be home-educated. To reiterate what I said, it is a requirement for the local authority to consider the circumstances of that child, given that they have come under the auspices of children’s social care through Section 47 of the Children Act. Our view is that this should be done as part of its wider decision-making on whether a child needs protection and the planning that follows that.
There is some suggestion, which I really disagree with, that local authorities would find it easy to jump to a Section 47 inquiry simply to prevent a parent being able to home-educate their child. There are a lot of consequences to undertaking a Section 47 inquiry. I would find it hard to understand why a local authority would be so keen to prevent a parent home-educating if there were no reasons to stop them or want to get itself into the burdens around a Section 47 inquiry if it did not think it was important to do that. Of course, it is not just what a local authority believes about the circumstances of a child. For a child to be the subject of a Section 47 inquiry, they will have already hit a threshold of actual or likely significant harm. That is a high threshold. An inquiry should certainly not be initiated purely because a parent has decided to home-educate.
I note the understandable concern of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about how this measure could be used in an abusive relationship, where false or malicious allegations regarding the safety of a child, for example, might be made to continue to control or harass an individual. The sad reality, of course, is that it is not only with respect to issues about home education that that might happen. It could happen, and does happen, in many circumstances where local authorities are making decisions about children. For that reason, we are confident that this would not be something unusual or unheard of for local authorities, and that they do have robust policies and processes in place to consider information and evidence about child protection concerns, including recognising and handling malicious allegations. Perhaps the noble Lord could be provided with some more examples of how local authorities would handle this type of circumstance, to provide some reassurance. Given that a child will be the subject of a Section 47 inquiry only where there is actual or likely significant harm, it is reasonable that checks should be undertaken before such a child can be removed from school for home education.
Amendment 207, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, focuses on bringing all children receiving support and services under Section 17 of the Children Act, known as “children in need”, and any child who has ever been the subject of a child protection plan in the past into the scope of the consent measure. We share her commitment to ensuring that all children are protected from harm, and recognise that, while home education is not an inherent safeguarding risk, it can of course mean that some children could slip under the radar. However, we believe that this amendment would be disproportionate. “Children in need” is a very broad group of children and many will receive services which are nothing to do with safeguarding concerns or particular educational needs.
I think the noble Baroness was suggesting that there might be ways in which it would be possible to have a definition that looked at different elements of Section 17 concerns, and perhaps I can come back to her on that point. I think one of her reasons for suggesting it is that she understands, of course, that, for example, all children with disabilities are automatically included under Section 17. We certainly would not want to suggest here that any child with disabilities whose parents wanted to home-educate them would necessarily need to seek consent. I also draw her attention to the deliverability of a measure that includes both children in need and children subject to child protection activity in the consent measure.
In the year to the end of March 2024, there were 399,500 children in need, compared with 224,520 child protection inquiries and 49,900 children on child protection plans. As noble Lords can see, it would be both disproportionate and overly burdensome on local authorities to make a consent decision for every parent who wished to withdraw their child from school for home education where that child is receiving help under Section 17: it would be roughly a doubling of the potential number of children who might need it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
From memory, are there not 400-and-something thousand children with an EHCP who will be within the kind of consent framework? Obviously, the vast majority of the 400,000 children who are under Section 17 are not going to be home-educated. I take the noble Baroness’s point; I am just trying to say that we have one group that is in and another group, where we suspect potential abuse or neglect, that is out. That just feels like an odd split.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I recognise that point. On the special school point, it is not sufficient to have an EHCP to need consent to withdraw your child to home-educate; it is if they are in a special school. The rationale there is that you are changing their schooling and removing them, by definition, from something that contains very specific levels of support, otherwise it would not be a special school. It is the consideration of that impact that is the reasoning behind the special school intention here.
So we are confident that the consent measure, as drafted, is focused on the right groups of children and that it is proportionate. I hope that I have demonstrated the proportionality of this measure and that it is part of a wider set of activities that we have discussed previously on the Bill, about strengthening requirements to protect children at the earliest opportunity. I hope therefore that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Even more briefly, I did not hear the Minister’s response in relation to children who have been on a child protection plan. Could she be very kind and write to me, in the interests of time, because that is also extremely important?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, I recognise that. There are still questions about burden there, but I understand the noble Baroness’s point, and particularly her reference to the Sara Sharif case. On that case, we are still awaiting the detailed review from the safeguarding panel in order to be able to determine the causes there, but I understand her point and will write to her about that specific group of children.
On that basis, I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her replies. I look forward to meetings after today to go into these matters further, but I very much understand what my noble friend Lady Barran is saying with her Amendment 207. It convinces me that, if we can insert a tribunal into this process, we will make all these difficult questions flow much more easily for everybody. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, there is a large number of probing amendments in this group and, in the interests of making progress, I will not comment on most of them. I am very sympathetic to the intent behind Amendment 209 in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I would hope very much that a child who is a young carer would be supported to stay in school, given the obvious risk that their education would suffer and conflict with the care needs of their parent if at home, but I have no further comments on the other amendments in this group.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in group 5. These amendments mainly concern the requirement to seek consent should a parent wish to withdraw their child from school in particular circumstances. Just to reiterate, we recognise that most home-educating families provide safe and suitable education in the best interests of their children. The consent measure applies only to specific groups of children—where there are child protection concerns or the child has a special school placement. We are confident that this is a proportionate response to help to ensure that these children’s needs are met and are protected.
With respect to the detail in the amendments, I turn first to Amendment 208, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would remove the requirement for a school to notify the local authority responsible for the child if that is different from the local authority where the school is located when a parent intends to withdraw the child to home educate. To be clear, schools will hold the child’s address; therefore, they will know which local authorities to notify. Working Together to Safeguard Children, the statutory safeguarding guidance, is clear that schools should be included in child protection activity and planning, and therefore should also be aware of which local authorities should be contacted. It is crucial that schools retain the responsibility to verify whether consent is needed for home education. Without this, children in scope of the consent process could be mistakenly removed from school rolls without permission, or the consent decision could be delayed.
Turning to Amendment 209, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, which has rightly received the most attention in this group of amendments and would require a carer’s needs assessment before the child is withdrawn from school, I commend the noble Lord on championing the needs of young carers. To be clear, I certainly do not demur from his overarching argument—and that of other noble Lords, such as my noble friend Lord Watson—that young carers are in need of specific attention, care and consideration from local authorities because of the enormously difficult position they find themselves in.
The local authority will have ample opportunity to fully consider the child’s circumstances as part of the consent decision-making process. In fact, that is the whole point of having that process. Of course, under Section 436C(2), which we touched on in, I think, the group before last, local authorities will also be able—be expected, in fact, I would suggest—in the case where a child is a young carer and is being educated at home, to record and keep relevant information about that child. If they were being home educated, the fact that they were a carer would be an important part of the information that a local authority should record about them, precisely in order to make sure that they are getting the support that they need.
The Children Act 1989 already provides robust safeguarding measures for young carers, who may be recognised as children in need, ensuring that their support needs are assessed by their local authority. Of course, we will ensure that our reforms to both education and children’s social care work for all disadvantaged children and young people, including young carers.
I think it was interesting that some people, in responding to this amendment, were arguing that being a young carer should not be a reason why a child could not be home educated, and others were arguing that it would be better for that child to remain in school, with support, and be able to learn without the relentless role, as I am sure it is, of being a carer. I think this suggests that there are probably differing circumstances for young carers, and it reinforces the general point that local authorities should take seriously their responsibilities to fully consider the needs of young carers and to ensure that their support needs are being assessed.
Turning to Amendments 216 and 217—
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Before the noble Baroness leaves Amendment 209, will she say something, or perhaps write to me, about the delay in getting a needs assessment for young carers?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Sorry, yes, I remember that the noble Lord asked about that. I will write to him on the broader issue of the speed with which young carers are getting their assessments. I will follow that up separately.
Amendments 216 and 217, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove or amend the requirement for local authorities to notify any other parent of the child of their home education consent decision. In law, all parents have responsibility for their child’s education, and it is therefore necessary that all parents are notified, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Amendment 216 would remove this. Including exceptional circumstances provides safeguards where a parent does not have to be notified: for example, in cases of domestic abuse. Of course, children must be protected from domestic abuse. Amendment 217, however, states that
“exceptional circumstances will always apply where domestic abuse is alleged or established”.
We are concerned that this could have unintended consequences, including a parent making an accusation of domestic abuse to prevent the other being informed of the consent decision. Again, sadly, local authorities are quite used to the way they need to behave and the care they need to take in circumstances of allegations of domestic abuse. However, we will provide further detail regarding what “exceptional circumstances” means in this context in statutory guidance. As I have said previously, we will engage with stakeholders when updating that guidance.
I turn to Amendments 218 and 381 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. Amendment 218 would require local authority staff to have at least two years of personal home education experience of their own children before making consent decisions. Amendment 381 would require at least one person with direct home education experience on safeguarding panels for decisions related to home-educated children. I think it is possible to be an experienced practitioner without specific lived experience; however, that can make a good, important and interesting contribution. I am not sure that the noble Lord’s experience about men not being able to work with women giving birth would be recognised by the large number of male obstetricians operating around the country, but that just proves that, while lived experience and, most certainly—
Lord Wei (Con)
To clarify, I was in no way saying that men could not work with women in childbirth. I was trying to make a point about speaking as authoritatively on the process of giving birth as a man as if you were a woman. In no way would I want the Minister to interpret me as saying that one could not be a male midwife or anything like that, but, as some of us know, when in certain circles I have talked about something feeling like childbirth, I have quite rightly been told off, because I have never given birth. There is something about that lived experience that I am pointing to. I am not making the point that people cannot work in certain professional settings in that sense.
We are crossing over from professional expertise into lived experience, saying that a parent can or cannot raise their child and parent-educate. Even if you were to use the professional argument, I am not sure that having that determined by someone who may not have that experience—when, right now, even the professional in this context is not trained in the philosophies and the different nuances of home education—is quite right in this context.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I certainly think it is right that we should attempt to ensure that people with lived experience are a key part of all areas of policy. That is why, for example, I talked earlier about the home educators’ forum that the department has brought together to help to inform our work here and the guidance. The point that the noble Lord was making went well beyond that. The suggestion that you could not make a professional social work or education decision in this area unless you had lived experience would make this area wholly different from any other area that professionals were making decisions about, and that is the stumbling block for this amendment.
We have a workforce of trained, dedicated practitioners who understand and champion the needs of the children they work with across schools and children’s social care. These amendments, in effect, would exclude around 99% of the population and, of course, would assume that one professional’s experience of home education is reflective of all parents. Working Together guidance is clear which practitioners should be involved in safeguarding decision-making and the importance of including children and families in that as well. We are confident that the Bill measures, and wider children’s social care reform that strengthens the protection of children, will mean that local authorities can draw on a range of expertise when making decisions—and so they should.
Amendment 220 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 224 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would allow a child not to attend school prior to receiving consent from the local authority. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who was not here for the earlier parts of the debate—for which I do not condemn her—that the points she made about the very successful home education experience of the children she was talking about who are close to her has very much been reflected in the comments that other noble Lords made earlier. We are clear that there are many children for whom home education has been a very fulfilling and successful process, and there is nothing in this legislation that removes, for example, the right of parents to make that decision to educate their children at home.
With these consent provisions, however—and in wanting to ensure that if a child is being educated at home, they are at least seen and understood to be being educated elsewhere than in school—we want to make sure that every child is seen. That is the expression that we were using earlier, and that is what we are aiming to do here. Also with respect to the consent provisions, we are concerned about those children for whom there might be particular reasons for a local authority to look carefully at the decision to grant consent by virtue of them being subject to a Section 47 inquiry, under a child protection plan or requiring the specific facilities of a special school.
For many children, a school is a protective environment and a means of offering essential support. I know that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness share our desire to reduce the risk of children falling through gaps and potentially going missing. It is therefore important that a child continues to attend school until a local authority has determined the consent request. Removing a child before this could subject them to unsuitable education or increase the risk of harm. I am sure that the noble Baroness could envisage a situation where, for legitimate reasons, a Section 47 inquiry is instituted where there are concerns about a child being at risk of very significant harm and—I am afraid that we have seen examples of this—a parent, thinking that this would be a way of avoiding it, decides at that point that they want to remove their child from school. In those circumstances, I do not think that any of us would want that child to be removed from what may well be the protective environment of a school before the decision had been made about consent.
For all children who are not subject to the consent process, which will be the vast majority of children whose parents want to home-educate them, all we are expecting is that the parent notifies the school that they want to remove their child from the roll and that the school has the opportunity to check, therefore, whether they fall within the criteria of a child for whom consent would be necessary or whether they are subject to a school attendance order. It would not be unreasonable to expect a child to carry on attending school while that relatively straightforward administrative check was made.
Amendment 222, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require consent decisions to be revisited sooner than six months after the previous request when new evidence becomes available or the child has been disadvantaged by the decision. This six-month timeframe is proportionate and is provided to reduce multiple requests regarding the same child. There will be situations where it may be appropriate for the local authority to consider applications sooner—for example, if there has been a substantial change in the child’s circumstances. A local authority can do this under the clause as drafted, if it so wishes. I am sure that the noble Lord could also envisage a situation where a parent who was unhappy about the consent decision made by a local authority expected the decision to be revisited perhaps every week. That is the reason for setting this timeframe.
Amendment 223 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, is about establishing an independent ombudsman. I understand the theme that is developing here about independent review capacity. Notwithstanding that, the Government do not believe that it is necessary. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, uses almost every opportunity to push his tribunal suggestion. I am interested in whether the proposition now is that we should have both a tribunal and an ombudsman in these cases. Of course it is right that there should be a process for referring local authority decisions that parents are not satisfied with; however, it should be uncomplicated. It is right that the final decision should rest with the Secretary of State, or Welsh Ministers, who will fully and objectively consider the merits of the case.
Amendment 225, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would remove the definition of the “relevant local authority” that is responsible for making a home education consent decision. For children subject to a child protection inquiry or plan, the local authority where a child lives is responsible for making the consent decision. They will have the information needed to make informed decisions and should therefore determine consent. For children in special schools, who are not also subject to child protection processes, consent is needed from the local authority that maintains the plan, just as is the case under existing legislation. This new subsection provides legal clarity for parents, schools and local authorities.
Amendment 403, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, requests emergency court hearings for parents where a local authority seeks to remove, or removes, a child from their parents due to concerns arising from home education. To reiterate, the Children Act 1989 is clear that the threshold for care proceedings is significant harm. Home education as a singular factor would not reach the threshold for care proceedings. Child protection concerns about a home-educated child must be addressed through the same process as any other child facing harm. This includes parents’ rights to challenge decisions about the removal of a child into care.
Finally, Amendment 418, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require local authorities to refer individuals who file false or malicious allegations against home-educating parents, who then may be subject to civil penalties. There is a concern that this could deter valid concerns about home-educated children being reported, potentially leaving children at risk. Local authorities have robust processes in place to identify whether a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, harm and appropriately respond to malicious allegations, regardless of a child’s educational status.
I said earlier that it would not only be in the case of home-educated children that a local authority might have to make a decision about whether a complaint about a child’s parents was well founded or malicious. Home-educating parents have the same rights as other parents. Families can seek support from the local authority or police advice if intentional false reports are being made against them.
For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister’s extensive responses to the amendments. She is right that I will keep coming back about tribunals. I am not attached to any particular form—a tribunal, an ombudsman or what the Government propose. My concern is that it should be effective, and my experience of the Secretary of State route has been that it is not. I am very happy to take the opportunity of the gap between now and 1 September to learn more about the Government’s proposals as to how the Secretary of State route should work, and it may be that I will come to love it as much as she does—that would be nice.
On Amendment 208, knowing a child’s address is not the same as knowing their local authority. There is nothing in the address that says what the local authority is; you need to have a lookup. Local education authorities are not necessarily coterminous with what we think, so the Government would have to provide a lookup. Also, in circumstances where children are in joint custody, the question of their address can be complicated and moot. In both circumstances, there needs to be some help from the Government to enable a school to be sure that, in all circumstances, it determines the right local authority with responsibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is right and I am grateful to him for again drawing my attention and that of the Committee to his drafting. I guess one would then need to consider the group of children in special schools, because I would be surprised if the noble Lord’s drafting applied to so many of them.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
At the heart of this group of amendments is the concern about the use and definition of the expression “best interest of the child”.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others suggested that the use of the “best interests” ground in Clause 30 is a fundamental change to parents’ rights. I reiterate the quite narrow scope of the use of “best interests” in this clause. Remember that what we are dealing with here is not the fundamental decision about whether a parent has the right to remove their child from a school to educate them at home. They have that right, unless some very specific circumstances are met—when they may still have the right, but we introduce a process for the local authority to consent to whether it is appropriate for that to happen. I do not think I need to run through once again that narrow category of children and circumstances where, as we are proposing here, the local authority should be enabled at least to consider the issue of whether, in those circumstances, it is appropriate for the child to be removed from school.
I know that some noble Lords do not believe that there should be any need for consent and therefore do not believe that the criteria that the Government have chosen of Section 47 inquiries, child protection plans or special schools are appropriate. I accept that but, if you do have a consent system—and there is quite a lot of support for the idea that an additional stage is appropriate for children in these circumstances—you then need to decide the criteria for the local authority’s decision-making. New subsection (6)(b) makes it clear what those criteria should be in these very specific circumstances.
It does not feel unreasonable to me that those criteria should be what the local authority believes to be the best interests of the child. We can assume that the parents believe in the best interests of their child, but in these very specific circumstances, because of the nature of the children, we think the child’s rights might override the view of their parents.
So the first criterion is what is in the child’s best interests; the second is whether or not there are suitable arrangements made for the child to receive education, other than at school. I understand that some noble Lords do not believe that those are the right criteria, but I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that this is somehow a fundamental change in the rights of parents. We recognise that most parents have their children’s best interests at heart and tirelessly advocate for them, often in difficult circumstances. That should be the basis on which parents are able to make decisions, in most circumstances, about whether or not their children are removed from school to be educated otherwise.
However, there are situations where a child could receive a suitable education at home but it is not in their best interests to do so—for example, if there are concerns that the child is being exposed to domestic abuse or extremism. In those cases, the school can act as a protective factor that enables issues to be escalated quickly.
I hope that my argument about the reason for the choice of those criteria also covers the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. He recommends that a local authority should automatically refuse consent for any child where the local authority has concluded that they are suffering or likely to suffer significant harm following a child protection inquiry, but child protection is complex and practitioners must gather a range of information and evidence from multiagency partners and others who work with the child and their family, and children can experience harm from both inside and outside the home. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to prohibit all such children from being removed from school for home education.
The consent measure rightly requires the local authority to consider the individual circumstances of each child. It is probably worth reminding ourselves that the consent measure is not preventing parents in these circumstances from home-educating; it is simply saying that the local authority should consider whether that is appropriate and use the two criteria that have been set out in the Bill.
Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei—
Lord Crisp (CB)
I think I understand the Minister’s points, but could I just pick up the slightly pedantic point that I was making? If it is an “or”, it implies that suitable arrangements could be made for the education of the child otherwise than at school and that the local authority still considers that it would be in the child’s best interest to receive education by regular attendance at school. It is a slightly pedantic point and I am very happy to just register it rather than require an answer. As I say, I think it is the law of the excluded middle.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I understand the noble Lord’s point. If I am wrong on this then I will clarify afterwards, but you could envisage a situation where the problem was not the nature of the education being provided but whether, given the circumstances that the child found themselves in, it was in their best interests not to be in a school. The protective element of being in a school could be the most important point there.
Lord Wei (Con)
To build on that, if you had a local authority officer with not much experience of home education—given that that is apparently not available—who is shown suitable education arrangements by the parent planning to take their child into home education, then that first new sub-paragraph could allow them still to override those arrangements, which they have agreed are suitable, by saying that they think it would be best if the child attended a school. How do we deal with that precise situation which she has said could happen? Do we not need to work this out so that our wonderful local authority officials are not confused when reading this guidance and say, “Well, I can still override the parents because I think it is right that they stay in school, because that is in their best interests”?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
That is what I was saying. You could envisage circumstances in which there is a child on a child protection plan, notwithstanding that there might be suitable education, where the protective role of being in school would be in that child’s best interests and being away from the school might be against them, regardless of what the other education provision might be. Let us not forget that this would be a consideration only for children for whom there are child protection concerns or for children in special schools, where, to be fair, it would more likely be about the appropriateness of the education, but could be about the other support available for a child that would not be available in other circumstances, notwithstanding the question of education, because of their needs that required them to be put into the special school in the first place.
Lord Wei (Con)
I can fully appreciate that, given the scope here, if there was a safeguarding concern then one might want to pursue the route the Minister is talking about as the officer in question is trying to make that decision. However, the way that this is worded, even if the parents or family subject to Section 47 have found a way to provide suitable education, gives the officer the room to say, “I am concerned about the safety of the child”, when it is more that they do not like the education being provided.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think I might speak for others in the Committee in saying that this level of detail could be better dealt with face to face with officials, which would allow us to do another group before the House rises.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to raise the threshold for the local authority to refuse consent to home-educate. This would mean that, if a parent was concerned that their child was being harmed by attending their current school, the local authority would be unable to refuse consent unless it provided evidence of a standard sufficient to satisfy a court that withdrawal would result in greater harm.
Let me be clear that parents’ concerns regarding bullying or their child’s mental health are serious, and these issues should be discussed with the school and local authority. I can quite understand why parents might want to remove their child from school in those circumstances.
However, it is important to remember that the requirement for local authorities to consent to home education relates to a specific set of children who are subject to a child protection plan or inquiry or who are in a special school. This measure is intended to ensure that the local authority takes a considered, proportionate and informed decision for these groups. Eligible children should not be withdrawn from school for home education if it is not in their best interests or if education outside school is not going to be suitable. I want to be clear that local authorities must evidence their decision-making, but requiring it to the degree that the amendment suggests is totally impractical. Local authorities are well placed to make this best interests and suitability judgment. They possess the required information and have access to multi-agency expertise as part of their child protection and education duties, and parents’ views will be taken into account by local authorities as part of their decision-making process.
Amendment 215, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to ensure that a refusal to grant consent to home-educate is taken against the background of the characteristics of the school that the child might attend. Just to be clear, the consent process is not intended to keep children in a specific school or to keep children in a school that is not right for them. Parents remain free to remove their child from one school to attend a different school that they believe can better support their child’s needs, for example. I hope that assures the noble Lord that there is no intention that a child could or should be forced to remain in a specific school, so the need to compare different schools is unnecessary. I hope noble Lords feel that I have provided sufficient assurance and that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Yes, I would very much like to pursue some of the details of this in meetings. The practicalities of what she described do not coincide with my experience of trying to get children moved from one school to another, particularly special schools. I do not see how it works. She described local authorities as fountainheads of expertise in this area. That is not my experience. It used to be, but not now. These are areas in which I really want to understand more about the Government’s reasoning and how they are approaching things.
There is a deep principle here. It is only a small footprint on the first bit of beach, but the direction is clear. If it applies to children with SEN, why does it not apply to everybody? If the local authority’s judgment is better for those children, why is it not better for everybody? If the local authority’s judgment is best for children who are being taken out of school, why is it not best for children who never go into school? There is no edge here. Once this direction has been taken, it will carry on, and we must question it hard at its first instance and not shy away from that just because it is small. But for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(3 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in group one. Just to be clear, the Government believe that uniforms have an important role to play in our schools, for many of the reasons that noble Lords have outlined, but we are committed to cutting the cost of school uniforms for families. This is why we have chosen to support families by limiting in this Bill the number of branded items that schools can require pupils to have. This will enable parents to buy more items from a range of retailers, including high street retailers, allowing them the flexibility to make spending decisions that suit their circumstances.
On Amendment 195 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, we want to ensure that any action we take provides schools and parents with clarity and offers parents choice in how to manage the costs of school uniforms. Ensuring that parents can buy more items from a range of retailers gives them that flexibility. The argument has been made that a cost cap is simpler than the Government’s proposals. I cannot see that argument. A cost cap would mean that schools would have to review uniform policies annually, as the noble Lord said, to ensure that they remained within the cap. It could mean schools changing their uniforms more frequently, thereby increasing overall costs and restricting choice for parents. A cost cap would be complex for schools and suppliers to administer, and the need to meet a particular price for items could also increase a school’s reliance on specific suppliers, whereas a competitive market benefits all parties, allowing parents to take advantage of lower prices, better-quality goods and services, new and innovative products, and greater choice.
Responding to the points made about the school uniform grant, we recognise that parents are struggling with the cost of uniforms—that is why we are bringing forward these provisions—and that in England some local authorities provide discretionary grants to help with buying school uniforms in cases of financial hardship. We are facing difficult choices about how we best support families. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, in a rather dismissive comment about government officials, which has been a bit of a regrettable theme this afternoon, suggested that it was somehow unreasonable of the Government to be considering the cost of the proposals they are bringing forward. A national grant, even if targeted to those most in need, would be a considerable commitment in the current financial climate, so, rather than subsidising expensive uniforms through a grant, this Government have chosen to reduce the cost of uniforms for all parents through these provisions.
On Amendments 195A and 195B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, as previously mentioned, it is a key priority of these provisions that we provide clarity on what the measure means for parents. These amendments could create confusion for parents about whether a given branded item of uniform would be captured within the statutory limit, depending on how it was acquired. There is also a risk that schools may subsequently attempt to charge parents for expensive replacements if branded items provided for free are lost or damaged. Furthermore, allowing schools to set different uniform policies depending on the school’s ability to provide or source branded items for free could also risk increasing inequalities between schools and pupils.
Amendments 196 and 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seek to increase the number of items that secondary and middle schools can require from three to five, or six if one of those items is a tie. We believe that the limits in the measure that the Government are bringing forward provide the best balance between reducing costs for parents and ensuring that schools, parents and pupils can continue to experience the benefits that allowing a small number of branded items can bring, while ensuring that schools retain the flexibility needed to set uniform policies that work for them. Increasing these limits would significantly limit the impact of this measure, depriving many parents of the opportunity to enjoy greater choice in where to buy their child’s uniform and the flexibility to make spending decisions that suit their circumstances.
Amendment 197A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, is, as written, as opposed to some of the points the noble Lord made, which I will come to, unnecessary as the measure does not restrict the ability of schools to offer branded items for sale or to provide or loan branded uniform items, such as competition kit, as long as these items are optional. This is an important point, because there has been some suggestion that it would not be possible for schools to offer branded items or to provide or loan branded items. It would be, but they would have to be optional. If wearing the item is optional for participation in the activity, it is not counted in the limit of branded items.
We also do not want to place an undue burden on schools by suggesting—
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am sorry, perhaps the Minister is about to come to this: that is what normally happens when I stand up. I think my noble friend was saying that in the CCF, you have to wear the CCF uniform. Similarly, if you are representing the school in a sports competition, I am not sure it is really optional. But maybe the Minister is about to clarify that.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On the sports competition, I think it is wholly possible to envisage that the school would provide a set of branded uniform for the school sports team, while not suggesting that it was compulsory to wear it. Of course, I understand all the arguments for wanting to have a clear identity for the school while you are doing sports. On the point about cadets, which I was specifically coming to—sorry, I will make one other point before I come to cadets. There is a challenge. We do not want to place an undue burden on schools by suggesting that they should routinely be supplying additional, expensive, branded uniform items to their pupils at no cost.
The point about cadets is important. We do not intend the legislation to prevent cadets, and we will consider how to make that clear. Our view is that the legislation does not do that, but we understand the point being made and we will ensure that that is made clear, because of the benefits of students being able to take part in cadets in the way in which the noble Lord outlined.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Just to be clear on this, I heard the Minister say that, in the case of cadets, where wearing a uniform is required and it is given for free, the Government will clarify that that is acceptable. She also said that she does not want to place undue burdens on schools, understandably, but, in a sports competition, whether pupils wear the kit that is provided for free is going to be optional. That feels unworkable and very inconsistent.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
What I said was that this measure does not prevent schools providing or loaning branded uniform items, such as competition kit, but, if that were to be compulsory, that of course would need to be included in the three branded items. As long as those items are optional, I do not think it is too difficult to envisage that schools might be able to make that work.
Lord Nash (Con)
So if the shirt provided by the school is blue and the opposition plays in red, and this has all been arranged in advance, and some pupils decide to be difficult and turn up in red, which will create chaos, that is okay, but if you say “You’ve all got to turn up in blue”, that is breaking the rules. It does not sound very practical. I ask the Minister to take a bit of time with people who run schools and officials to see whether we can work our way through this in a practical way, while at the same time trying to make sure that all children are treated equally and that we limit the costs as far as we can.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am certainly willing to continue thinking about the issue of school sports, because it is very much not the intention of the Government to prevent the loaning of branded items for school sports. On the example that the noble Lord mentioned, in my day, when I played hockey, if we ended up playing against a school with a similarly coloured kit, we wore bibs to distinguish ourselves. My point is that I do not think it is impossible to overcome this. Let us come back to it. I take the point that noble Lords have made here.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, when the Minister said that we are working across government, what actually is happening? Is there a review? Is there something specific about school uniforms? Is it just about PFAS? Can we get some details so that we who are concerned can keep an eye on it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The point I was making was that it relates to all clothes and is considering the risks from PFAS used in textiles, but I will be happy to provide further information about how that work is being carried out. In the interim, our statutory guidance is already clear that it is important that schools consider sustainability and ethical supply chains, as well as engaging with parents and pupils when tendering for uniform contracts. I know that many high street retailers already offer school uniforms without PFAS treatments for many of the reasons that noble Lords have outlined today. Furthermore, UK product safety laws require all consumer products to be safe, and manufacturers must ensure the safety of products before they are placed on the market. We already have robust systems in place to identify the impact of chemicals under the UK registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—UK REACH—and to regulate them effectively.
On Amendment 484 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, discrimination has no place in our schools or, in fact, in society. Our guidance is clear that in setting uniform and appearance policies, including on hair, we expect schools to meet their existing obligations under equalities law not to discriminate unlawfully. Guidance also already exists for schools on preventing hair discrimination, published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The noble Baroness had a lengthy list of cases. I do not know the details of all those, but I think it is reasonable for schools to develop and implement behaviour policies, to uphold school rules and to use sanctions that are fair and proportionate, and that could well also relate to uniform and expected appearance within schools.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Would the Minister care to address my point about the fact that we have great concern about pupils not in school, yet we are excluding them for this reason? It is reducing the amount of education that pupils are getting.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I do not think the main reason why pupils are being excluded from school is because of issues to do with their hair, but I do think it is right for schools to have the ability to set the criteria and the constraints within which they expect their pupils to behave. While not being across all the individual cases that the noble Baroness outlined, I can imagine circumstances in which it would be justifiable to take action against students who perhaps persistently fail to comply with the rules that have been set by a school, including about their appearance. We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I hope I have responded to all the points raised.
Lord Storey (LD)
Will the Minister go away and consider the fate of the branded book bag, which means so much to primary and infant schools? It should not be included as part of the three, because it is a way of encouraging reading and literacy in our schools.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I also very much enjoyed the bookbags my boys carried backwards and forwards to school, but I am not sure that trumps what the Government are trying to achieve in reducing the cost of school uniforms. Of course, any school that felt that was crucial could of course include it in the three branded items in the legislative proposals.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
From the debate we have just had, It is clear noble Lords have a keen interest in school uniforms. I am going to keep my submission brief. I thank everyone; I think we are all on the same page in the sense that we want to reduce the cost of school uniforms. We have different ideas, but that is what your Lordships’ House is about; we come here together to improve legislation from the other place.
I am keen that we pursue this. I see that in the other place the Government are in a spirit of reflection and review of policies. I hope that spirit wheels its way down the Corridor to here. Then we can also say that, yes, the Government have an ambition of reducing the cost, but we also have ideas that warrant looking at. They may well be ideas that work better. I hope the Government think about it as we move to the next stage of the Bill, so I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 195.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I acknowledge that it is unusual to rise at this point in the debate. I recognise that we have lots of detailed groups ahead of us in considering the issues in these clauses, but I thought it might be helpful and important to set out the intention behind the children not in school measures before we get into further detail on the technical elements.
But, first, I pay tribute to those noble Members of this House who have previously supported legislative measures introducing registers of children not in school: the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who did excellent work in this space as part of her role in government; the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who has tirelessly worked to support and craft legislation; and Lord Soley, who has now retired from this House, who did a tremendous amount of work in campaigning for these registers.
I also thank Members of the House for their engagement to date, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who met with officials, the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and my noble friend Lord Hacking who met my colleague Stephen Morgan, the Minister for Early Years. The engagement and overall support for these measures from all sides of the House have been welcome and instructive, but I recognise the detailed questions that noble Lords have, as reflected in the many groups we have ahead of us. On that basis, I want to be clear that it is important for this engagement to continue as we look at the detail of how this measure is implemented.
We also continue to engage with the home-educating community. The previous Government held a consultation on a children not in school register in 2019, which received around 5,000 responses, mainly from parents. We have built on this engagement and have an ongoing implementation forum made up of home educators and other stakeholders, as well as other engagement opportunities with officials and Ministers. We will also consult on the regulations and statutory guidance required for implementation of the measures, which will provide further opportunity for engagement. I have given the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, a commitment that this engagement will continue following the end of Committee. Input from noble Lords, as well as local authorities, home educators and others, will be invaluable as we move towards drafting the regulations and statutory guidance required for the successful implementation of the measures.
On the purpose behind the children not in school measures, I know that noble Lords will agree that every child has the right to a safe and suitable education, whether at school or at home. This is the underpinning principle of these measures. The legal responsibility for a child’s education rests with their parents. This Bill does not change that. Some parents choose to fulfil their responsibility by exercising their right to educate their child at home. We recognise this right and we know that many home-educating parents work hard to ensure that their child receives a suitable—in fact, often an excellent—education.
Unfortunately, however, that is not the case for all children. Where children are missing out on education, it is essential that they can be identified quickly and supported. Local authorities have an existing legal duty to make arrangements to identify children not in school in their areas who are not receiving a suitable education, but this is undermined by the lack of obligation on parents to notify their local authority that they are home educating. England and Wales are outliers among western nations in this respect. We are in a small minority whereby there is no requirement for parents to inform authorities that they are home educating. The noble Lord, Lord Frost—I think there may be a theme among some noble Lords on this—believes, or fears, that what is proposed in this legislation is an overstretching of the intrusion of the state into the issue of home education. I simply identify to him, as I have suggested, that England and Wales in fact have very light—arguably too light at the moment—regulation of home education. Even if all the provisions in this Bill come to fruition, we will still have a very light legislative approach, because we recognise the right of parents to choose to home educate.
We also recognise that the current system makes it too easy for children not in school to fall through the gaps. The department, the Government, indeed all of us, cannot ignore the rising numbers of children not in school. Our latest data shows that, as of October 2024, there are 111,700 children known to be home educated and 39,200 children known to be missing education.
An effective system of registration for children not in school is therefore long overdue. Parties across the political spectrum have attempted to introduce one and parents recognise that registers are common-sense. A recent poll commissioned by my department shows that three-quarters of parents surveyed believe that parents should be required to register their home-educated children with local councils. Together, I am confident that we can deliver on this long called-for system of registration and ensure that it works for local authorities, parents and children.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I think this is a very important amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It reminds us that, in this part of the Bill, we dealing not just with parents who choose to educate their children at home but with some very substantial problems that state education has in not keeping hold of and looking after children who are nominally registered at school. I will come on to the question of unregistered alternative education, to which the state commits many children, in a later amendment. This is about looking after the children and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has put his finger very firmly on what we ought to be doing.
If there is a whole structure being built here to get better information on home-educated children, what is the point of it if we are not already using the information we have on children who are registered? Is there actually a responsive system that all this extra information is going to be fed into? Are we actually focusing on the children who need our help, or are we just making life more difficult for a lot of very responsible and successful parents? I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s approach to elective home education. I felt that there was a good deal in common in our approaches and I very much hope to be able to build on that as we look at these amendments.
I will very much endeavour not to take up the time of the House if I can avoid it. In that context, picking up on the Minister’s very kind offer of conversations with officials, might it not help if those conversations could take place between today and 1 September? That would mean that I would not have to take up time in Committee: we could short-circuit it before then. I am in the UK all August, but perhaps that might not amuse her officials.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I can clarify for the noble Lord that that is what I had in mind.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the clarity she brought with her earlier remarks. She set out the objectives of the Government and her commitment, on behalf of colleagues in the department, to work with Peers across the House—it looks as though that will be in August—to explore their concerns and, where possible, to address them. I also thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for the constructive tone of his opening remarks.
The principle of having a register for children not in school has long held cross-party support and, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, described, there are very different groups of children who are educated at home. What the debate has started to explore is that, in our eagerness to safeguard vulnerable children, which we must try to do well, and to support those children who have struggled in mainstream school, we must also make every effort not to stigmatise, or to treat with suspicion, parents who make a positive choice to home-educate their children.
This group and many of the others which follow highlight the complexity of creating a home-schooling register and the multiplicity of details that need to be considered. I note that Amendments 202C, 227, 227A and 286 and the opposition to Clause 31 standing part of the Bill are all probing, and I look forward to the Minister’s clarifications. I thought, unsurprisingly, that my noble friend Lord Frost made some very valid points on the risk of duplication of supervision and safeguarding in relation to children who are flexi-schooled.
On the individual amendments, there are two in this group which we support: Amendment 226 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and Amendment 279 in the name of my noble friends Lord Nash and Lord Agnew. With regard to children missing education and Amendment 226, most people would be surprised if it was not already a duty to inform the court if proceedings relating to the welfare of the child were under way and that child was not in school. It seems to me highly relevant information for the court to take into consideration, since there is a lot more risk attached to a child who is classified as missing education as opposed to a child who is electively home-educated. I am not sure about the practicality of consistent arrangements to address persistent non-attendance or irregular attendance, as the noble Lord’s amendment sets out, but I absolutely support the spirit of his amendment that the family courts should be made aware of the child’s situation and the risks that accompany it.
Amendment 279 in the names of my noble friends Lord Nash and Lord Agnew raised the important point of what a local authority can do if it has concerns that a child is not receiving a suitable education or, indeed, any real education at all. I hope that the Government have thought about this and have a plan for it. There is a great deal of detail in new Section 436C in Clause 31 of the Bill, but nothing about the actual education that a child receives, just the time spent and with whom.
On Amendment 233A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I remember very well the meeting with a group of home-educators—in fact, I look below Bar and there they are again, in the same place as last time; it is like Groundhog Day. The amendment would remove new Section 436C, which defines in detail the content and process for maintaining the proposed children not in school registers. While I agree with the noble Lord that the drafting appears unnecessarily detailed and potentially intrusive, it is important to have clarity about what will be recorded and how it will be kept up to date.
I also cannot support my noble friend Lord Lucas’s opposition to Clause 31 standing part of the Bill, although I appreciate that this was designed to give the House a chance to explore the principles that the Government intend to follow, which we have heard from the Minister. My noble friend will remember that, in the 2022 Schools Bill, we were very clear that a register for children not in school was necessary. I think the current Government have improved on our original proposal in one way, with the increased focus on safeguarding in Clause 30—although, as I said in relation to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I regret the extent of detail that is required in the Bill. Of course, we will probe in subsequent groups the balance between the clear right of parents to educate their children at home and the right of a child to receive a suitable education, but the principle of a local authority register for children not in school has very broad support.
My understanding is that the remaining amendments in this group are also all probing amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments relates to the purpose and scope of children not in school registers. As the first group in consideration of these clauses, it has, rightly, raised some broad issues of principle as well, so I will speak for slightly longer than I will, I hope, on subsequent groups to put some of the important principles on the record and, I hope, to begin to allay some of the concerns expressed.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the important points he raised. I want to address the principal points, as I say, before turning to other noble Lords’ amendments in this grouping. During today’s debate, we will hear much about parents’ rights, so I want to be clear up front again that parents already have and will continue to have a right to home-educate their children, in line with their preferences, values or religious beliefs. On some of the specific points that the noble Lord raised, we will give further consideration in Clause 36 to the nature of the places in which children are educated and whether they should be further inspected and regulated.
The noble Lord is right that we are attempting here to make sure that we know where children are and that they are seen. It is not about preventing them being educated elsewhere than in schools or necessarily seeing that as a risk. It is important that we do not, as some noble Lords have suggested, view the register as a statement that there is something illegitimate in the choices made by many parents to educate their children. It is about ensuring that every child, however, is seen. It is also important that we do not lose sight of parents’ responsibilities and children’s rights. The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Nash, made this point very well. Parental rights are not absolute. They must be able to be evidence to local authorities that education is suitable. That is the existing position and the Bill does not change it. Children not in school registers will help ensure that children’s right to a safe, suitable education is protected. It is the Government’s ambition that no child falls through the gaps in this respect. The information that we are asking parents to provide for the registers is underpinned by that very singular goal.
To be absolutely clear, the registers are not intended to drive a wedge between local authorities and parents. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords that positive engagement between parents and local authorities is essential. I also recognise the concerns of noble Lords that we are careful about the burdens and the process for gathering and recording information for the register. This is an area where looking at it in more detail with officials in my department may well help provide some assurance to noble Lords.
Information recorded on registers and shared with the department could increase transparency and accountability; for example, by improving our understanding of reasons for home education and local authority practices. Why people choose to home-educate and accountability for local authorities are both important.
I understand that data protection is a concern for many and we take it very seriously, including our data protection obligations. We are committed to high standards of information security, privacy and transparency. All data will be processed only for a specific purpose, which in this case is regarding a child’s education, welfare or safeguarding. Local authorities will also be subject to the UK GDPR as the domain data controllers. We will talk in more detail about the nature of the information collected and its use in some later groups.
I will now move on to address in more detail other points that have been raised by noble Lords, beginning with Amendment 226, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Tackling persistent absence and ensuring that we can trace and support children who are identified as missing school due to persistent absence is a very important part of our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity. I thank the noble Lord for raising this important issue. However, it is not necessary to set up a new system to track and trace these children. Schools are already required to return the information outlined in the noble Lord’s amendment to their local authority. Schools are also required to share information on attendance with the Secretary of State through the school census and the department’s daily attendance data collection. As outlined in the department’s statutory guidance Working Together to Improve School Attendance, local authorities are expected to use this information to identify attendance problems and to take appropriate action. Expectations include facilitating support for families where that is required, such as in the family courts.
Lord Wei (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but is it not the case that if a determined local authority objects to home-schooling, they could start a process of investigating a family under these powers and therefore, technically, the family would be under investigation and could be refused—and all parents could theoretically be prevented from doing so?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, and we will come to that in detail. The Section 47 provision, the child protection inquiries, would require evidence of significant harm to the child. It is not the case, as we have identified, that many parents who are home-educating would get anywhere near that sort of threshold. Nor would local authorities have any incentive to do that.
These provisions do not prohibit flexi-schooling arrangements. However, schools should agree to a flexi-schooling arrangement only in exceptional circumstances. We will update guidance to make this clear. In later groups we will be talking in more detail about the provisions around the consent process.
I turn to Amendment 286 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This is a probing amendment which would remove an exemption on the parental duty to provide information for registers. To be clear, the proposed exemption relates to children whose education is provided under alternative provision arrangements when special educational provision other than in schools is in place or where arrangements have been made by the proprietor of the school that the child is attending. These children may be in scope of the children not in school registers, but the local authority will already hold this information, so there is no need for a duty to provide information that rests with the parents in those cases.
Amendment 233A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, aims to push on what mandatory information local authority registers should contain. The only information required to be held on registers is that which is easily available to parents or obtainable by local authorities, and that is important for ascertaining the suitability of education and the safety of the child—such as the child’s name, their date of birth, address and details of education provided by the parent and others. We will talk on later groups about the way in which that information should be provided and the ease with which I hope it can be provided.
I turn now to Amendment 279, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, who made a strong case for the provisions in this legislation. His amendment aims to give local authorities the right to inspect the educational materials used by home educators and to view work that that child produces. Local authorities must consider a range of factors when assessing the suitability of a child’s education. One example of how they may conduct their inquiries into suitability is to request evidence of work samples. This position was confirmed in the Portsmouth judicial review case in 2021. If the local authority is not satisfied that the education is suitable based on the information received, it must usually serve a school attendance order, which requires the child to be enrolled at a school.
I turn to the Clause 31 stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I hope the noble Lord was satisfied by my first speech on this group but, to summarise succinctly, we need an effective registration system so that local authorities can identify all children not in school and ensure that they are receiving suitable education and are safe. This is what Clause 31 will achieve.
The stand part notice tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to remove Clause 34 from the Bill. Clause 34 allows for statutory guidance to be provided to local authorities on how they should carry out their new duties in relation to the school attendance order process and children not in school registers. This guidance will provide local authorities with advice on how to exercise their new powers and responsibilities proportionately and consistently. For example, we would expect it to include further advice on how local authorities should request and conduct home visits.
As part of the implementation of the Bill, we will consult on the guidance to ensure that we hear from stakeholders that the measures will have an impact. It is necessary that the guidance is statutory to help ensure compliance with the advice within it. There will be considerable opportunity for further engagement on the details of that; the House will have the opportunity to consider it, because it will be subject to the affirmative resolution process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made points on why all children need to be included on registers. To reiterate, we agree that home education is not in itself a safeguarding risk, but it can mean that children slip under the radar of the services that are there to protect them. Our consent measures are a proportionate solution which, as I have said, focuses on the small but important group of children for whom there are concerns about actual or likely significant harm. We will further discuss these issues later. The registers are about helping local authorities to discharge their existing duties to ensure that children are receiving a safe and suitable education.
Finally, with respect to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, about the child rights impact and the relationship with Wales, there is, to be clear, a child rights impact assessment produced by the Government for this piece of legislation, but Wales wanted to produce its own. That is the reason for the situation that the noble Baroness outlined.
For the reasons that I have outlined, and given the extensive discussions we have had as a forerunner for the further discussions that we will have, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments or stand part notices.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, if I might pick up the Minister on a couple of small issues, could she first confirm to the House that we will see a form of registration that will include every child? I thought that that was where we were going in Clause 4. She seemed to be talking about a register that includes only bits and pieces. In order for the local authority to know that it is not missing a child, can it use the provisions in Clause 4 and whatever comes out of that to connect to, as my noble friend said, what is going on in the benefits system and the NHS, in order to know that every child is in the system somewhere and to pick up cases where children are not being registered and seen?
Secondly, when it comes to flexi-schooling, is not the school absolutely in the best position to evaluate whether a child is receiving a proper education as a whole? A school has the power to discontinue flexi-schooling if that is not the case. Why do we want to insert a local authority official into a process when the school is in much the best place to take those decisions?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
If I have understood the noble Lord’s first point, it relates to whether the information-sharing provisions within this legislation will support the ability of local authorities to be able to track, so that they can ensure that children do not fall through the gaps. Of course that would be the case, but that in itself does not remove the requirement to ensure that, as he said, local authorities have information about where all children are receiving their education. The noble Lord is right that the intention of these clauses is that, obviously, if a child is receiving their education in school, it is clear and they are seen, but if they are not receiving their education in school for whatever reason, it is important that they are seen. The intention is that those are the children who should be included in the register of children not in school.
I take the noble Lord’s point about flexi-schooling, but it is possible to envisage, as I suggested, models of flexi-schooling where children are receiving part of their schooling at a school where they are registered and on the roll but are not receiving all of their schooling there. Therefore, the explanation of why they should be included in the register of children not in school is in order to have sight of the other part of their schooling. The other point that I made was that that would not necessarily require parents to provide additional information, because it may well be that the information about where that education provision is happening is known by the school. There is a range of different flexi-schooling arrangements and it is important that, in line with the helpful principle that the noble Lord set out at the beginning, we are able to see children and to see the education that they are receiving.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this discussion. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her support on the flexi-schooling amendments and the Minister for her response and her comprehensive statement earlier in the debate, which was helpful. The brief discussion that we have just had on flexi-schooling illustrates exactly the sort of point that is perhaps better discussed in one of those August meetings than now on the Floor of your Lordships’ House.
I will not detain noble Lords further. We have had a much fuller debate than perhaps I expected and I might have spoken at greater length at the start if I had known quite how large a debate we would have. I take this opportunity nevertheless to associate myself with the comments of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Wei on the principles of this discussion.
School Libraries
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(6 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Index on Censorship survey which found that 53 per cent of school librarians reported being asked to remove books from their shelves.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, no authors, books or genres have been banned by the Government. Schools make their own choices about which specific books or other resources they use within the framework of the national curriculum. We trust the judgment of schools and teachers in their choice of books, and it is for individual schools to decide how best to provide and maintain a library service for their pupils and which books to stock.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. This is an issue essentially about intellectual freedom and opposing censorship. The School Library Association believes that it is a symptom of the more polarised society in which we live today, but their members are on the front line. My noble friend is absolutely right: of course it is for schools to decide what to have in their libraries, but a balanced choice of books surely enables children to develop relationships with people who are perhaps from different backgrounds and to understand those who have different beliefs or opinions from theirs. Almost all examples of schoolbooks being withdrawn from libraries followed complaints about LGBTQ content. In her dual roles as Education Minister and Equalities Minister, will my noble friend ask the DfE to begin collecting information on instances when school libraries have been put under pressure to censor their collections?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point about the power of books and reading to enable children—in fact, all of us—not only to recognise the world in which we live but to have our horizons expanded. The Index on Censorship survey was an important but relatively small survey. I understand my noble friend’s point and recognise the important advice provided by the School Library Association, as well as the Government’s reading framework, on how to develop good-quality school libraries. However, it has been the decision of subsequent Governments not to collect the sort of data that my noble friend is asking for, partly because of burdens and partly to allow schools the autonomy to make decisions about how they stock their libraries. I strongly endorse my noble friend’s initial point about the benefits to children from reading and enjoying a broad range of books.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, in talking about this example of over 50% of books being withdrawn, I wonder whether the Minister is concerned that there might be a case of schools feeling intimidated and having the knee-jerk reaction to withdraw the books without thinking it through. I am surprised that there is no thought of giving any guidance to schools about how they might react.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
To clarify, I think the survey showed not that 50% of books were withdrawn but that in 50% of cases there was pressure to withdraw books—pressure that might have come to fruition. As I previously said, there is important guidance for schools from the School Library Association and through the Government’s reading framework to support them in developing their libraries and the other ways in which they make books available to children. Of course we support schools in making the right decision for the education and broadening of horizons of children and in making sure that all children’s lives and families are represented in the books they have the opportunity to read in their libraries.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister share the view, consistent with the Government’s wider commitment to freedom of speech, that students should be trusted to engage with challenging material rather than being shielded from it through library censorship? What skills might teachers need to support children to disagree well through that challenging material?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. It is part of the role of reading to challenge us and broaden our horizons, as I have said, and it is part of the skill of teaching for teachers to support, through the way they teach about reading and books, the ability for students to be able to critically assess what they are reading. Those are really important parts of our schools and something we should be proud of and defend.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, although I am completely opposed to book banning, does the Minister agree that it is not censorship when parents raise safeguarding concerns about age-inappropriate books that tell children that, for example, there are 100 genders, or they are born in the wrong body, or books featuring double-mastectomy scars positively, or a book for three to seven year-olds entitled She’s My Dad? Conversely, will the Minister agree to read the new report by SEEN in Publishing and Sex Matters, Everyday Cancellation in Publishing, which features the censorship of gender-critical children’s writers such as the award-winning poet Rachel Rooney, who lost her career when her picture book My Body is Me! was smeared as transphobic?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness consistently argues for freedom of speech and the opportunity for people to engage with a whole range of different arguments and views. It is important that that is represented in our school libraries. On the point about whether or not books in libraries are age appropriate, the point about the school library is that it almost certainly includes books for the whole age range within that school, so it is difficult to argue that books may or may not be age appropriate. The noble Baroness has also identified the way in which censorship limits our ability, and children’s ability, to engage in arguments. That is something that, while working closely with parents on what is being provided in schools, we should aim to safeguard in our schools.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister said, this survey was based on a very small number—under 100—of our 22,500 schools, so she is right to be cautious about the conclusions one can draw. Can she say something about the timing of the Government’s publication of the new RSHE guidance? The bigger issue is that parents do not feel confident that they know what their children are being taught in this area. The consultation closed a year ago. In March, the Minister said that the Government were taking their time to get this right. I wonder how long parents will have to wait.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It will be important to ensure that the RSHE guidance, which of course the previous Government also took a very long time to consider, is appropriate and provides the right guidance for schools and parents. To be clear on this, schools should ensure that parents are able to view on request all curriculum materials used to teach RSHE. We are currently reviewing the RSHE statutory guidance. We are doing that in a way that ensures that we provide appropriate guidance for schools and consider the safeguarding of children and the appropriateness of their education at all stages. We will publish this guidance soon.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, with one in four children leaving primary school without the appropriate levels of literacy does the Minister agree that the most important thing we should be doing is giving children a love of books? Was Einstein not right when he said that if you want your child to be a genius, read to them? Would that not be good advice to give, particularly to fathers up and down this land? As a child, my demobbed father, who was a Desert Rat, took me on the back of his bicycle every Saturday morning to get two books from the public lending library. I have always been extremely grateful to him.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My dad did the same, and I have always been extremely grateful to him for that. The noble Lord is right that the first people who can encourage children to love books are their parents. That is why, through the family support and the Best Start for Life information that we provide to parents, ways of engaging at home with your children and books is a very important part of that. Then that love of books in the widest possible sense needs to be continued in school, and that is what this Government will support.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, in September 2020, the Government issued an order to English schools that:
“Schools should not under any circumstances use resources produced by organisations”
which have expressed a desire to end capitalism. As a result, students cannot easily study the history of the working class, trade unions and emergence of social rights and marginalised groups. When will the Minister withdraw that order?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
In citizenship, RSHE, maths, economics and history classes throughout this country, children are learning about all the things that my noble friend just mentioned, so whether or not this guidance was issued in the way in which he said it has not impacted on the breadth of learning that children are able to do.
Independent Schools: Tax Changes
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lexden and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper. I declare my own interest as chairman of governors of Brentwood School and president of the Boarding Schools’ Association.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government published impact notes on the anticipated impact of the VAT and business rates changes affecting private schools. We monitor the impact on the sector and published details of pupil numbers in June 2025. A drop in numbers was expected following these changes and due to other factors, such as demographic decline. The full impact is expected to be realised over several years. Overall, private school pupil numbers remain higher than in 2020, then a record high.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, documents released during legal action against the Government over the imposition of VAT midway through the academic year revealed that Ministers were warned by officials that theirs would be the most disruptive option for the implementation of this vindictive policy. Why did they callously ignore that advice? Ministers were also consistently warned by the sector that their assessment that there would be hardly any impact on independent schools was ludicrously optimistic. Now, the DfE’s own statistics show a drop of 11,000 in independent school numbers, four times that predicted by the Government, with boarding schools hit twice as hard. Is the Minister not ashamed of the Government’s appalling failure to listen to advice? Will she say sorry to the schools that have inevitably closed, to the people who have lost their jobs and, above all, to those students whose lives have been so cruelly disrupted?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, because I am proud that this Government are prioritising investment in the 93% of our children who attend state schools. On the point about the legal action that the noble Lord started his question with, that was a legal case won by the Government. It was found that the Government had not, as was asserted during the debates on this, acted in contradiction to human rights legislation.
On the final point about the numbers, the Government always said that they thought there would be an increase in the numbers of children potentially coming into state schools. That has been around 3,000, which is exactly in keeping with what the Government said at the time of introducing this legislation.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the last Tory Government cut school budgets for 93% of pupils, let our schools run down and end up in a bad state of repair and refused to pay our teachers a proper wage to work in our schools, and yet they have the cheek to worry about a few people in private schools. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this Government worry about people in all schools. My noble friend is right that as a Government we have a job to put right some of the underinvestment of the last Conservative Government and to deliver our pledge to ensure that there are 6,500 new specialist teachers in secondary and special schools. That is what we are focused on, and that is what we will be investing in.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, one of the welcome moves from private schools over recent years has been the extension of their facilities, cultural and sporting, to state schools. Have the Government made any assessment of the outcome for the state sector if they feel financially unable to continue with that?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Of course, it is a good thing if private schools ensure that their facilities are on some occasions open to other people, not least because quite often—and certainly in the case of the town I live in—they occupy an enormously large part of the town. For schools with charitable status, it is in line with that that they demonstrate public benefit to retain it, and engaging in partnership activities with state-funded schools is one way in which they can do that. I hope that will continue for private schools.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, if we look at certain specialist sectors—that is, those which provide support for those with special educational needs—where the private sector has picked up a lot of the slack, and indeed the Government have paid for those places, are we finding out that people are now going and taking up the education, health and care plans, because you have to have money and understanding to get them quickly, as opposed to paying the fees directly themselves?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Where a pupil is eligible to have an education, health and care plan and that has allocated them a place in a private school, of course the impact of VAT on those schools will not be felt by those particular students. I think the noble Lord is also making a wider point about the need to ensure that we reform the special educational needs and disabilities system, which has forced too many parents to try to seek support elsewhere when that high-quality education and support for their children should have been available in our state schools. That is what the Government are determined to deliver.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, yesterday the oldest independent prep school in my home city of Leeds, Moorlands, announced its closure after 127 years. Twelve days ago, the renowned Queen Margaret’s School in York, which has been educating girls for 125 years, said that it will close on 5 July, three days before another Yorkshire landmark, Fulneck in Pudsey, which opened in 1753. All three cited increased running costs, with both Moorlands and Queen Margaret’s specifically referring to VAT, increased national insurance and the removal of business rates relief as reasons for closure. Like me, the Minister was educated in the state sector, but will she now apologise to governors, staff, parents and, above all, students in many fine schools across the country facing closure for the damage, disruption and distress being caused by this Government’s cruel policies?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, I will not, because once again I emphasise that this was a decision made by the Government in order to be able to invest in the over 93% of our children who are educated in state schools. On the point about school closures, yes, every closure of a school is sad; I can understand why people will be distressed if their school closes. I note, however, that it has always been the case that approximately 50 mainstream private schools close each year and that in fact 79 private schools opened in the last year, whereas on average that has been 75 per year in the last 10 years.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend say a little more about what is happening to school rolls? Is it not a fact that, because of the declining birth rate, rolls are falling generally and there are state schools closing because of falling rolls, as well as private schools?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right about that. In fact, as of May 2024, 84% of primary schools and 76% of secondary schools had one unfilled place or more. I know that people have been concerned about whether there would be an impact on state schools and the ability of parents to gain their first choice. I am pleased, therefore, that the latest data shows that there has been no change in the percentage of children getting their first choice of school. The rate of children getting a place at one of their preferred primary schools is the second highest on record, and it is the highest since 2016 for those going into secondary school. At the same time, we have seen primary class sizes falling.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has twice said that the Government are focused on investing in the 93% of children who go to state schools, but on 11 June the Prime Minister wrote on X:
“In the budget last year, my government made the tough but fair decision to apply VAT to private schools … Today, because of that choice, we have announced the largest investment in affordable housing in a generation”.
So is it housing or is it teachers? Maybe the Minister can clarify.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We have also, of course, announced in the most recent spending review a considerable increase in the funding available to our schools, a real-terms increase over the period of that spending review. On the point about delivering the 6,500 new teachers, we are already making progress on that, because we were willing to agree the 5.5% pay award for last year and the 4% pay award for this year, and because we were willing to drive forward teacher recruitment and retention, backed by an investment of around £700 million across schools and further education, including additional money for the initial teacher training financial incentives package and to streamline routes into teaching, such as the postgraduate apprenticeship route. That is why we have already seen 2,346 more full-time equivalent teachers in secondary and special schools. That is the difference that Labour decisions and Labour investment make.
Young People: Sporting Activities
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moynihan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is the timeline and budget to deliver the Prime Minister’s commitment made at his meeting with the Lionesses football team on 19 June to ensure young people have equal access to high-quality sport and extra-curricular activities.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, we are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and supporting more children to access high-quality PE and sport. The new commitment, outlined by the Prime Minister as he wished the Lionesses good luck in their future tournament, is to create links between schools, local clubs and national governing bodies of sport to help deliver this. We are working with the school and sports sectors to design the partnerships. Further details, including funding, will be outlined in due course. Following a commercial process, we expect these partnerships to be in place from autumn 2026.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
The announcement by the Prime Minister that every child across the country will be given equal access to high-quality PE and sport, as the Government have indicated, will be welcomed across all sides of the House. However, in view of the fact that some 3.9 million children—an increase this year to nearly 40% of our schoolchildren—do not meet even the Chief Medical Officer’s basic recommendation for daily physical activity, let alone have access to high-quality PE, and given the Government’s 15% cut to DCMS’s administration budget by 2030 in the spending review and their plan to remove Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee in the planning process, leading to Sport England’s view that this will have a negative impact on physical activity with the loss of yet more school playing fields, does the Minister agree that a clearly costed, additional multi-billion pound budget will be essential to avoid falling massively short of the delivery of the Prime Minister’s laudable aspirations?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Of course it is important that there is a fully funded and costed programme, but when we talk about the facilities that are so important for enabling young people—in fact, all people—to engage in sport, I point the noble Lord to the increased capital investment in schools announced as part of the spending review, part of which can be used for maintaining their facilities, and DCMS’s announcement of an additional £400 million for community sports facilities. It is also important that where we have strong local clubs and national governing bodies—which are, to give them their due, providing lots of opportunities for young people—we also need something to bring those things together to ensure that, however much investment we make in the system, we maximise it for children to be able to benefit. That is the intention of the new partnership.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when, a good few years ago now, all three major parties looked at sports policy, we all said that there should be a link with clubs. We also all said that there had to be a mix of options available to make sure people find something they will enjoy or stand a chance at. Will the Government commit that they will not create unique monocultures for sport but that people will have options? Some people will be hockey players, some people rugby players, many people will be soccer players, netball players, et cetera. Making sure that everybody has an option is very important, otherwise this will merely repeat some of the failures of the past.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point: activity is important, but not every young person will want to do the same sport. Although, as we can see with the Lionesses, football has arguably become much more popular for girls, the focus has quite often been on traditional sports. This has meant that girls, for example, have not necessarily found the things that they would like to do to keep active. I can absolutely commit that it will be part of the Government’s intention, both through this partnership and more broadly, to ensure that there is a range of opportunities to enable everybody to find sport and activity that they enjoy, and to keep healthy.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say what specific action the Government are taking to close the ethnicity gap with children in sport? Even within different ethnic groups, children access different types of sports. Addressing this gap will help with integration and community cohesion.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. It partly relates to the extent to which we can provide a whole range of opportunities for people to engage in activity, and the way we use the new partnership arrangements locally to see what sort of provision is available and how we can link schools more easily to that local provision, which may well come from and be promoted by different parts of the community. This must be an approach that ensures everybody has the opportunity to benefit from the obvious advantages that come from being more active and taking part in sport.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, for many years now, schoolchildren have been losing access to swimming pools; pool time has been in decline. That is clearly not the fault of the present Government. However, we are where we are. We need to stop that decline and reverse it so that schoolchildren increasingly have access to pools, not just to create the champions of the future but to save lives, because swimming is the one sport that might make a difference between living and dying.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. That is why it is a key part of the national curriculum that children should be able to swim before the age of 11. It is why the ongoing commitment to the primary PE and sport premium, which is funded for the next academic year at £320 million, can also be—and has been—used to ensure that there is access to swimming facilities and water safety in the way my noble friend outlined. We also need to ensure that local authorities recognise the importance of swimming pools so that everybody can benefit.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s investment of £100 million to upgrade sports facilities and improve access to sport for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. However, noble Lords will be aware of other significant disparities that persist across demographics relating to participation in sport and extracurricular activities. These include disparities relating to race and gender, as well as stubborn socioeconomic and regional inequalities. How do the Government plan to level the playing field regionally to enable the most underrepresented groups to participate more fully in sport?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is right to recognise the importance, and the possibility, of engaging children with special educational needs and disabilities in sport and PE. That is why the Government have approved a grant of £300,000 a year for up to three years to increase and improve opportunities for pupils with SEND by identifying where there is already good practice and sharing it more widely. As I suggested, that needs to be an important element of what happens with the new partnerships to ensure that links are made between partners so that everybody, regardless of their background, can get the benefits that can come from sport and activity.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, according to modelling by the Royal Society for Public Health that came out yesterday, rates of overweight or obese children will rise in 90% of local authority areas in the next decade. Separately, approximately one in five children and young people aged eight to 25 currently experiences a probable mental health disorder. It is a proven fact that sport, physical exercise and good diet help with these issues, so does the Minister agree that the various cross-party amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill relating to nutritious food and increased physical education should be accepted?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Given that we are about to go on to day eight in Committee on the Bill, I look forward to that discussion and debate. The noble Earl is, of course, right to identify the benefits of sport and activity to ensure young people remain healthy, both physically and mentally. That is why, without waiting for the Bill and the amendments he outlined, we are already making progress to support sports activity in schools. More broadly, through the work of my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, we are ensuring that grass-roots sports facilities are provided as well. I look forward to the debate that the noble Earl mentioned.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I was fortunate enough to sit on the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee with the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington, and a number of other noble Lords. We learned of the remarkable lack of access to secondary school playing fields after school hours, particularly for local school clubs. It seemed to us that that was merely a lack of support for man hours and staffing. What are the Government doing to increase access to the few remaining secondary school playing fields?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Let us be clear: it is not true that there are only a few remaining secondary school playing fields. However, the noble Earl makes a really important point that, where a facility is provided for a school to use during the school day, we should work harder to ensure it is available for communities to use. This is alongside the additional investment the Government are putting in anyway to ensure that there are grass-roots and community sports facilities.
Music and Dance Scheme
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, improved access to the arts is important for all young people, which is why the Government are committed to continuing to fund the music and dance scheme, including the centres for advanced training, in the academic year 2025-26. The bursary support will continue for the more than 2,000 students benefiting from it, and at the same rate. It will remain means tested, so that it is targeted towards supporting students from lower-income families.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. I, too, welcome that DfE has confirmed the continued funding for bursaries, at least for 2025-26. However, there is no commitment beyond 2026 and DfE did cut the outreach funding for the schemes earlier this year. Can my noble friend tell me what steps the Government will take to ensure that young people from rural or economically disadvantaged areas continue to have equal access to dance training, given that short-term funding cycles create instability in delivery, and that outreach funding has already been cut?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Government will launch a new centre for arts and music education to take forward the ambitions, which my noble friend rightly asks of us, for improved and more equitable arts education in state-funded schools, including a focus on dance. The music and dance scheme is a long-standing programme and the department will consider future funding in due course. Tough decisions have had to be made to get our finances back under control, including, as my noble friend identifies, on additional funding that was made available to dance outreach. Nevertheless, all eligible MDS students for dance have continued to receive bursaries.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s continued support of MDS and the national centres, and the recognition of their vital role in opening up dance careers to diverse talent. However, does the Minister share my concern that too many children will never know whether they have a talent for dance? Despite dance being a statutory part of the national curriculum, one-third of primary schools are reported not to teach it, and its place within PE means that teachers often do not have the confidence or skill set to deliver that teaching. What steps are the Government taking to improve the place of dance teaching within schools, and will they consider a national plan for dance education or a model dance curriculum, akin to those that exist for music?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that dance is part of the national curriculum for PE, which is part of the entitlement for children in all the first three key stages. I recognise her point about ensuring not only that it exists in the curriculum but that it is of high quality as well. I will bear in mind her point about how we can ensure, as we recruit additional teachers into our schools, that we have the specialist teachers with expertise in dance to be able to deliver it.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a governor of a specialist music school. As the Minister will be aware, the MDS covers music schools as well as dance schemes. Is she aware of the uncertainty and damage caused to parents trying to decide whether they can send their children to these schools, as well as the threat to the viability of these schools, if there is no certainty about future funding? When she talks about a new centre, could she clarify whether this is being considered as an alternative to the MDS? The MDS is vital to the future of many of these very specialist but highly prized schools.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord recognises that I recognise the contribution the MDS makes, and particularly the way it enables children who otherwise would not be able to afford this type of education to afford it. As I pointed out, it is longstanding and the Government have made a commitment to it this year, including to the bursaries that are necessary for those young people to benefit from it. We will make further announcements about this in the future. Sadly, given the way that funding decisions and budget planning go, it is not that unusual for there not to be a longer-term commitment to something. But, so far, the Government’s commitment to this has been right and appropriate, given the contribution that it makes.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Government take the opportunity to let us know whether they will at least upgrade the grants they are talking about in future? If you leave them stationary, they will very rapidly become token gestures. Can the Government represent their long-term planning by saying they will upgrade the support they are giving to people on this particular scheme?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Government have maintained a commitment to providing generous support to help students to access the specialist music and dance education and training that this scheme funds, committing £36 million for this academic year. That means that all families below average relevant income of £45,000 per annum will continue to benefit from additional financial support in the next academic year. The Government were able to upgrade the contribution made through the music and dance scheme bursary, for example to ensure that all families were unaffected financially by the VAT change in January 2025. I think the noble Lord is trying a different way to get me to commit future funding to this scheme, at a point at which, as I have already identified, it is not possible for me to do so.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, now that we hear the good news that the Government have agreed to extend bursary funding for the music and dance scheme, including the National Centres for Advanced Training in Dance programme, will the Minister be able to help facilitate an open dialogue with these providers to ensure that there is a strong voice for dance education in informing decision-making, including going forward, and the new national arts and music centre that my noble friend referred to, enabling providers to shape a programme based on expertise and the rich data they hold?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. There is an enormous amount of expertise in the schools supported by the music and dance scheme, as there is in other parts of the system. The priority here has to be to bring in as many different organisations and voices as possible, in order to design the national centre for arts and music in a way that delivers the objective of broader and more equitable access to arts education in state-funded schools. That will need lots of voices, lots of contribution, and of course the ambition that the Government have already put into it.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, please allow me to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, in her role as executive chair of the Centre for Young Lives:
“Creativity and the expressive arts should be part and parcel of every child’s education from primary school”.
Please also allow me to quote the Prime Minister:
“Every young person should have access to music, art, design and drama. That is our mission”.
Perhaps the Minister can help us understand why Ed Sheeran, backed by Elton John, Eric Clapton and hundreds of other artists, wrote to the Prime Minister just three months ago to say:
“The time to act is now. State schools … have seen a … decrease in music provision … How many more venues need to close, how many music programs need to be cut before we realise that we can’t just celebrate success, we have to protect the foundations that make it?”
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well, I do agree with the words of my noble friend Lady Longfield. I am sure that she, like me, is dismayed at, for example, the big fall-off in young people able to take GCSEs in those subjects over the period of time that the noble Lord was in government, and that she is dismayed about, as the noble Baroness said, the numbers of teachers that we are losing in this particular area. This Government have a commitment, not only through the national centre for arts and music education but through our investment in our schools and teachers, and our commitment to a new national curriculum available for all schools, and an entitlement for all children. I only wish the last Government had been as committed.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lady Bull, how is the overall effectiveness of the music and dance scheme assessed? Clearly it is a great scheme, but is it possible that there are talented students who need support who may still be missing out, and, if so, how might this be assessed and rectified?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The music and dance scheme has a particular function to play in enabling very talented young people who would not otherwise be able to access the really excellent education provided by the schools in this scheme. But it would therefore be right to say that, of course, there will always potentially be other children and young people who could have benefited from this type of education. That is why we need a broader approach, as is manifest through the proposal for the national centre for arts and music education, to ensure that we are widening the opportunities for all young people to get to that position of excellence where they can benefit from the music and dance scheme.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate. As we begin, it is probably worth while identifying that the amendments fall into three related but distinct areas: the use of and regulation of social media, the impacts of screen time, and the proposals for the use of mobile phones in schools. I will respond to the specifics of the amendments. There were times during the debate when, while I recognise the linkages between them, those issues were conflated, which will not necessarily help us to develop clear policy.
In starting, I wholeheartedly agree with noble Lords that parenting is hard. It was before mobile phones, but the point about the ubiquity of screens made by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, makes this even more significant. We are talking about long-standing issues for young people around behaviour, cognitive development, bullying, lack of exercise, mental health, extremism and radicalisation, and crime. I accept some of the arguments about that, but I say in response to my noble friend Lady Morris that, if I remember rightly, these were all issues we were exercised about when we were in the now Department for Education before the era of mobile phones.
That is to say not that this is not a serious issue, but that there is rarely one easy solution to these problems. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friends Lord Knight and Lady Morris that straightforward bans are rarely the solution. I emphasise in responding to these amendments that we need a multifaceted policy response, and that is what the Government are pursuing. We will continue to do what is needed to keep children safe online and when using devices with screens.
We recently published our response to the Education Select Committee report on screen time, which further sets out the Government’s positions on these issues. It is not in fact true that the Government are not doing anything on this whole range of areas—and that goes for the previous Government as well as this one.
Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, would require the Government to introduce regulations about social media access for under-16 year-olds and to commission advice for parents. I am surprised that we have had just one mention of the Online Safety Act in this debate. That Act is the first step in delivering a more positive, safer online environment for children where they are protected from online harms. As of March this year, the Act’s illegal content duties are in force, meaning that children are already protected from illegal content and criminal activity. Additionally, as of April, Ofcom published its draft child safety codes, which have been laid before Parliament. Subject to passing parliamentary scrutiny, they are expected to be in force next month. Services will shortly be required to put in place measures to mitigate risks they have identified, in order to protect children from harm once the codes are in force.
This is not to say—my noble friend Lord Knight was the one person who mentioned the Act—that there will not be a need for us to scrutinise this carefully in the future and to take further action. But it is right that we focus on what this House and the other House considered during the passage of the Online Safety Act, as a first step.
There has also been important debate about where the evidence leads us. There is certainly an enormous amount of evidence in this area but, overall, the scientific evidence on the impacts of social media and screen time on children and young people is mixed, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, says. There is no clear scientific consensus on a negative impact from screen time and social media use on the mental health and neurological or functional development of children and young people. There is a large amount of discussion in this area whereby correlation is confused with causality, but that brings upon government a responsibility to build the evidence base, which is what we are doing. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is commissioning a systematic review to understand the impact of smartphones and social media on children’s well-being, which is being led by the University of Cambridge and a wider consortium of experts and academics. The Government will publish the results of that in due course.
We are also monitoring and learning from wider developments internationally, including in Australia, to share evidence and learn from each other’s experiences. In supporting parents, we have also funded further guidance and support including through Parent Zone. Further research exploring the relationship between social media and child health and how it might be mediated is welcomed, and departmental policies—and the whole Government—will remain agile in light of this emerging evidence base.
We recognise that screen time needs to be proportionate. We do not want screen time to displace beneficial opportunities to socialise face to face and to take part in physical activities. The section of the UK Chief Medical Officer’s report on advice for parents and carers encouraged them to agree with children and young people boundaries, both in and outside school, around online behaviours and time spent using screens.
Amendments 183CA and 183CB, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, seek to update the early years foundation stage statutory framework and ensure the delivery of a public information campaign on the use of screens by children aged nought to five. I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Baroness was saying. It is clear, both for parents of young children and for providers of early years education, that the right framework, proper information and access for both providers and parents is important.
Once more, the Government are not standing by but taking action. The early years foundation stage statutory framework, which was updated last year, has a requirement for safeguarding policies to include how mobile phones, cameras and other electronic devices with imaging and sharing capabilities are used in the setting. It signposts guidance that covers the risks that children in early years settings could be exposed to by using those devices. In September 2025, we will introduce changes to the safeguarding requirements of the early years foundation stage. These were consulted on in 2025, and the changes include a requirement for designated safeguarding leads to have training covering how to ensure internet safety. The safety of our youngest children is our utmost priority, and we continually monitor and review early years safeguarding requirements and guidance.
The “help for early years providers” internet safety guidance was updated in January 2025, following a discussion with the digital standards for early years action group. The guidance highlights both the benefits and challenges of device usage, that devices should be used in settings as a tool to support children’s learning and development, and that sedentary screen time should be avoided.
There are several further resources that parents and providers can turn to, and I very much take the point about ensuring that information for parents is as clear and accessible as possible. That is why we recently updated the Better Health Start for Life website, which provides trusted advice to care providers of children aged nought to five and support for parents. The World Health Organization also provides guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep for children under five years of age, with recommendations on limiting screen time. The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, made the very reasonable challenge that we need to keep ensuring that that information is accessible to parents and to those delivering early years provision. I undertake to continue discussions with the department about how we can ensure that not only now but in the future.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Presumably, all the countries that have introduced mobile phone bans in schools have found ways around this. It cannot be beyond the wit of the Government to find a way through this.
I also wondered whether the Minister was going to comment—perhaps she will come on to this—on the power of the social media companies. In her remarks so far, she has come up with what were, in a former life, perfectly respectable and effective solutions, such as that parents should set boundaries with their children. But we, as parents or grandparents, are now competing with social media companies that have a great deal of power and expertise to disrupt all those good 20th century-type responses.
Lastly, I wonder whether she feels that the figures she gave on schools adopting phone restrictions tie in with the evidence from Teacher Tapp about the level of disruption in lessons that my noble friend referred to.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On the point about regulation, the reason why I started by referring to the Online Safety Act was precisely to identify the need that was manifest in a piece of legislation that came through this House before my time but which presumably some noble Lords around the Chamber were engaged in and which was precisely about how to regulate the use of social media for children and young people. That legislation did not happen in the last century; it is literally only just on the statute books. I was making the case that it is important, and that it is right for the Government to ensure that it is working properly as a first priority.
The issue of how we support schools to be able to have within them the type of calm behaviour that they need is, of course, absolutely crucial. In response to the question about when we will publish the survey on behaviour, it will be later this year. To come back to the point I made at the beginning, although I very much doubt that the only factor influencing behaviour within schools is mobile phones, everything that head teachers might need to put in place the restrictions on mobile phones that will, along with the other necessary things, enable them to have strong behaviour policies and practice, is, rightly, available to them in order for them to be able to ensure that that is happening.
Lastly, I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I have already said that I see the point of the exemption he has proposed. However, my point is that you have two routes here: the legislative route, which has already begun to be unravelled by the inclusion of a whole range of exemptions; or a positive set of guidelines for head teachers to use to design and develop, in consultation with parents, their staff and the young people in their schools, the appropriate policies for safeguarding children, protecting behaviour and delivering what individual schools need. At this point, the Government believe that the latter is the most appropriate way forward to ensure that children have the protection from mobile phones they need and in a way that recognises the flexibility that will be necessary.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Will the Minister give way? We had a debate a few months ago on this very subject and I visited the Fulham Boys School, which is a large all-male school with about 1,200 students, to speak at some length to the headmaster. That school has had a ban on phones for about 10 years. The issue is not about having a ban in school but, as the headmaster said very clearly, what happens outside the school. It does not matter what policies you have in place; they will not solve what young people are doing outside of school time. He said the biggest problem he has had in trying to tackle this issue has not been with the pupils themselves but the parents, some of whom are very challenging and regard it as an infringement of civil liberties that anybody should tell them what their children should or should not do.
The real problem is what happens outside the school. The school can have as many policies as it likes, but until and unless we find a way of influencing what happens outside the school—which, as I said, means getting to the young people, because they know themselves some of the harm being done, and perhaps through them getting to the parents to make them realise how their children feel—we will not start to tackle the psychology behind some of the problems we are confronted with.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I do note that I was coming to the end of my comments at 18 minutes—just so the Whips know I was sticking to the rules. The noble Lord tempts me to say that that was exactly the point I made at the beginning: there has been conflation in this debate of the use of mobile phones in schools, the impact of screen time across children’s lives—I can quite understand people’s concerns about that—and, as I have said, the need for us, at a very early stage in children’s lives, to be clear with them about the appropriate use of screens, which is probably practically none, and clear in the information that we provide to parents. The Government are taking action on all those areas, alongside gathering appropriate evidence. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The Minister is quite right to point out that the Online Safety Act did not get much of a mention: maybe it is some kind of PTSD, because some of us did hard yards during that difficult passage. One of the most difficult things was the debate on age verification for porn, which started with all the same arguments we have just heard: it is not technically possible; maybe children can learn by watching pornography; the moral rules around telling children what to do are not crystal clear; the science of whether porn is good for children is not cast in stone, and does not have the longitudinal studies that we need to make decisions on it. All that was heard.
At the end of next month, Ofcom will finally bring in a deadline so that all websites that carry a risk of children seeing porn will have to put in age-verification software. Who in this Chamber now genuinely thinks that was a bad decision? Yet it was fought tooth and nail from that Bench by the previous Government, who had to be dragged to that decision by rebellion in the Commons and a four corners of the Chamber effort here.
The Minister faces a similar storm brewing on social media use by under-16s. Could she, with her multidimensional approach to this problem, help us understand the metrics she will use to judge whether it is right to revisit this issue? How many hours a day do children have to spend on social media? How many predators have to get through? How many grooming gangs have to recruit children in order to abuse them? What metrics will she apply to reviewing this decision?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well, the noble Lord added considerably to his speech there. I did not use some of the arguments that he suggested were used in this Chamber about porn. I was not in this House so I do not know what arguments and debates went on. Nor did I suggest that there are not considerable issues around young people’s use of social media and the amount of their screen time. The noble Lord is very clear that he believes there should be a complete ban on social media for young people aged under 16. I do not know whether that carries a majority in this House, to be honest. Given that, it is important to demonstrate, as I attempted to do, the action that the Government are already taking to address all those issues, whether it is screen time, the impact of social media on young people, or mobile phones in schools. The Government are taking action on all of them, without necessarily thinking that there is one single silver bullet of a ban that can solve all those problems.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I will be brief. I really appreciate what the Minister said on early years. I think it goes a bit beyond safeguarding, but I will look really carefully at what she said. On the evidence point, she referred to the Children’s Commissioner’s work on the policies, but we need to know the effect of those policies. That is where the national behaviour study comes in. The Minister previously told me it was due in spring, but she said it would be later this year. It would be great to understand why there is a delay, if there is one. Could she be more specific about when we will see that study of what is going on in our schools? I will be happy for her to write.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
First, I said more than safeguarding; I hope she can go back and look at the record to see that. I was pretty sympathetic to the points she made, and I said much more than safeguarding. I share her frustration about when the survey will be published. That is all I can say about it.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords for their contributions. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Bethell for his contribution. I am just so sorry that we will perhaps not see him around this place for very much longer.
On the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran concerning the possession and use of smartphones in schools, as my noble friend Lady Penn said, it may be that 90% of schools have a policy, but, unless smartphones are physically not allowed in schools, bans will be ineffective. Teachers are reporting that children are going to the loo far more often; I see the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who is a teacher, nodding. Some schools use pouches, but the evidence is clear. As my noble friend Lady Barran said, if my smartphone is there, I will concentrate far less than if it is out of the room. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Agnew said, children are very ingenious. I am told there are ingenious methods of opening and closing these pouches by using magnets and various other methods.
On what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said about the consequences for any school or person who did not follow a ban if we passed this amendment to ban smartphones in schools, I do not think for a moment that we are talking about a criminal offence. Surely a duty would do.
I am highly sceptical about what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said about allowing smartphones in schools to teach their safe use. Children know far more about how to use these things than adults. They do not need to see a phone to be told what not to watch. Unless they cannot access social media, pornography or whatever because of age verification, they will watch it. That is what kids do.
On my noble friend Lady Penn’s amendment, which I support, I will make this point. Heads of primary schools have recently been alerted—I used that word advisedly, because none of them can tell me they were aware of any specific notification on this—to the fact that the reception baseline assessment, the RBA, will now require four year-olds to be tested using touch-screen devices, which, of course, they will have to familiarise themselves with before they take the tests. If we bring these screens into schools—
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept that that assessment—the procurement, analysis and evaluation of which started back in 2019—will be carried out alongside teachers, with the ability for teachers to use other methods with children where necessary? This is not something that children will use on their own, on screen.
Lord Nash (Con)
I understand that entirely. I understand that there will be two devices, on one of which the teacher will have to log the responses. The pupil will sometimes use a hard copy, but they will have to touch a screen for some of the tests. So we will be bringing these devices into primary schools, which will accept their existence for these ages. Goodness knows where this might go in primary schools without the kinds of amendments my noble friend Lady Penn is proposing.
The Government have entered into a £20 million contract with Made Tech Group plc to develop the relevant technology for the reception baseline assessment. The contract specifically states that
“the RBA will be the first service launched to schools in a wider suite of digital assessment tools”.
In other words, this is the thin end of the wedge. I hope the Government will reconsider this. I note what the Minister said about hoping that there is very little of this sort of thing in the early years.
I heard the Minister’s response to my Amendment 177. I listened carefully, and I am afraid that clauses and phrases such as “The Government will do what is needed to keep children safe online”, “Online Safety Act”, “scientific evidence mixed”, “correlation and causality”, “build the evidence base”, “publish results in due course”, “recommendations on limiting screen time” and “advice on sleep” do not fill me with any hope. All this sounds to me like statisticians wanting 100 years of evidence before they say the case is proven. The time is now. How much more evidence do we need? How much more damage do we need to see before we act?
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said about Ofcom, but social media companies are perfectly capable of implementing highly effective age limits if they want to. I am glad he was listening so carefully to what I said and noted some similarity between what I said today and what I said in the purpose clause debate, but I hope that when he checks Hansard he will see that there was quite a lot of new material there.
Concerning my Amendment 177 on banning social media before 16, there are clearly very strong feelings about this across the Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said. This is becoming a real issue for working families across the country, and I have no doubt that if it is not dealt with before the next election, it will be a big issue on the doorstep, as my noble friend Lord Bethell said. It is no secret that there is support for this not only in this House but across the Benches in the other place, including from a number of honourable Labour Members demonstrated by, for instance, Josh MacAlister’s Bill and other interventions. I urge the Minister to convene a meeting across the political spectrum to discuss how we can take this matter forward, and I ask her now, as a first step, whether she will kindly meet me very soon to discuss how we can take this forward. We may—indeed, we almost certainly will—look to bring this back on Report, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a good discussion on this third group of amendments about the important issue of ensuring that children get the very best start in life. This Government’s opportunity mission is a bold and necessary commitment to break the link between a child’s background and their future success. It begins where it matters most: in the early years.
We have heard quite a lot of discussion, along with some reminiscing and nostalgia, about the last Labour Government’s Sure Start scheme. Without rehearsing the reasons why we no longer have Sure Start, having once had it has at least demonstrated, through the evaluation that several noble Lords referenced, the considerable success of that model. Also, the process of setting up Sure Start under the last Labour Government at least provides us with some hope of and a road map to getting back its very important contributions—even if we do not, in the words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, completely reinstate it.
Amendment 183B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, seeks to publish a national strategy. As the noble Baroness said, this is a probing amendment and I hope I am going to be able to be encouraging about the national strategy. This Government firmly believe that children’s early years are crucial to their development, health and life chances. That is why we have set an ambition for a record proportion of children starting school to be ready to learn in the classroom. We will measure progress through 75% of children by 2028 reaching a good level of development in the early years foundation stage profile assessment at the end of reception. This is not just a statistic or a target—it is around 45,000 more children who will start school ready to learn, thrive and succeed. This measure has seen little progress in years, so it is ambitious—but as noble Lords across the Committee have said, it is ambitious because it needs to be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, suggested that nobody so far had mentioned the expansion of access to childcare, so I am going to mention it. The Government are already delivering on this commitment through the expansion of access to childcare with 30 funded hours for working parents from September, and we will be investing an additional £1.6 billion per year by 2028-29 to continue the expansion of government-funded childcare for working parents, boosting children’s life chances and work choices for their parents. Alongside that, we are creating 6,000 new nursery places in schools across the country, in the first wave of 300 school-based nurseries backed by £37 million. At the spending review, we announced almost £370 million of further funding to create tens of thousands of places in new and expanded school-based nurseries.
Secondly, we will work in partnership with the sector to drive up standards and improve the quality of early years provision. We recognise that early years professionals need more than just praise, although they are very praiseworthy; they need real, practical support. That means offering sustained professional development and working with providers to help spread evidence-based programmes as part of comprehensive plans to drive high-quality early education and care. Only by listening to the expertise and experience of those on the ground can we deliver this together.
Here, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, makes a really important point about the way in which we enable the early identification of those with specific learning difficulties in early years settings. On other occasions, I have talked from this Dispatch Box about some of the additional training and guidance that we are putting in place in early years provision to ensure that happens. I am sure the noble Baroness will quite rightly hold me to account for that in future years.
Improving reception year quality is also critical for setting children up for success in the rest of primary school. We genuinely hope and believe that the work we will put in place will enable children to arrive in school able to learn. As several noble Lords have pointed out, for some children it is not until they arrive at school that they have the structure and the support to enable them to have the skills and development necessary to be able to learn. That is why reception year is so critical. It is also why we have recently announced that for our RISE teams, one of the four universal service national priorities will be how we support reception years to improve. That will involve helping all schools to share best practice, to build partnerships and to drive improvement.
Thirdly, we are strengthening family services. Through family hubs and Start for Life programmes, we are building a joined-up system of support from pregnancy through early childhood. These hubs are already transforming lives in more than 500 communities, offering everything from parenting support to perinatal mental health care. At the spending review, the Chancellor committed to continuing to invest in and expand the family hubs programme.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and other noble Lords on the importance of a national strategy. I assure noble Lords who have said it is important to talk not only about progress but about how this will be brought together into a strategy that the Government have already committed to publishing a best start in life strategy. We expect to do it this year, and hopefully sooner than the end of the year. All noble Lords made the point about the need to ensure that this is a coherent and wide-ranging strategy to deliver on the strong target set by the Government.
I do not want to pre-empt the contents of the strategy, but I assure Peers that it will build on our commitment to improve children’s early outcomes and next steps on early years reform. It will also give a view about both how delivery will be achieved and how it will be monitored, implemented and reported. Parliament will be able to hold the Government to account on that commitment and the implementation of that strategy.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lady Stedman-Scott, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, have made an incredibly strong case for the importance of this amendment. As my noble friend Lady Coffey said, the Lords Public Services Committee has a live inquiry into this very important topic.
The statistics are stark, as we heard, with over a million children covered by child maintenance agreements but enforcement still not being effective enough and too many parents making no payments at all, paying irregularly or paying insufficient amounts. When I was running the domestic abuse charity SafeLives, non-payment of child maintenance was incredibly frequent and caused huge problems in the lives of children and their mothers. As other noble Lords have said, at its simplest, non-payment exacerbates either the risk of poverty or the actual poverty that so many single-parent families face. In cases of domestic abuse, non-payment was often used as a means of coercion and control over a mother and her child, raising the risk of harm to them both. The anxiety that this creates, and the pressure that this puts on a mother, directly impact the well-being of her child.
We also saw the longer-term impact, in physical and mental health problems for the child. The Institute for Public Policy Research has found that child maintenance currently lifts around 140,000 children out of poverty across the UK. Conversely, when payments are not made, the impact is devastating. Finally, we know that child maintenance is not just a private matter between separated parents but a fundamental determinant of a child’s well-being and future life chances. When maintenance payments fail, society bears the cost through increased demand on public services, educational support and healthcare interventions.
As my noble friend so simply and clearly put it, there are two pieces of legislation on the statute books that need to be commenced. I hope very much that the Minister will confirm that the Government plan to do that and that we can make progress on unlocking the £700 million that belongs to our children.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, managed to persuade those in a position to be persuaded that this amendment should have the opportunity to be discussed this evening. There is something refreshing about the idea of the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Stedman-Scott, rightly pursuing people who owe money for their children and who have that responsibility. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Sherlock and the current Secretary of State will be equally relentless in making sure that families are paying for the children for whom they have responsibility, and that is quite right.
I know from what the noble Baroness said that the intention of this amendment is to probe and push on the progress being made with each of the pieces of legislation that she talked about. I hope to provide some reassurance on that.
First, the powers within Section 34 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act enable debt owed to parents or the Secretary of State to be transferred to other parties, including debt collection agencies. This power was introduced as an option to deal with the £3.8 billion debt burden that had accrued under the former Child Support Agency. A proportion of that debt was owed directly to the Secretary of State, and I am assured that the issue of Child Support Agency debt has now been resolved. The Child Maintenance Service has strong and effective enforcement powers, including imposing prison sentences for non-payment.
On the specific point about debt collection agencies, there is no evidence that using debt collection agencies would actually secure more child maintenance than current enforcement powers. In fact, a previous trial absolutely demonstrated that, so there is no evidence that commencing this power would have a positive impact on children’s well-being.
Secondly, the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 introduced powers that, once commenced, would enable an administrative liability order to be made against a parent with outstanding child maintenance arrears. As the noble Baroness says, this introduces savings in court costs and time. I am pleased to confirm that progress is being made to implement the necessary legislation to bring this power into force as soon as possible. The Government are working with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunal Service and the Scottish Government to establish a process for implementing ALOs, and plan to introduce regulations to Parliament by the end of this year.
The Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 recognised that direct pay may not always be appropriate for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. The Act intended to provide them greater protection when using the Child Maintenance Service, by allowing them to move to the collect and pay service but only where there is evidence of domestic abuse. The Government recognise that removing opportunities to use the Child Maintenance Service to inflict economic abuse will benefit the well-being of children. However, many victims and survivors would be unable to provide that necessary evidence as required by the Act. For those who could, there are risks that providing evidence of their experience of abuse and reliving events could lead to further trauma.
That is why the Government today published our response to the consultation, Child Maintenance: Improving the Collection and Transfer of Payments. It sets out plans for reforms to introduce a service that protects all parents from financial abuse and, importantly, includes no requirement for victims and survivors to provide evidence of their circumstances. These reforms, therefore, go further than the provisions contained in the 2023 Act to protect victims and survivors of domestic abuse. They will have a positive impact on children and their well-being, as more child maintenance liabilities will be enforced, leading to more money going to children, which I know is the objective of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in moving this amendment.
I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance for the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment, although she has already identified that she has other ways to put pressure on the Government to ensure progress, and I have no doubt that she will continue to do so.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
In consideration of what the Minister has said, of which I am conscious of certain aspects, I am pleased, in particular, to hear that the Child Support (Enforcement) Act should come into effect by the end of the year. I will take up some of the other matters to which she referred directly with the responsible Minister. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 189 and 191 to 193 en bloc. I thank all noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions to this group thus far.
On the Thursday just past, we heard some excellent speeches in your Lordships’ House on the various issues relating to the provision of healthy, nutritious food in schools and the possibility of providing eligible children with free school meals and activities during the holidays. It is most opportune that we now have the ability constructively to challenge His Majesty’s Government around the base provision and right of those children eligible to take advantage of free school meals during term time.
Amendment 189 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Lister and Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to require the Secretary of State to review free school meal eligibility and pupil premium registration. It is absolutely correct that schools and local authorities should have complete and full data, and that those pupils who are eligible for free school meals actually take them up. They are clearly the pupils most likely to need free school meal provision. If His Majesty’s Government would please listen to the eminently sensible suggestions from other noble Lords last week, including those in this Committee right now, those meals will consist of healthy, nutritious food, with fruit, vegetables and low sugar levels in both food and drink. Healthy nutritious food and free school meals for every pupil eligible will hugely aid the learning and development of children in the UK.
Both Amendment 191 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett and Lady Lister, and Amendment 193 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Lister and Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seek to change the system of enrolment for free school meals so that there is auto-enrolment for all eligible families. It appears that difficulties can arise during the application process and, for some, the forms can be overly complicated, but it is crucial that eligible families are able to access this provision. We understand that changing the system in this way is far from straightforward, but some local authorities are investigating how to make such a system work, and our observation to the Minister is that this is surely worth fighting for. Ensuring that all pupils who should receive free school meals do indeed receive them would, we believe, be a top priority on every Bench of your Lordships’ House.
Amendment 192, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Lister, seeks to expand free school meals to all children in state-funded primary schools. While we agree that it is vital for all students to be able to access a healthy, nutritious meal at school, we suggest that this scheme would be potentially expensive to implement and that there could be a more efficient and appropriate allocation of resources and funding within school budgets. That is not to say that providing free school lunches for all primary school children in state-funded schools is a bad idea—in a perfect world, of course, it is a great idea—but we suggest that a detailed analysis is required of how much it would cost. Is it realistic to have some contribution from parents, even if small? What impact would it have on the other elements of school life if the school and the local authority had to find the funding without additional resource from His Majesty’s Government? These are just some of the questions we seek answers for from the Minister, and we look forward to hearing His Majesty’s Government’s response.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to free school meals and follow on, of course, from the interesting debate that we had last week on wider issues relating to school food. Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would extend the provision of free school meals to all pupils attending state-funded primary schools. The Government are clear about the benefits that children enjoy when they receive a free and nutritious lunch. They support attainment, because hungry children cannot concentrate and learn. By improving behaviour, nutritious and free meals also lead to better outcomes, meaning that children can get the best possible education and chance to succeed in work and life.
It is in recognition of these benefits that this Government have confirmed that all children in households receiving universal credit will be eligible to receive free meals from September 2026. This represents a significant expansion of support to over 500,000 children. The Government have chosen, though, to focus this on the most disadvantaged households, which we are backing with over £1 billion in funding. This is on top of the 3.4 million children who are already provided with free meals by the Government. Moreover, by widening access to free meals, and doing it in the way that this Government have chosen, we will lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament, reversing the trend of rising child poverty that we inherited from the previous Government.
This is the priority that this Government have decided on. Of course, it goes alongside the rolling out of free breakfast clubs to every primary school pupil, which we had the opportunity to discuss last week, meaning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, that significantly more children will have the benefit of both a free breakfast and a free lunch. Alongside that, as we have talked previously about, we are expanding government-funded childcare and legislating to cap the number of branded school uniform items. These are all serious developments in the Government’s plan to break the unfair link between background and opportunity.
Amendments 191 and 193, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Walmsley, seek, as we have heard, to ensure that all households meeting the eligibility criteria for free meals would automatically receive this without having to make a claim—something which is required under current provisions. The first and most important point is that the process of now linking free school meal entitlement to universal credit makes it far simpler and more likely that there will effectively be an automatic understanding of the eligibility for free school meals. We want to ensure that all families who need it are able to claim the support they are eligible to receive. That is why we provide an eligibility checking system to local authorities; this is an online portal that makes verifying eligibility for free meals quick and easy. We are rolling out improvements to this system, to allow parents and schools to review eligibility for free school meals independently, which will make it even easier for families to claim the support they are entitled to. These actions will support the take-up of free meals. However, we will keep under review the extent to which free meals, and all the benefits that come with them, are being taken up.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
The Minister twice mentioned monitoring the take-up. Do the Government know how many families should be claiming free school meals? That would surely help in understanding how close the Government are to reaching the goal that all noble Lords are asking for, which is free school meals for everyone who is eligible. What is that number? I do not need the answer now, but do the Government have that information, because presumably they should do?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My point was that linking free school meal entitlement to universal credit will make it much easier both for families to apply and for us to monitor the levels. However, I will respond to the noble Lord on his specific point.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of this important group of amendments. I assure the Minister that, as I have said today and last week, I very much welcome the expansion of eligibility for free school meals.
On Amendment 189, it is important that when the Government come, as the Minister has promised they will, to monitor the uptake under the new eligibility rules, there is enough detail in there. My amendment mentions demographics, regional differences and cultural differences and so on. All that would give a good and useful set of information to help the Government to develop policy even further.
I am not going to go on any further about free school meals—I could go on all night. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, resisted it and so will I. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s speech makes me think that looking at what “excessive profit” means, or at least what the Government think about it, would not be a bad idea, because we are agreed that these services are often gone to because the state cannot or will not provide them. What we consider to be reasonable to pay for them is something the whole Committee should be concerned about. I am sure—or at least I hope—that the Government have given this some deep thought, and finding out in a little more detail what that will be will help consideration on this and forthcoming business. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, as I said in Committee on Tuesday, in 2022 the Competition and Markets Authority found the children’s social care placement market to be dysfunctional. It found that the largest private providers were making profit margins significantly above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. Most significantly, notwithstanding the profit levels that are being made, we know that there are still insufficient high-quality placements for children who desperately need them. To that extent, the profit levels being made are not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, suggested, driving the sort of supply that we want to see.
The amendments in this group cover Clauses 15, 16 and 17, which implement important legislative elements of our children’s social care placement market reforms: the new profit-capping powers and their associated financial penalties. Introducing profit-capping powers will ensure that we have further powers to curb profiteering if the wider package of measures that I outlined on Tuesday, which we expect to rein in excessive profit-making, do not have their intended effect. This is a power to have in place if other elements of the programme do not work.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on whether Clause 15 should stand part of the Bill. Having outlined the broad intention of the profit cap, I want to be clear that, although some private providers are clearly doing brilliant work, we want to ensure that all providers deliver high-quality placements at sustainable cost. As I say, we know that this is not always happening.
The Competition and Markets Authority found the market to be dysfunctional and estimated that the largest private children’s social care placement providers were making profit margins of between 19% and 36%—well above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. As I have said previously, excess profits have not led to sufficient supply in this market. Furthermore, making these levels of profit from providing placements for some of our most vulnerable children is unacceptable and must end.
This clause provides important backstop powers to ensure that the Government can take action, if needed, to end profiteering. It also sends a clear signal to providers that the Government will not hesitate to take regulatory action to restrict this unacceptable behaviour if profit-making is not reined in. It is not the Government’s intention to extend these powers to any other sectors at this point, although I can confirm that the provisions would cover supported accommodation, along with the other elements noble Lords have already outlined.
To be frank, I hope that it does not become necessary to use these powers. I hope that people see the writing on the wall that there is an impact from the other elements of the Government’s plans, and that we see profits delivered at a more reasonable level and, more importantly, placement sufficiency improving. However, if it became necessary to use these powers, the clause already includes important safeguards through restrictions on the powers to ensure that they are used appropriately. Of course, if they were to be used, the point at which that was determined would be dependent on market conditions and profit levels at that particular point.
Regulations may be made only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are necessary on value-for-money grounds. The Secretary of State must also have regard to the welfare of looked-after children and the interests of local authorities and providers, including the opportunity to make a profit. Crucially, this clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations. This will be particularly important to ensure that all interests are considered in determining issues, such as how a cap would be calculated and the level at which it would be set. That would be the point at which the particular nature of profit levels—which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked about—would be considered in detail. In addition, Clause 15 also provides for regulations to be made that set out important details about the administration of any future profit cap by providing for annual returns from registered providers and the ability to request supplementary information. I hope that noble Lords can see from the discussions we have had on this Bill—notwithstanding other areas—just how important these powers are to ensuring that the Government can take proportionate action, if needed, to restrict profit-making in the market.
Amendments 504A and 505A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to require the Secretary of State to publish a report that would clarify the supply and capacity of independent children’s homes and independent fostering agencies, and the expected impact of the profit cap on the number of available placements, before Clause 15 is commenced. To reiterate, if the profit cap was to be commenced, this would be at a later stage, at which there may well be a different set of market conditions. We intend to use the powers in Clause 15 only if profiteering is not brought under control through the wider package of measures that we have set out.
The consultation requirement in this clause is particularly important because it will outline the details of the proposed cap itself and require the Government to respond and publish that response. This will set out our rationale, including on the matters in the noble Baroness’s amendment, if we judge that a cap is needed. In addition, the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations will set out the policy rationale. In effect, that already fulfils the aim of these amendments to require a report to be published. In response to the noble Baroness’s question, the regulations will, of course, be made by virtue of the affirmative resolution procedure, so there will be the opportunity to cover these matters in debate and address their potential impact. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness that a report on the impact and design of the profit cap would be necessary before it could be implemented.
I turn to Amendment 142A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which seeks to limit the ability of the Secretary of State to impose financial penalties. I understand her specific questions. We expect the vast majority of any penalties issued to fall on corporate structures of one form or another. First, however, as we said on Tuesday, an individual might run a provider within scope—for example, a children’s home—as a sole trader. It would seem strange and surprising if that sole trader were making profits that would be likely to breach a cap, but it would be a bit bizarre if that were way to avoid a profit cap, were it to be necessary to introduce one.
Secondly, even within a corporate structure, there might be an individual who is personally culpable for a breach under the requirements of Clauses 14 and 15. The ability to issue a financial penalty in those circumstances might act as a strong deterrent—the finance director, for example. Of course, the Government do not intend to issue financial penalties that would be disproportionate or unfair on an individual. Indeed, Clause 17 sets out a number of factors that must be considered in determining the amount of a penalty. These include the impact of that penalty on the person in question, the nature and seriousness of the offence, and any past breaches and mitigating or aggravating factors.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 142B and 142C, which seek to restrict the financial penalty that may be imposed for breaches. While the Bill does not limit the financial penalty that can be issued for a breach of the requirements, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that, importantly, we will set the maximum amount in regulations, after we have engaged in full consultation with interested parties to determine the most appropriate maximum for any financial penalties. That will allow us to adjust the maximum amount over time, as necessary, and regulations made will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That will afford Parliament the opportunity to debate and scrutinise the Government’s proposals, and the Government to provide timely answers at that point to issues such as profit levels and operating arrangements, which the noble Baroness identified. Of course, even if a maximum amount is set, that does not necessarily mean that a provider would automatically be fined the maximum amount. As set out in Clause 17, there will be discretion when determining an appropriate amount for any financial penalty.
I hope that that provides more clarification of some of the meanings in this clause, that it responds appropriately to the amendments the noble Baroness has tabled, and that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, has the right to reply.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply.
On the point of principle—why you would put a profit cap on one area of the economy where you think there is profiteering on the back of vulnerable children, but not on another—the Minister said that there was no intention to extend this; indeed, she said that she hoped it would not be used. I certainly agree with that, but I do not really understand why, where children have been sexually assaulted or raped and companies are making far higher profit margins than the ones we are talking about here, the Government would choose to apply a profit cap on one and not the other. That does not feel very coherent to me.
I also felt that the Minister was slightly selective in the quotes she chose to identify from the Competition and Markets Authority report. The CMA was clear that it thought that a profit cap was not a good idea. I would also like to clarify something for the record. I think the Minister suggested that I said that current margins were driving supply. I said that current margins, according to the recent data, are uneven and actually falling, so I did not suggest that they were driving supply.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness cited analysis that expressed a concern that by capping profits, you would somehow or other reduce supply in the market. I was simply making the point that the converse—that is, excessive profits—has not driven supply in the market.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I urge the Minister to increase the incomes of social workers, so that they are not tempted to become agency workers, who are of course paid a lot more than social workers. The pay levels of these workers need to be addressed.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, through the introduction of a regulation-making power, Clause 19 allow the Government to take stronger action to alleviate the significant affordability and stability challenges that have arisen from the increase in the use and cost of agency workers in local authority children’s social care in England. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, identified some of the progress being made in the staffing of children’s social care. I can confirm that the current level of agency use in the sector stands at 16.2%, a small fall on the previous year, but she is also right, of course, that this varies considerably from authority to authority.
What I would say about that 16.2% is that, in essence, more than one in eight of the people who are working in children’s social care do not have the long-term association with their employers that we would expect to see in any service where we were able to provide the training, the stability and the certainty about future costs that we would want. It is considerably higher than in similar sectors, whether in the health service or in education.
Agency work continues to be a considerable issue within children’s social care. That is not to say that there is not excellent work being carried out by individual agency social workers—I know from my previous experience in Sandwell Children’s Trust that there are many excellent agency workers. Nevertheless, the cost and stability issues that I have outlined remain serious for local authorities and those providing children’s social care. This clause ensures that while agency workers will remain an important part of local authority children’s social care, they will not become a long-term replacement for a permanent, stable workforce. It will allow the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on the use of agency workers in English local authority children’s social care services.
I accept that progress has been made since the introduction by the last Government of the statutory guidance relating to local authority children’s social care services, but that was limited specifically to social workers. We want to extend the framework beyond social workers to the wider local authority children’s social care workforce, including workers such as those delivering early intervention or family help.
A new phenomenon has come into the workforce, and particularly agency provision within children’s social care: that of project teams, where agencies provide not just individual workers but teams to respond to particular challenges. In doing that, partly through the associated management costs and partly through the range of different workers, there are even larger uplifts in the amount of money charged to local authorities. I have seen from personal experience that it is not unusual for social workers and other staff in those teams to be earning £50 an hour or upwards. We may well think that people who are doing this important work are worth £50 an hour, but that is a considerable and, some might argue, unaffordable premium over social workers and other workers who are employed on a permanent basis with teams.
There is a broader range of workers that we should cover here, and a requirement to strengthen some of the principles in the statutory guidance, both by widening it and by this legislative provision. We will of course work in partnership with stakeholders across the system, including agencies, to ensure that the proposals implemented are proportionate and effective. They will make clear to local authorities, the recruitment sector and agency workers what they should expect from one another, and the consistency that this brings to the market will benefit all parties. If we are able by doing this to reduce local authority spend on agency workers, that will allow local authorities to invest more in services supporting children and families and enhance the offer to permanent employees.
I take the broader point that one important way of solving this problem of agency workers is to ensure that those permanently employed, either as social workers or doing other work in children’s social care, get the rewards that they deserve, receive the training that they need in order to get the career satisfaction and progression that they would want, and are employed by local authorities and children’s trusts in ways that value them and provide them with the resources they need. All those things are important, and the Government are addressing them all, but that does not remove the requirement that we believe exists for a stronger ability to make regulations covering children’s social workers and to broaden the scope of those regulations, which is what this clause enables us to do.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response and her explanation. I think I understand now the scope that the Government intend in terms of the wider social care workforce, although I did not hear her give the Government’s estimate of the number of agency workers involved in that area and the cost to local authorities. Maybe if the department has that data, it could write to us and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly raised the issue of social workers retiring and then reappearing, magically, as agency social workers, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, highlighted the impact of that in a court setting, with the obvious cost to the local authority and the disruption and lack of continuity. Given that this builds very much on the statutory guidance that we prepared when in government, we hope that this works really well for the Government in achieving greater affordability and continuity of staff.
I guess we are in a world where the working environment has changed, and social workers can now do a couple of days a week of agency work and work from home the rest of the time. Those are challenges that I am sure the Government are wrestling with, and we wish them every success in so doing.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, corporate parenting means providing the best possible care, safeguarding and support, ensuring that children thrive and have opportunities to reach their full potential. It involves actively promoting their well-being, health and education, and preparing them for adulthood, mirroring what a responsible parent would do. As such, Amendment 147 seeks to ensure that local authorities must consider the rights of looked-after children to British citizenship, which is exactly what a responsible parent would indeed do. It is important that a local authority is able to focus on the well-being of the child and to consider whether this should apply to citizenship. It is certainly a most relevant issue for the Minister to opine on.
Amendment 152, which seeks to remove Clause 22(1)(a), would extend the local authority duty to take care of looked-after children to the Secretary of State
“exercising immigration, asylum and nationality functions”.
We can see plausible reasons why the Government would choose to include that exemption but it merits further discussion and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to a potentially sensitive and complicated subject.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions in this group, which relates to corporate parenting and, in particular, to immigration functions. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Lister for introducing her amendments.
Amendment 152 seeks to apply corporate parenting duties to immigration, asylum and nationality functions. As we discussed in the previous group, our new corporate parenting measures will place an important responsibility on each Secretary of State and relevant bodies to support and seek to provide opportunities for looked-after children and care leavers, which in turn will improve their long-term outcomes. This means that Secretaries of State, including the Home Secretary, and relevant public bodies are required to be alert to matters that might negatively affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, regardless of their immigration status, when exercising any functions other than those relating to asylum, immigration, nationality or customs. To be clear, children and young people in the immigration system will absolutely benefit from the additional care and support that new corporate parents will provide. The exemption is to a set of functions, not to a set of children.
This Government recognise the importance of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the UK. As my noble friend identified, this is already reflected in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Section 55 requires the Home Secretary to make arrangements for ensuring that immigration, asylum and nationality functions are discharged
“having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom”.
Statutory guidance linked to this sets out the key principles. This includes that the best interest of the child is a primary consideration when making decisions affecting children. Children should be consulted, and their wishes and feelings taken into account wherever practicable, when decisions affecting them are made. Children should have their applications dealt with in a way that minimises the uncertainty that they may experience. The guidance also emphasises the importance of interagency working.
My noble friend made the point about the requirement to speed up asylum decision-making processes and questioned whether this exclusion would mean that asylum decision-making for these children was not as quick as possible. Applying the duty to the asylum functions of the Home Office would not require it to decide asylum claims for young people in care as soon as possible on its own; that would not be the impact of applying that particular responsibility to this function. The Home Office is committed to ensuring that vulnerable claimants, such as children and care leavers, have their claims decided at the earliest opportunity. However, there are many factors, some beyond the control of the Home Office, that can delay and contribute to the length of time taken to process children’s asylum claims, such as age disputes and the availability of legal representation.
The Home Office works continuously to improve the speed of decision-making—I have to say that, under this Government, it has had some success in doing that—and reduce the number of outstanding claims for children. However, there will always be complex cases, and it is right that the Home Office takes the time to consider those carefully.
Also, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children looked after by local authorities are already subject to the general corporate parenting duties. They will be covered by the specific duties on the local authorities that care for them and by the broader duties this Bill will bring in.
The Government are reflecting on the requirement to support children in gaining certainty about their legal status, in particular in gaining citizenship, and taking further steps to consider looked-after children’s and care leavers’ interests as we reform and manage the immigration system, as set out in the White Paper Restoring Control Over the Immigration System, published on 12 May. That White Paper contained proposals to ensure that children who have been in the UK for some time and who discover, when they turn 18, that they do not have status are fully supported and able to regularise their status and settle. This will include a clear pathway for those looked-after children and care leavers. I hope that responds to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on the previous group. The Home Secretary will set out further details about how progress will be made on that objective.
Amendment 147 also deals with this issue and seeks to ensure that new corporate parents consider the right to British citizenship of looked after children and care leavers, and how that entitlement can be secured to avoid adverse effects on their well-being. Local authorities already follow a separate set of corporate parenting principles, as I have suggested, and are best placed to take steps to consider whether a young person in their care needs support to seek British citizenship.
I know from experience, and from having seen some of the practice, that considerable care is already being taken to ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and other children subject to the immigration system in care are receiving from local authorities the care and attention that they specifically need because of their needs. In fact, I can remember, when I was chairing Sandwell Children’s Trust, being asked to help a social worker assistant who was trying to ensure that two of the children for whom we were responsible were able to get the passports they needed in time to be taken on holiday by the foster parents who were caring for them.
A lot of day-to-day work is going on in this area. As I have already suggested, all that work and support for those children is not exempted by this provision in the Bill; it is only with respect to the functions that I have already talked about. The White Paper that I touched on earlier also sets out the Government’s intent to consider measures to reduce the financial barriers to accessing British nationality for young adults who have lived here through their childhood. The previous Government already removed some fees in those circumstances, back in 2022.
That the Home Secretary is bringing forward proposals in this area I hope makes clear the Government’s commitment to ensuring that children, as we seek to regularise their status in this country, are getting the necessary support, and that it will be improved by this Government. Given the assurances I have provided, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment on this point.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for making the case and reminding us that we are talking about children first. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for what was actually a very sympathetic response to what I said.
I absolutely take the point—I finished with this point—that we are taking about functions and not a group of children. I have not quite finished reading the new study that has just come out, but the trouble is that, in many cases, parts of corporate parenting functions involve asylum and immigration matters, so it is difficult to disentangle the function from the group. I will have to look more closely at what the Minister said, but I have to admit that I am not totally persuaded.
I still do not really understand why it is necessary to have this exclusion. I tabled this amendment on behalf of the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, in which there are a lot of children’s organisations. A lot of the people who are briefing on this Bill—Barnardo’s and many others—welcome the corporate parenting duty and then say, “We must not have this exclusion”. There seems to be a disconnect between their reading, interpretation and understanding of what this will mean and the Government’s. We may have to come back to that—I do not know—but I still do not really understand why it is felt necessary to have this exclusion, which is creating such alarm among children’s organisations.
On children who are entitled to claim British citizenship, I have been working on this issue for many years, pressing the previous Government and finally getting somewhere. That is not just because of me—it is primarily because of the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, which has been indefatigable in pushing on this, together with Amnesty. I welcome what is in the White Paper and look forward to getting more detail about what is meant. Certainly, after the way things were left under the previous Government, it is still difficult—it costs so much to put in that claim. I remember that when we discussed in this House the rules on who can be exempted from having to pay, we were very unhappy about them. It would be excellent if the Government were taking another look at that. The fact is that there are too many children—and my noble friend talked about them after the age of 18. Ideally, local authorities would be more aware of this and would make sure that the claim was made before young people reached the age of 18.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the entry in Schedule 1 relating to integrated care boards.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I just remind the Committee that, 12 or 13 years ago, when we were looking at the Children and Families Bill, my noble friend Lady Benjamin took up this issue with great vigour, and quite rightly so. Since then, of course, times have changed, as traditional child employment laws have often failed to address online influencer work, digital content creation and remote gig roles taken up by children.
My own experience as a head teacher at a primary school was that I had a number of such children. I remember Josh Bolt, who appeared regularly as a main character in “Last Tango in Halifax”, and the problems that we faced trying to ensure that he could fulfil his acting potential. He was able to do so, and appeared in the film “Nowhere Boy”, about the life of John Lennon. But it was us bending the rules, quite frankly, and not following the exact letter of the law, which allowed him to fulfil his dreams and ambitions. There were other children as well; I think of sports and those children, both boys and girls, who went to football academies, for example. A number of them went on to have successful careers in sport.
So we must make laws that not only protect the young person but work for the young person as well, enabling them to enhance their skills and take up the opportunities that are available. According to the Education Policy Institute, part-time jobs can support resilience, time management and confidence. But, of course, unregulated work can harm education as well; it is about getting the balance right.
I am looking forward to discussing the amendments on school registration. Some schools can be overzealous on registration and do not take personal factors into account. It is really important that we listen to my noble friend Lady Benjamin, in particular; she has huge experience in this area. If we want to be a successful nation in the cultural industries, which we are, little hiccups such as this need sorting out.
One noble Lord mentioned that there are discrepancies between England, Wales and Scotland in child labour and performance law, and that creates confusion and enforcement challenges. While performance licences require education provision, oversight is inconsistent and, as I have been saying, schools sometimes incorrectly mark children absent when, in fact, that should not be the case. I am sure that the Government will want to listen to what is being said and to make this work for families and children.
I was particularly taken, as it had not occurred to me until I read the amendment, by the point that my noble friend raised at the very beginning about how these earnings should be, if you like, looked after for the future. That is a really important point.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that we have been able to have a wide debate on the measures in the Bill that relate to child employment. I am sure many noble Lords agree that employment can have a hugely beneficial impact on a child: it can contribute to their development, introduce them to the world of work and help them develop key life skills. However, current legislation needs to be updated to better reflect the world of employment today and to make things simpler and clearer for children, families and employers.
I should perhaps be clear at this point that, in this group of amendments, we are talking about two different sets of regulations. We have heard, and I will come to, the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser—by the way, both of them demonstrate the benefits of being a performer, child or otherwise. To be clear, these are two completely different sets of regulations. To respond to the specific point, the changes made in the employment regulations do not impact on the ability of children to be performers.
I speak first to the government amendments in this group, which include Amendments 157 and 158 and consequential Amendments 503, 506, 507 and 510 to 514. These amendments seek to bring these changes in employment regulations to children in Scotland and Wales too. Our aim is that all children, regardless of where they live, can benefit from these new employment opportunities. These amendments will ensure that children in Wales and Scotland, as well as children in England, will be able to take advantage of the greater flexibility that this clause allows. This means being able to work more hours on a Sunday, an hour before school, and until 8 pm—crucially, without increasing their overall weekly working hours. This is to ensure that employment does not negatively impact on their health, development and education.
We have also made a small amendment to the definition of “light work” so that it better reflects the circumstances of children who are educated at home, not just those who attend school. I will try to come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The new definition of light work is probably more appropriate at this time, when children’s work is not necessarily going to be about only the physical efforts that they are engaged in but other elements of that work which could have an impact on their health, development and education. Overall, this increased flexibility will ensure that a child can, if they want to, benefit from the positive impacts we know that the world of work can bring, and we will have a more consistent approach across Great Britain. In doing that, we will be allowing all children to benefit from the same employment opportunities. I hope noble Lords will feel able to support these government amendments.
“Employment of children in England and Wales(1) The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is amended as follows.(2) For section 18 substitute—“18 Restrictions on employment of children(1) A child may not be employed to work—(a) so long as the child is under the age of 14 (subject to regulations under subsection (2));(b) to do any work other than light work;(c) to do work of a description specified in regulations made by the appropriate national authority;(d) before 7.00 a.m. or after 8.00 p.m. on any day;(e) on any day on which the child is required to attend school—(i) for more than one hour before the start of school hours,(ii) during school hours, or(iii) for more than two hours in total in the day;(f) for more than 12 hours in any week in which the child is required to attend school;(g) for more than eight hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than five hours in any day on which the child is not required to attend school;(h) for more than 35 hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than 25 hours in any week in which the child is not required to attend school;(i) for more than four hours in any day without a break of one hour;(j) at any time in a year unless at that time a person employing the child is satisfied that the child has had, or could still have, a period of at least two consecutive weeks without employment during a period in the year in which the child is not required to attend school.(2) The appropriate national authority may by regulations authorise the employment of children aged 13 to do specified descriptions of light work.(3) A child may not be employed to work except in accordance with a permit (a “child employment permit”) granted by a local authority on an application made in accordance with regulations made by the appropriate national authority.(4) The appropriate national authority may by regulations—(a) make provision in relation to child employment permits;(b) provide that subsection (3) does not apply in specified cases or circumstances;(c) make provision about the keeping of records.(5) The provision that may be made in reliance on subsection (4)(a) includes provision—(a) authorising a local authority to request such information as the authority considers appropriate, or to require a child to have a medical examination, for the purpose of enabling the authority to determine an application;(b) requiring a local authority to have regard to specified matters when determining an application;(c) for the grant of a child employment permit subject to conditions determined by a local authority; (d) requiring a child employment permit to contain specified information;(e) authorising a local authority to vary, suspend or revoke a child employment permit in specified circumstances;(f) about appeals against—(i) a decision to reject an application, or(ii) the revocation of a child employment permit;(g) imposing requirements on persons employing children (including requirements to produce child employment permits for inspection);(h) requiring or authorising a local authority, in specified circumstances, to disclose information about a child employment permit to another local authority in England or Wales or to a local authority in Scotland.(6) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision (subject to subsection (1) and regulations under subsection (2))—(a) specifying the number of hours in each day, or in each week, for which children may be employed, and the times of day at which they may be employed;(b) specifying the intervals to be allowed to children for meals and breaks, when in employment;(c) about entitlement to leave;(d) specifying other conditions to be met in relation to the employment of children.(7) Nothing in this section, or in regulations made under any provision of this section, prevents a child from doing anything—(a) under the authority of a licence granted under this Part, or(b) in a case where by virtue of subsection (3) of section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 no licence under that section is required for the child to do it.(8) In this section—“appropriate national authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;“light work” means work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed—(a) is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and(b) is not such as to be harmful to their education (through attendance at school or otherwise) as required by section 7 of the Education Act 1996 or to their participation in work experience in accordance with section 560 of that Act, or their capacity to benefit from the education received or the experience gained (as the case may be);“local authority in Scotland” means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;“specified” , in relation to regulations made under any provision of this section, means specified in the regulations;“week” means any period of seven consecutive days;“year” means a period of 12 months beginning with 1 January.18A Regulations under section 18: further provision(1) Regulations under section 18 may—(a) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(b) make provision subject to exceptions; (c) make transitional or saving provision.(2) Except as provided by subsection (3), regulations under section 18 may provide for the processing of information in accordance with the regulations not to be in breach of—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person processing the information, or(b) any other restriction on the processing of information (however imposed).(3) Regulations under section 18 are not to be read as requiring or authorising the processing of information that would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether particular processing of data would do so, take into account the duty imposed or power conferred by the provision of the regulations in question).(4) Regulations under section 18 are to be made by statutory instrument.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 18 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section 18 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of Senedd Cymru.(7) In this section“the data protection legislation” and“processing” have the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”(3) In section 21 (penalties and legal proceedings in respect of general provisions as to employment), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(4) In section 28 (powers of entry), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(5) In section 30 (interpretation), in subsection (1), after “byelaws” insert “or regulations”.(6) In Schedule 36A to the Education Act 1996, in the table, omit the entry for section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (including the title of that Act).(7) In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Act 2012 (anaw 2), in the table, in the English language and Welsh language texts, omit the entry that relates to byelaws made under section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (referred to as “adran 18 o Ddeddf Plant a Phobl Ifanc 1933” in the Welsh language text).”Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 26 makes provision for England restricting employed work by children. This amendment replaces that clause to extend the application of that provision to Wales. It also includes a change to the definition of “light work” in the inserted section 18(8) to reflect that children may receive their compulsory education outside of school.
“Employment of children in Scotland(1) The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 is amended as follows.(2) For section 28 substitute—“28 Restrictions on employment of children(1) A child may not be employed to work— (a) so long as the child is under the age of 14 (subject to regulations under subsection (2));(b) to do any work other than light work;(c) to do work of a description specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers;(d) before 7.00 a.m. or after 8.00 p.m. on any day;(e) on any day on which the child is required to attend school—(i) for more than one hour before the start of school hours,(ii) during school hours, or(iii) for more than two hours in total in the day;(f) for more than 12 hours in any week in which the child is required to attend school;(g) for more than eight hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than five hours in any day on which the child is not required to attend school;(h) for more than 35 hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than 25 hours in any week in which the child is not required to attend school;(i) for more than four hours in any day without a break of one hour;(j) at any time in a year unless at that time a person employing the child is satisfied that the child has had, or could still have, a period of at least two consecutive weeks without employment during a period in the year in which the child is not required to attend school.(2) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations authorise the employment of children aged 13 to do specified descriptions of light work.(3) A child may not be employed to work except in accordance with a permit (a “child employment permit”) granted by a local authority on an application made in accordance with regulations made by the Scottish Ministers.(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations—(a) make provision in relation to child employment permits;(b) provide that subsection (3) does not apply in specified cases or circumstances;(c) make provision about the keeping of records.(5) The provision that may be made in reliance on subsection (4)(a) includes provision—(a) authorising a local authority to request such information as the authority considers appropriate, or to require a child to have a medical examination, for the purpose of enabling the authority to determine an application;(b) requiring a local authority to have regard to specified matters when determining an application;(c) for the grant of a child employment permit subject to conditions determined by a local authority;(d) requiring a child employment permit to contain specified information;(e) authorising a local authority to vary, suspend or revoke a child employment permit in specified circumstances;(f) about appeals against—(i) a decision to reject an application, or(ii) the revocation of a child employment permit;(g) imposing requirements on persons employing children (including requirements to produce child employment permits for inspection); (h) requiring or authorising a local authority, in specified circumstances, to disclose information about a child employment permit to another local authority in Scotland, to a local authority in England or to a local authority in Wales.(6) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision (subject to subsection (1) and regulations under subsection (2))—(a) specifying the number of hours in each day, or in each week, for which children may be employed, and the times of day at which they may be employed;(b) specifying the intervals to be allowed to children for meals and breaks, when in employment;(c) about entitlement to leave;(d) specifying other conditions to be met in relation to the employment of children.(7) Nothing in this section, or in regulations made under any provision of this section, prevents a child from doing anything—(a) under the authority of a licence granted under this Part, or(b) in a case where by virtue of subsection (3) of section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 no licence under that section is required for the child to do it.(8) In this section—“light work” means work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed—(a) is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and(b) is not such as to be harmful to their education (through attendance at school or otherwise) as required by section 30 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 or to their participation in work experience in accordance with section 123 of that Act, or their capacity to benefit from the education received or the experience gained (as the case may be);“local authority in England” and“local authority in Wales” have the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996 (see section 579(1) of that Act);“specified” , in relation to regulations made under any provision of this section, means specified in the regulations;“week” means any period of seven consecutive days;“year” means a period of 12 months beginning with 1 January.28A Regulations under section 28: further provision(1) Regulations under section 28 may—(a) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(b) make provision subject to exceptions;(c) make transitional or saving provision.(2) Except as provided by subsection (3), regulations under section 28 may provide for the processing of information in accordance with the regulations not to be in breach of—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person processing the information, or(b) any other restriction on the processing of information (however imposed).(3) Regulations under section 28 are not to be read as requiring or authorising the processing of information that would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether particular processing of data would do so, take into account the duty imposed or power conferred by the provision of the regulations in question).(4) Regulations under section 28 are subject to the negative procedure (see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).(5) In this section“the data protection legislation” and“processing” have the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”(3) In section 31 (penalties and legal proceedings in respect of general provisions as to employment), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(4) In section 35 (confirmation of byelaws), in subsection (1), for “Secretary of State” substitute “Scottish Ministers”.(5) In section 36 (powers of entry), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(6) In section 37 (interpretation), after “byelaws” insert “or regulations”.(7) In section 38 (savings)—(a) omit subsection (3);(b) in subsection (4), for “The said provisions” substitute “The provisions of this Part relating to employment”.(8) In section 110(1) (interpretation), omit the definitions of “borstal institution” and “residential establishment”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause makes equivalent provision for Scotland to that made for England and Wales by my amendment to replace clause 26.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are committed to protecting children from serious harm and ensuring that they can access the right level of support at the right time. That is what the amendments in this group seek, rightly, to pursue and challenge on.
Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, is on the establishment of a child protection authority, as recommended in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Just to be clear, this Government have made a series of announcements that demonstrate our commitment to strengthen the response to child sexual abuse and exploitation. Establishing a child protection authority was one that we have, in looking at the recommendations from IICSA, committed quite clearly to. I was a bit unclear about the charge made by the noble Lord that we had not accepted that recommendation. In the Government’s update on our work to tackle child sexual abuse, published in April, we announced that we would establish a child protection authority in England. As the noble Lord says, this will help to make the child protection system clearer and more unified and ensure ongoing improvement through effective support for practitioners.
Of course, there will be lots of questions about what form the authority takes and its scope—some were raised today by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, with specific questions on safeguarding. I reassure the noble Baroness that we have absolutely aligned the work on the CPA with the out-of-school settings call for evidence that she referenced. She identified that the design and the delivery of the authority require consultation, including with child protection experts and victim groups to ensure that it has the right constitution and the right powers. We have already begun our work towards a consultation on the child protection authority, and I assure the noble Baroness that we will engage with key stakeholders as part of this process. We will consult on developing the new child protection authority this year, and the consultation will set out in more detail the proposed roles, responsibilities and powers of the authority.
However, we do not want to wait until we are able to set up the child protection authority in full to take action—there has arguably been too long a delay in acting on the recommendations of IICSA—so we have also already begun to strengthen the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel on some of the key aspects IICSA envisaged for the child protection authority. In 2025-26, we are increasing the resources at the panel’s disposal so that it can increase its analytical capacity and its ability to develop high-quality material for practitioners.
That is part of the overall action that this Government are taking: the strongest possible action to tackle child sexual exploitation, including immediate action to take forward all 12 of the recommendations for change from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which were published in her audit just this week. That includes setting up a new national inquiry, with which government departments will co-operate fully to make sure we are tackling this vile crime and supporting victims and survivors. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, also recommended that the mandatory sharing of information be enforced between all statutory safeguarding partners in cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation. The child protection authority will play a critical role in addressing this recommendation through national oversight of the child protection system and supporting the co-ordination between agencies. Of course, provisions within this legislation are already taking forward other elements of the IICSA recommendations.
Amendment 160, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, aims to reduce regional variations in the type, frequency and duration of support that children receive under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which, of course, places a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child in need by providing appropriate support and services. Here, I fear that I disagree with the noble Lord’s analysis. Prescriptive national criteria with automatic referrals would risk narrowing the cohort of children and limiting local flexibility in providing support. Section 17 rightly allows local authorities discretion to provide support and services based on local need and resources. On this at least—and on other things as well—the noble Baroness, Lady Barran and I are in agreement. A danger of being specific in the way suggested is that groups are left out, narrowing the cohort who receive support—exactly, in fact, what the amendment is seeking to avoid.
It is not the case, as the noble Lord suggested, that there is no national guidance. There has recently been strengthening of the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, to make it explicit that local authorities and safeguarding partners should publish a threshold document for statutory services under Section 17 so that there is clarity for those working within an authority area about what that threshold would be and what action they should take. Furthermore, Ofsted inspects whether these local thresholds are set appropriately.
Working Together is clear that plans setting out support and services for children should be reviewed regularly against progress. All this comes within the broader context of our reforms to family help and multiagency child protection, which we have talked about at some length in earlier proceedings on the Bill and in Committee—reforms precisely aimed at supporting provision at an earlier stage for identifying children who will need support and wrapping that around them, and reforms backed by over £500 million of investment in this financial year and supported by additional investment made available in last week’s spending review for future years. These will provide help for families at the point of need and decisive action when protection is needed.
While I accept that the noble Lord raised important issues about the current working of the system and the need to develop the child protection authority for all the reasons that he spelt out, I hope that I have addressed some of his concerns and reassured noble Lords that this Government are committed to protecting children from significant harm, providing the right support at the right time and, ultimately, improving outcomes so that all children can thrive. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Barran, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their interventions and comments, some of which I agree with and some I may not agree with—but that is the nature of the Committee; we are here to debate and improve Bills that come forward from the Government. I welcome the comments from the Minister, particularly on the national protection agency. Clearly, the devil will be in the detail about its powers and how it functions, rather than just establishing the authority.
On Amendment 160, I clearly still have issues with the disparity between some local authorities having up to 60% of young people in their care with child in need plans and others having 20%, as in the examples I gave. My aim was to raise this in Committee and hopefully for the Minister to look into it. I will continue to press and probe as this Bill travels through your Lordships’ House but, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we know—and it has been expressed several times in this very wide-ranging debate this afternoon—that too many children are not getting the nutrition that they need to thrive at school. We know that hunger affects concentration, behaviour and learning, yet many pupils arrive at school without breakfast. Many schools excel in meeting the nutritional standards expected of their food offer, but some fall short. We also know that excellent schemes such as Healthy Start remain underused, not because families do not need the help but because they are not aware of it.
Clauses 27 and 28 seek to close the gap between intention and implementation. Together, they aim to ensure that no child is too hungry to learn and that our school food system works fairly and consistently for all.
Amendments in group 7 cover a wide range of areas, from breakfast clubs, school food standards, the Healthy Start scheme and the holiday activities and food programme, and I will respond to all those amendments. To begin with the point about breakfast clubs, the delivery of breakfast clubs is a government manifesto commitment. We have committed to introduce free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school. Of course, I accept that, for very many years, including when I was last in the Department for Education, there have been schools that have offered support for breakfast, or breakfast clubs, in a whole variety of ways in order to support children.
However, what there has never been is a consistent entitlement to that opportunity which is universally available for all children and free. That is what this legislation aims to promote. It places a duty on state-funded schools providing primary education to make accessible a free breakfast club lasting at least 30 minutes before the school day, for every pupil from reception to year 6, helping them start the day ready to learn. This is of course about food, but it is not only about food. Free breakfast clubs will mean that every primary school child, no matter their circumstances, is well prepared to learn. It is good for attendance, behaviour and attainment, and it will also support parents to have more choice on when to work and will support families with the cost of childcare.
Amendments 183D, 186 and 186A, in the names of my noble friend Lord Watson and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, rightly concern access to breakfast clubs for children with special educational needs and disabilities of all ages in special schools, and access for children receiving education otherwise than at school.
My noble friend, the noble Lord and others have made a very fair point about the unique challenges for special schools in delivering breakfast clubs. It is categorically the aim of the Government to design this scheme to be inclusive. We all know that the landscape across SEND is extremely complex, particularly given that needs and abilities can vary significantly across age groups.
I also accept the important points made by noble Lords about the challenge of transporting children to school and the challenges of the additional support necessary for some children. We are convinced of the benefits of a breakfast club and we want to start by giving the youngest pupils, regardless of their circumstances, a great start to the school day.
However, we are not hiding from the fact that there will be challenges in doing that. That is why we are working with our early adopters—of which there are 750, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Storey. They include special schools and mainstream schools with pupils with SEND. The aim of this scheme is to test what works, where there are difficulties and how the policy can best be implemented.
Amendments 185 and 185A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Moynihan, seek to extend the definition of breakfast club provision to include physical enrichment, art and cultural, and youth mentoring activities. Amendments 187 and 187B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to promote alternative forms of breakfast provision, alongside publishing an impact assessment. I absolutely assure your Lordships that I agree that sporting and enriching activities offer fantastic benefits to pupils’ health and well-being.
I am enormously delighted that I can respond to the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the Government’s commitment by pointing him to the Prime Minister’s announcement today, while visiting the Lionesses to offer them support in the forthcoming Euros tournament. He announced a new approach to school sport, with new school sport partnerships bringing together schools, local authorities, local sports clubs and national governing bodies, and a new enrichment framework for schools to ensure that all young people have equal access to high-quality sport and extracurricular activity. The new approach includes aims for minimum teaching times for PE, and for girls to be given the same opportunity as boys to play sport at school, as well as equal access for those with special needs and disabilities. I think that is an important announcement, and I hope that noble Lords will look further at what the Prime Minister has announced today, as well as offering their support to the Lionesses in advance of the Euros.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I appreciate the detail that the Minister has gone into and that further information about the national rollout will happen in due course, but we have just had the comprehensive spending review, so can I ask whether the funding for the national rollout is included within the DfE’s settlement from the comprehensive spending review or whether there will be additional funding on top of that settlement to fund the national rollout? I am not asking how it will work but whether it is in the CSR settlement or whether there will be more, in addition, at a later point.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
What we have announced as part of the spending review settlement is separate to the funding for the national rollout, about which we will bring forward information.
On Amendment 505B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, early adopters are key to ensuring that we get implementation right before national rollout. This learning will help develop our statutory guidance. More information will be made available, including on the exemptions process, to Parliament and in the public domain.
On that exemptions power, in relation to Amendments 186B and 186C, I understand that there may be extreme and, critically, individual circumstances that could prevent individual schools meeting their duties to provide breakfast clubs. The exemption power is designed to address this on a case-by-case basis. That is why schools would be expected to apply and to be able to demonstrate their exemption eligibility under one of the criteria set out in the legislation. Our expectation is that any school seeking an exemption will actively engage with its school community, the local authority and the department to ensure that it has done all it can to meet its breakfast club duty.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt. It may be me—I may have missed it, as it getting to the end of the week—but I am not sure that my noble friend responded to Amendment 187 with the Government’s position on the mixed models. I know she talked a lot about physical activity and so forth. If she did say, can she repeat it? There is quite a lot that she is having to cram together into different slots, and I do not think there was anything explicit about the mixed model promoted by Amendment 187.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The point I made was that I and the Government disagree with my noble friend that there should be a sort of all-flowers-blooming approach to breakfast clubs. I set out the reason why the Government believe there should be a basic set of conditions and criteria for breakfast clubs. Of course, it is completely possible that schools may well then decide to put on other provision alongside the basic provision laid out in the criteria set out for breakfast clubs in legislation—this is one of the things that we will look at in the early adopters scheme—but the Government are not favouring the idea that there would be a variety of different routes. That is because of the points I made about this being about the provision not just of food but of the club and of the 30 minutes of childcare. Those things are quite an important basis of what is being delivered through the breakfast club programme.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I just have one more question for the Minister before we move on from breakfast clubs. I really appreciate what she said about the pathfinder schools being used to understand how, for example, the very clear provision that the Government want would work alongside existing provision or extended provision and to learn from that. Can the Minister commit to publishing the findings of those pathfinder schools and that initial work and laying those findings before the House before we consider the regulations that would come subsequent to this legislation, so that we can see and fully understand what has been learned and taken on from those initial 750 schools when moving to a national rollout?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have already made clear that monitoring and evaluation are a fundamental part of the early adopters scheme. That will not only enable us to work out how to develop the scheme further in terms of a national rollout but allow noble Lords and others to analyse the extent to which the model is working and what some of the challenges may be around issues raised by noble Lords this afternoon.
Baroness Penn (Con)
To be really specific, will the outcomes of that monitoring and evaluation be made available before the regulations are laid to implement breakfast clubs nationally? That is my question. If the Minister’s answer is no, that is fine. Maybe she has been clear, but I would hope it would be yes—that is what I would like to know.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
What I have been absolutely clear about is that the point of the early adopters scheme is to enable us to design the national rollout. If the noble Baroness wants me to commit to bringing back further information to the House, I am of course willing to do that. My point is that the information will in fact be much more widely available in terms of all of the issues that have been raised by noble Lords. I thought that I have been pretty clear about that.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the statement that was made by the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon, which is very welcome. It is very similar to a proposal made by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which, sadly, did not happen, in the build-up to the London 2012 Games. One reason why it faltered was because the cost associated with delivering those objectives was very high indeed. I happen to believe it was well worth the budget. Can the Minister confirm whether the costs associated with what has been announced this afternoon will be covered by her departmental budget, or are they coming from elsewhere in government?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, I am not going to go into those details, and neither would the noble Lord expect me to. He challenged me about whether any announcements had been made, and I pointed him to one made today. I will just point out, however, that the reason why the plans outlined by Prime Minister Gordon Brown did not come to fruition was because, of course, after 2010, Gordon Brown was not the Prime Minister anymore and those who were did not choose to take forward those plans. That is why we have had to wait until this point, under a Labour Government, for another commitment to the sort of sporting entitlement that he asked about earlier.
To move on from breakfast clubs, I turn to Amendments 190 and 194 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Boycott, which seek to establish a school food improvement scheme and to update the school food standards. I recognise the importance of these reforms and the vital work that noble Lords have done to raise the profile of school food policy. That is why I am pleased that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was able to announce in the other place, on 5 June, that we are working with stakeholders and experts from across the sector to revise those standards, to ensure that they support our work to create the healthiest generation of children in history. We will share further details on this consultation in due course. I invite noble Lords to engage on this, including on the important question of how we can ensure that schools comply with the updated school food standards. I am sure that that will build on the work already done by the compliance pilot and by the work done to support governors to challenge and assure the quality of food that is being offered in their schools.
There were several questions raised relating to free school meals and entitlement. We will of course have the opportunity to return to those and to deal with them when we come to the group that is specifically about free school meals. That is why I am not covering them now.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
Very briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Hampton in saying that education is fundamental here. You do not resolve poverty unless a child is put through education successfully. Therefore, my plea is that the main message from this debate should be that local authorities should prioritise promoting education for children in poverty. That is actually the way to a successful resolution of this problem.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for the clarification at the end of her comments.
Amendment 163 has enabled us to have a very good debate about the importance of making progress on child poverty. I agree fully with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and my noble friend Lady Lister for ambition on reducing child poverty. The success of the last Labour Government in tackling child poverty is the legacy that we are aiming to build on in this one. We want to see an enduring reduction in child poverty over this Parliament as part of a long-term, 10-year strategy for lasting change. The child poverty strategy, which we will publish in the autumn, will set out the Government’s strong commitment to this and, importantly, how we plan to achieve this reduction. The strategy will tackle overall child poverty as well as going beyond that to focus on the children in the deepest poverty, lacking essentials and what is needed to give every child the best start in life.
I very strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bird, that this is a multifaceted problem. Several noble Lords have identified particular issues that are likely to benefit children. I agree that education, and particularly recognition of the need for education for disadvantaged children, which is also a key theme for this Government, is an important part of that, but there are in fact a complex and interrelated range of issues that lead to child poverty and that can help to alleviate it.
We have already started to take substantive action across major drivers of child poverty through the spending review 2025. This includes: an expansion of free school meals, which will lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of the Parliament; establishing a long-term crisis and resilience fund, supported by £1 billion a year; investing in local family support services; and extending the £3 bus fare cap. We have also announced the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation and £13.2 billion across the Parliament for the warm homes plan.
Our commitments at the 2025 spending review come on top of the existing action we are taking, which includes expanding free breakfast clubs, as we talked about today; capping the number of branded school uniform items that children are expected to wear, which I think we will talk about on Monday; increasing the national minimum wage for those on the lowest incomes; and supporting 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions. The Child Poverty Taskforce will continue to explore all available levers to drive forward short and long-term action across government to reduce child poverty. The strategy will look at levers across four key themes: increasing incomes, reducing essential costs, increasing financial resilience and better local support, especially in the early years. This will build on the reform plans under way across government and work under way in devolved Governments.
We agree that timely reporting is important in monitoring progress. The Government already have a statutory duty to publish poverty statistics annually. In addition, in the autumn we will set out the monitoring and evaluation arrangements we will put in place for our strategy for this year and future years, so that the progress we make is transparent for all. I very much take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made about accountability, both to this House and more broadly, for making progress on the strategy, but our view is that statutory targets for child poverty would not in themselves drive reductions in poverty. They can be reversed, and have been in the past, so do not serve as an effective means of binding government to a specific course of action. As my noble friend referenced—although only to say that she did not agree with it—they also risk adversely narrowing the focus of effort to moving the children closest to the poverty line over it, rather than the direct and comprehensive approach that we will take to helping children in relative and deep poverty across the United Kingdom.
I cannot help but add that noble Lords have come up with all sorts of reasons as to why things might have changed in 2010, but my view is that the defining issue in whether children get out of poverty is not whether targets are set but the nature of the Government at the time. The last Labour Government saw reductions in child poverty; this Labour Government are committed to achieving that as well. I hope that provides assurance to noble Lords.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I have a last point to make. I am obviously disappointed by my noble friend’s response on targets, but she talked about monitoring and accountability. One of the really good things about the way the Child Poverty Taskforce has gone about its work has been the way it has engaged with—and listened to—both parents and children with experience of poverty. One recommendation made by a lot of people in the sector is that this engagement with those who have experience of poverty should continue as part of the monitoring and accountability mechanism. I just wanted to throw that into the pot.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for recognising the enormously broad way in which the Child Poverty Taskforce has undertaken its work, under the leadership of my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It has been about looking at the whole breadth of actions that this Government can take, and engaging with those who have the most experience of what it means to be poor, as well as others who represent them. I hope and believe that broad approach and the commitment of this Labour Government will make the real impact to children that we all seek.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her assessment, but I do not agree. It is interesting that, when she outlined how she will tackle poverty, she mentioned school uniforms, breakfast clubs and social housing. I have an opinion, which I expressed earlier; I think that food clubs are a response to the fact that the horse has bolted and we are chasing it down the hill. The same goes for uniforms: they are not necessarily methodologies to dismantle poverty.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept that I was not making that argument? What I was actually arguing—in agreement with him—is that we need a multifaceted approach and that we need to look at the causes for people ending up in poverty. Taking action to reduce the costs for families around the country—the costs he has just referenced—is an important thing that the Government can do, alongside the more strategic, detailed and cross-cutting work that the child poverty task force is also doing.
Lord Bird (CB)
I agree with the Minister 100%. We should never, ever abandon people who are in an emergency. But, if that is what we are doing, and if that is what most of our efforts go into, we will never come to the day when we dismantle poverty.
My problem—I have talked about this on a number of occasions in the House—is around social housing. I had an argument with a leading Member of this House, who was in social housing for many decades. I made the point to him, “Isn’t it interesting and damning that, if you give somebody social housing in current times, there’s a distinct possibility that their children and their children’s children—and, probably, their children’s grandchildren—will live in poverty?” Because social housing produces only in the region of 2%, 3% or 4% of the social mobility of finishing your levels and getting into university or an apprenticeship. Social housing is not a route out of poverty; it is, in a way, a stumbling block.
We will not move forward until we revolutionise social housing and go back to the kind of social housing that I had when we moved from the slums of Notting Hill and into a Catholic orphanage. We then left that and went into social housing in Fulham, where we had sociable housing: the people there included police officers and a trainee teacher. I have talked about this on countless occasions. We had our first parking warden; we did know what to do with him, because most of us did not have a car. The point is that there was a social element, including the disabled and the old. The problem is that, because social housing has lost its sociability and has become a place of refuge and deep need—which we cannot turn against—we have people who remain for ever in an emergency.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, because they argued for targets far more eloquently than me—this is my first amendment, so I am getting used to it and learning on the job. The point is that targets will get us thinking about those kinds of levels. What do we have to do next to get people out of poverty? We have to go beyond the food, the uniforms and the social housing. We have to get to the enemies of the people who pass through poverty, because they are “mind-forg’d manacles”.
I am not decrying this, but I had an argument a few years ago when they were saying, “Why don’t we list all the ingredients that go into a Mars bar, a KitKat, a Twix or a bottle of Coca-Cola?”, so that people would read them and say, “I’m not going to eat that”. The “mind-forg’d manacles” of poverty mean that you will go for the Coca-Cola whether or not it is good for you. These are the things that we need to do to dismantle poverty. One of the simplest ways is to concentrate the Government by bringing in all the philosophical, intellectual, cultural and social reasons why people are caught in poverty.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, before I turn to the amendments in the first group, I want to be clear, as many noble Lords have recognised, that the measures in Clause 10, together with those that we will come to later in Clauses 12 to 18, are part of an overarching, broad-ranging strategy to fix the market for placements for looked-after children.
The review conducted by my honourable friend Josh MacAlister, which several noble Lords have quite rightly referenced, and the report from the Competition and Markets Authority were explicit that the placement market is dysfunctional and that some private providers are making excessive profits from placements for our most vulnerable children. We are now taking concerted action to address this, including through measures in the Bill, but also through a wide range of non-legislative measures, to deliver a broader range of providers in the market so that local authorities have more options when finding the right place for children in their care. These must be the right homes in the right parts of the country, so that children do not have to move miles from their communities and support networks, as many noble Lords have referenced in this debate. These homes must be delivered at a sustainable cost to the taxpayer by providers no longer making excessive profits. A failure to address the dysfunction in the system has led to many of the issues that noble Lords are rightly identifying today, which they hope and expect us to respond to—not only, I suspect, in these clauses relating to regional care co-operatives but more broadly in the action that we are taking to fix that dysfunctional market.
Amendments 108 to 116 in the name of my noble friend Lady Longfield seek to amend the definition of local authorities’ strategic accommodation functions as defined by this clause to ensure that it meets the current and future needs of looked-after children. This and my noble friend’s contribution exactly get to the crux of the problems we are trying to solve here. She is correct, as I have already suggested, about the issues raised by the lack of sufficiency caused by the current placement market for children. Children being too far away from home; too big cost pressures; inappropriate placements: those are all things that this provision and the other elements of our strategy are aimed at addressing.
Amendment 119ZA from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, sets out the principles that local authorities that have formed a regional care co-operative, following a direction from the Secretary of State, would have to adhere to when commissioning accommodation for looked-after children. She is right that the provisions in this clause relate to the direction powers for the Secretary of State in circumstances either where local authorities have refused to take part in regional arrangements or perhaps where regional arrangements have been set up and local authorities might not have managed to be part of any of those arrangements. I certainly think it is already the case that authorities are trying to bring themselves together into regional arrangements, precisely to be able to solve some of the issues that we have outlined.
The Government completely agree that there must be sufficient accommodation for all children who are looked after by their local authority and that in future this accommodation must meet their needs and provide appropriate support. It should allow them to live as close to home as possible, where that is in their interests. That is precisely the reason for trying to ensure that the market operates more effectively.
But it is also the case that there are existing legal requirements on local authorities to the effect of some of the understandable calls that have been made in these amendments and by other noble Lords. Local authorities already have a general statutory duty under Section 22G of the Children Act 1989 to take such steps, as far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure that there is sufficient accommodation within their area to meet the needs of looked-after children. They are also under a duty, via Sections 22 and 22C of the same Act, to provide accommodation that meets the needs of looked-after children by ensuring it is consistent with the child’s welfare and has due consideration to the child’s age and understanding, as well as their wishes and feelings. Finally, they have a statutory duty under Section 22C(8)(a) and (9) of the 1989 Act to ensure they provide accommodation that allows children to live near their home, unless it is inconsistent with the child’s welfare or not reasonably practicable. Those duties will all remain.
The problem is not that there is no legal recognition of these issues and the need for them to be taken into consideration in providing sufficient accommodation and placements for children. It is that the market has prevented local authorities being able to fulfil their statutory requirements. That is why regional care co-operatives, which in the legislation are called “regional co-operation arrangements”, will assist local authorities in meeting these duties, including by analysing what accommodation is needed for children across the region, publishing sufficiency strategies, recruiting and supporting foster parents and commissioning care places, as recommended by both the review conducted by Josh MacAlister and the report from the Competition and Markets Authority. They will support local authorities to carry out their strategic accommodation functions but, as I have suggested, these functions are not new and are already in law, including the duty to take steps, as reasonably practicable, to ensure sufficient accommodation for looked-after children. Any decision-making responsibility for where individual children are placed, however, will continue to rest with local authorities.
Amendment 116A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would prevent the Secretary of State adding to a local authority’s strategic accommodation functions for regional care co-operatives. I would like to reassure the noble Baroness of the safeguards in place regarding the power to add to the list of strategic accommodation functions to be exercised through regional care co-operatives. I slightly lost track of whether she was accusing the Government of currently having a Henry VIII power within the legislation— I will go back and check.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I was aware that my remarks may not have been clear that, in the department’s own memorandum, it describes this power as being akin to a Henry VIII power.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will certainly take advice and look carefully at that, but I assure the Committee that the appropriate committee, the name of which escapes me, has of course looked in detail at the delegated provisions within the legislation and we will be responding to the committee and covering off any issues that might be of the sort of concern that the noble Baroness raises.
I hope to provide some further reassurance on that. First, the scope of regulations is limited to those local authority functions covered by specific sections of the Children Act 1989, namely Section 22A, the duty to accommodate looked-after children; Section 22C, how looked-after children should be accommodated by the local authority; and Section 22G, the duty to ensure sufficient accommodation for looked-after children.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I had actually looked at all the data currently collected, and I am grateful for the summary given to the Committee just now, but the amendments are directed at understanding where these children are going and how those specific placements work out, so that need can be assessed and planning for future need can be made. They are also directed specifically at the numbers of places and the children who go into those. I appreciate that burdening any party with more data collection is never attractive, but this is about children being taken from home and placed with strangers—which, even as an adult, does not bear thinking about—and waking in the morning and coming downstairs in a strange home.
I really implore the Government to give some consideration to the basic humanity of this. It has cross-party support in this House and has been supported by numerous charities and by the Labour MP Josh MacAlister’s independent review. There is a consensus. What I am not hearing—and perhaps I am missing it—is why we would not seek this data so that we can improve the outcomes for these children.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am always willing to allow noble Lords to intervene, but I was actually coming to another paragraph in my speaking note, which I hope addresses the point that the noble Baroness makes. The Government are not suggesting that the current analysis or collection of data is sufficient. That is why we intend to improve our data on placements, as we set out in Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive. This will give local authorities better information, as she suggests, to assess need and the longer-term demand for placements and to support the delivery of the functions that we are asking regional care co-operatives to carry out under Clause 10. It will also be published on GOV.UK.
I do not know whether that assures the noble Baroness that the Government do have some humanity but I take her point, and that is why I was coming to the reassurance—I hope—that the Government do want to ensure that we have better data, including being able to address the issues around outcomes that she identified. That is why we will also be bringing forward a national data programme that will address the gap in national and regional data, particularly around the underlying costs of children’s social care placements, but we will continue to think about how we can improve the data that is available to us.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the discussion of these amendments. One issue that I was worried about many years ago, and I would be surprised if it did not happen still, is the fact that once a child moves from its local authority area to a local authority somewhere else, the sending local authority completely loses contact with anything that happens to the child—even though, as I understand it, it retains a certain responsibility. I wonder whether anything can be done to make sure that each local authority—that which the child comes from and that which the child goes to—is actually in touch and discussing what happens.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As usual, my friend the noble and learned Baroness makes an important point about the application of the law in this particular case. I think, as she suggests, that legal accountability and responsibility remains with the authority placing the child, but that does not mean that, in practical terms, there should not be engagement, and I would have thought that that would have been good practice. I also think that it is important that there is clarity about where the responsibility stays. That goes for the care co-operatives as well.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the extremely comprehensive response that she has given the Committee; it lasted a while but she covered a lot of ground on a lot of amendments.
I certainly agree with what she had to say about the wider strategy of trying to fix the current placement market and, above all, making sure that the right home is in the right place for children around the country. She certainly gave me some comfort on the role of the RCCs and the way in which they are going to be able to help local authorities and work with them and take pressure off them. I am grateful that she mentioned that there is going to be work in progress to look at the consequences of the abolition of NHS England.
On the role of the ICBs, I should have been aware of Section 10 of the Children Act 2004, because I was on that Bill committee many years ago and I remember the clauses about multi-agency safeguarding and the other bodies that are involved in this process.
I am very grateful to the Minister. I am sure that colleagues here will look very carefully at what she said. If need be, I for one will want to discuss this further with her and will look carefully in more detail at her reply, and maybe come back to this on Report. In the meantime, I thank her and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 119 to 124 very briefly. We have touched on some very important points, and there is something that still needs to be crystallised. As others have said, these are some of the most troubled children in the system. They are also the ones whose care is probably the most expensive of all. Such specialised arrangements have to be made. We have touched on the tensions here between local authorities, the health service and the justice system. One of the reasons for the increase in the number of orders is the reduction in the number of justice secure beds and also tier 4 mental health beds. We have this terrible lacuna around children whom the health system deems to have, for example, untreatable personality disorders but who very clearly need to be looked after somewhere where both they and others can be kept safe and to have everything that we can do to improve their lives and to help make life work for them on a permanent basis in a healthy, humane way. This is an enormous challenge. I would very much like to hear the Minister explain how the health functions of government are also going to be tied into making the deprivation of liberty scheme work.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as others have said during the course of this important debate, Clause 11 is about provision for some of the most vulnerable children in the country and the importance of ensuring that adequate support and necessary safeguards are available to them. The measures in Clause 11 brought forward by the Government seek to bring more children, who would otherwise be deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, into a statutory scheme where they will benefit from enhanced safeguards and protections. I will say more in response to specific amendments about those enhanced safeguards and protections.
The clause provides a statutory framework to authorise the deprivation of liberty of looked-after children in provision other than a secure children’s home where there are not enough places, and which cannot meet the needs of all this cohort. Noble Lords will be aware of the pressing need to ensure that these children are provided with sufficient suitable placements to meet their various needs, including in Scotland.
This brings me to government Amendments 125 and 128, which will allow local authorities and others in Scotland to seek authorisation in Scottish courts to deprive children of their liberty in relevant accommodation in England. As noble Lords will be aware, relevant accommodation will have the primary purpose of care and treatment and will also be capable of being used to deprive a child of his or her liberty if required in connection with the provision of care and treatment. We are also making a consequential change to amend the language from “restrict” to “deprive”, to ensure consistency with existing amendments to Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 provided by Clause 11. These amendments will ensure that Scottish local authorities can access all forms of accommodation to enable a child to be deprived of their liberty in a placement that best meets their needs.
Amendment 119A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, addresses important issues around how best to support and protect another vulnerable group of children by seeking to allow children who have an education, health and care plan and who are in residential schools to be deprived of liberty in those settings under this legislation. The primary purpose of a residential school is to educate the children living there. Each child’s EHCP will have specified requirements to meet the child’s educational needs. In contrast, Section 25 is a specific legal route for placing looked-after children in specific accommodation where there is a need to avoid absconding or injury to the child or another person, often due to complex trauma. Clause 11 will not require any child to move from a residential school that is meeting the child’s needs. Where deprivation of liberty is required for a child living in a residential school, mechanisms other than Section 25 can be considered. For older children, that might include an application to the Court of Protection.
Amendment 119B seeks to remove “injure” from the clause but, as the noble Baroness spells out, is probing what is meant by the terms within the criteria under Section 25 of the Children Act. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that “injure” in this context has a wide meaning, including physical, mental or emotional injury. The criterion for an order under Section 25 is long-standing and has been well tested by the courts. I confirm for the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that Section 25 orders are issued by the family courts. I am confident, given the long-standing and well-tested procedures for Section 25, that it will continue to ensure that children can be deprived of their liberty to keep them safe where appropriate and necessary.
Amendment 120A seeks to ensure access to education for children in the new relevant accommodation outlined in Clause 11. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that access to education for our most vulnerable children is of the utmost importance to ensure that they can thrive and get on well in life. That is why there is substantial existing legislation in this regard, setting out the legal duties on local authorities to promote children’s educational attainment and include educational needs within care plans, as well as regulatory requirements for children’s homes to meet children’s educational needs. The intention behind “relevant accommodation”, which will be registered children’s homes, is to focus on ensuring that the child obtains the relevant treatment, which may involve depriving them of their liberty, but where they may also be able to have, for example, continued access to the community, including for education. It is also more likely to provide the closeness to the community and to their homes which several noble Lords have rightly said is an important right and need of children that must be continued.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I thank the Minister. Can she simply confirm in the letter that the position may be that we are left with a residual group of children who will still need the inherent jurisdiction? It might be that the legislation just does not reach quite far enough at the moment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will clarify that in the letter.
On Amendment 131 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the important matter of the use of restraint on children in care and subject to deprivation of liberty orders, it is vital that children are safe and that restraint is used only where appropriate, including when they are moving between settings and services. We take these concerns very seriously. We will consider guidance on restraint in due course.
However, the question about children being handcuffed remains, and I will endeavour to get more detail about that and to come back to the noble Baroness. Providers, in conjunction with placing authorities, are under an obligation to use the minimum appropriate restriction to keep a child safe.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I may be a little too soon, but I wonder whether the Government are minded to ensure that there is, as my amendment would provide, some kind of reporting mechanism to keep track of things. There may be cases where that is necessary. Surely this is something there should be an annual report on so that we can see the direction of travel and whether there is a problem that needs to be tackled.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Noble Lords are very premature today. I was coming not quite to that but to something that I hope will be satisfactory in relation to that reporting mechanism.
Ofsted, as the independent regulator of children’s homes, manages incidents of restraint on a case-by-case basis under its inspection framework. The children’s homes regulations place a requirement on homes to record any incidents of restraint and on the registered person to inform Ofsted of any incident in relation to a child that they consider to be serious. We think that Ofsted inspectors are best placed to scrutinise individual incidents of restraint and the circumstances around them and to ensure that care providers are minimising its use. We are not clear that a yearly report to Parliament aggregating that data would add anything in this case, although it would create an additional burden and risk distraction from this important work. It would, in fact, probably be significantly less effective in safeguarding children and recording the incidents than the Ofsted approach currently being used.
Amendment 133 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, seeks to promote family and other social relationships for children subject to deprivation of liberty orders by publishing local authority plans to support children in that regard. As mentioned in respect of earlier amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I reiterate the Government’s agreement that, wherever possible, it is vital for a child’s welfare to have positive family and social relationships. Given that the Children Act 1989 and the supporting guidance already seek to ensure that family and other relationships for looked-after children are promoted while keeping children safe, and that this forms part of Ofsted’s inspections of local authorities, I am not sure it is appropriate or necessary to increase the burden on local authorities by mandating them to publish that information. I recognise the points made by the noble Lord, or it may have been somebody else speaking on his behalf, about the effectiveness of the lifelong links programme. I think we referenced that previously, and I can see the enormous benefit that can come from it.
Amendment 134C tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure the affirmative procedure for regulations made under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important to ensure that regulations on this matter are subject to the correct scrutiny. She referred to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report in which this was raised. We are grateful to the committee for its scrutiny. We are carefully considering its recommendations and will respond in due course.
Amendment 506B in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson seeks to delay commencement of Clause 11 until regulations are made to ensure that non-means-tested legal aid is available in relation to applications to deprive a child of their liberty under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989. I assure my noble friend that where an application is made to deprive a child of their liberty as a result of any measure the Bill brings forward, those children will be eligible for state-funded legal aid representation using the same criteria that currently apply to all children subject to orders under Section 25. This means that children will be able to access legal aid without needing to satisfy means testing.
I hope that noble Lords think I have provided nearly all the detail requested in these amendments. On that basis, I commend the government amendments to the Committee and hope that noble Lords feel able not to press theirs.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
This may be a rather silly question, but in my experience of the Atkinson secure accommodation unit, every child needs at least two carers. There are even children who need three. I wonder how a children’s residential care home will manage a child deprived of liberty. It will be an extreme case and the child will be unbelievably difficult to look after.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Nevertheless, we believe that it is possible. On the definition of relevant accommodation, we believe that it is possible to find those sorts of homes—sometimes supported by the use of technology to help maintain security for children, and certainly needing a certain level of staffing, as the noble and learned Baroness said—and that, for many children, it is preferable to live in that type of accommodation as opposed to the alternative, which has been to be deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the courts. Actually, some of that type of accommodation may well be more suitable for things such as maintaining contact, having education and being closer to the community.
“(6A) In subsection (5A), for “restrict the child’s” substitute “deprive the child of their”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures consistency with the terminology in section 25 of the Children Act 1989 as amended by clause 11.
“(9) In section 93 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (interpretation)—(a) in the definition of “secure accommodation”, omit paragraph (b);(b) after that definition insert—““secure accommodation” , in relation to England, means secure accommodation within the meaning of section 25 of the Children Act 1989 or relevant accommodation within the meaning of that section;”.(10) In section 202(1) of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 1) (interpretation)—(a) in the definition of “secure accommodation”, omit paragraph (b);(b) after that definition insert—““secure accommodation” , in relation to England, means secure accommodation within the meaning of section 25 of the Children Act 1989 or relevant accommodation within the meaning of that section,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the clause 11 amendments to section 25 of the Children Act 1989, to allow local authorities in England and Wales to seek authorisation for the deprivation of liberty of children in accommodation provided for care and treatment in England, extend to local authorities in Scotland.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to amendments in group 4. As other noble Lords have identified, we have a market that is dysfunctional and not working appropriately. That results in the types of pressures and complexities for local authorities that we have heard about and has been described by several reports.
In 2022, the Competition and Markets Authority found that the children’s social care placement market was dysfunctional. It found that the largest private providers were making profit margins significantly above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. The LGA also found, in 2023, that the 20 largest independent providers made profits exceeding £300 million in a year. There is a considerable discrepancy between the levels of profits made in this market and those made, on average, across non-financial businesses in the rest of the economy. I do not believe that there should not be a market in this particular area, but it is completely clear that the excess profits being made are not the sign of a properly functioning market. They are the sign of a market that is distorted, dysfunctional and failing to serve children and young people and the local authorities which are paying the costs of funding the profits, as opposed to investing in their children.
We clearly need to make reforms, and that is what the Bill is partly about. I will come to some of the other reforms not included in the Bill that are also part of the overall programme. Additionally, local authorities currently have no way of knowing if a provider, or members of its wider corporate group, is at risk of failing financially. That is why amendments in this group cover Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill and related issues.
I will start by addressing the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about Clause 14 standing part of the Bill. Clause 14 introduces a new financial oversight scheme for children’s social care, a key part of our wider reforms of the market. We are aware that a provider of children’s social care places suddenly closing its provision as a result of financial failure could have a significantly detrimental impact on the care and stability of where children and young people live. Currently, as I have said, local authorities have no way of knowing whether a private provider or its corporate owners are at risk of failing financially. If a large provider were to fail and suddenly exit the market without warning, it could be difficult for local authorities to find alternative placements for those children or places that appropriately met their needs. That is why we are developing this new financial oversight scheme in children’s social care. This will, for the first time, increase financial and corporate transparency of difficult-to-replace children’s social care providers, allow for an accurate, real-time assessment of financial risk and strengthen forward planning.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, rightly asked some detailed questions about how the system will work. We are not developing this completely from first principles. We have worked closely with the Care Quality Commission to learn from its existing market oversight scheme, which operates for a similar purpose in adult social care. That was set up in the wake of the collapse of Southern Cross in 2011. We are confident that we can operationalise this and make it effective.
The way in which the scheme is being designed means that those on the scheme will also be required to submit a recovery and resolution plan containing information on risks to a provider’s financial stability and plans to reduce those risks. The Secretary of State may also require providers or a corporate group member on the scheme of heightened financial risk to undergo an independent business review. The noble Baroness asked whether the independent business review would use the recovery and resolution plan. For reasons that I will explain, those are two important but slightly separate elements of the scheme.
Amendment 134A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, seeks to require all local authorities to publish the prices that they pay for private placements of children’s homes on an annual basis. Before I get into the detail of the amendment, the noble Baroness suggested that other parts of the overarching strategy that we must put right in this failing market were potentially not being taken forward. That is not right. The fact that something is not in this legislation does not mean that it is not part of the Government’s overall approach to improving the sufficiency of placements. Alongside the legislative provisions in this Bill, we are also developing a national data programme to address that gap in national and regional data around the underlying costs of children’s social care placements. We are also extending our national support programme to provide additional support to local authorities in forecasting, commissioning and market shaping. We are investing considerably in local authority capacity. There will be £560 million in capital investment between now and 2029-30 to refurbish and expand children’s homes and foster-care placements, alongside additional investment in foster-care sufficiency.
On the point about market diversification, raised by my noble friend Lady Thornton, we are exploring options to encourage new providers such as charities and ethical investors to enter the market. I will certainly talk to my honourable friend Minister Daby about how we can bring people to a round table to think about that market diversification.
We are improving both the workforce and the registration of new children’s homes and supported accommodation to support the reforms we are making to the market. This is a wide-ranging, strategic and important programme of work, and in the Bill we are looking at the legislative elements of that.
I agree with those noble Lords who talked about the importance of data transparency. That will be part of our wider package of measures and will cover not only placements in children’s homes but fostering and supported accommodation placements. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, is supportive of the need for that change. I assure her of our ongoing commitment to it. We want to ensure that local authorities have the necessary information, capability and tools to shape the market, negotiate more effectively, secure better-suited placements and achieve greater value for money. It is, of course, also a function of an appropriately working market that there is better and clearer information than has been the case up until now.
On the point about whether and how we do that with local authorities, we are clear that these changes should be supportive in nature rather than seeking to add additional burdens to local authorities. For that reason, we are considering the best way to help local authorities to make informed decisions when commissioning placements—utilising the data we expect them to collect on costs—and how they can provide better data and cost transparency. We will outline more plans on that in due course. I agree with the principle about the need for much better information.
Amendment 140 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to apply the financial oversight scheme to providers of supported accommodation. I assure noble Lords that supported accommodation providers will be in scope for the financial oversight scheme. They are not in the Bill, which reflects how this type of provision is dealt with in the Care Standards Act. That Act was extended to cover supported accommodation by regulations. To ensure consistency, we will similarly apply financial oversight to supported accommodation through regulations, and that will occur once the financial oversight scheme comes into force. As I have said, the scheme will increase financial and corporate transparency of the most difficult to replace providers of supported accommodation, alongside the other forms of provision that have already been identified.
Amendment 140A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is where we get into some of the detail about the independent business review and the recovery and resolution plan. I want to reassure the noble Baroness that the independent qualified person undertaking the IBR will of course be able to request the provider’s recovery and resolution plan if that is necessary to inform their assessment. The RRP is a proactive contingency plan that requires providers to mitigate risks and prepare for the worst-case scenario of financial failure in a way that minimises negative impacts on children. On submission, a provider’s RRP will be reviewed by experts in my department. I can assure the noble Baroness that we will of course ensure we have the appropriate expertise to be able to do that. As we are basing this on a similar model for adult social care, there is good learning and understanding about what will be required.
Separately, if we judge that there is a significant risk to a provider’s financial sustainability, the department may instruct a qualified person to conduct an independent review of its business. The IBR will examine the nature and extent of risks to a provider’s financial sustainability and provide additional assurances to the department in its assessment of financial risk. As I have said, that may well include a consideration of the RRP and, of course, the independent review of the business will be carried out by people with specific expertise in this area. We may well need to look for particular expertise for that.