Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Meston Excerpts(3 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 40 and flag—similarly to my noble friend Lady Evans—a pragmatic timing issue, which I have previously mentioned in your Lordships’ House.
Clause 3 is not a political matter. It is a well-intentioned response, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, outlined, to the tragic cases of Arthur and Star that led to the MacAlister review. I would be grateful, as would the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to know whether these changes will in fact solve the problem highlighted in those two cases that led to the review.
Of course, any new Government will bring in operational and structural changes, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that local authorities are dealing with the integrated care board situations at the moment and of course are preparing for perhaps the biggest local government reorganisation since that of Ted Heath.
In terms of timing, I ask the Minister why it is necessary at the moment to do the structural changes to child protection arrangements when the local authorities are dealing with other changes at the time. Many local authorities, even in times of very restricted finance, have shown that they have prioritised children’s social care, and overall, England’s local authorities are on an improvement journey, in that the “good” and “outstanding” Ofsted inspections are increasing.
Why not wait to do any further structural changes until the new devolution arrangements and local authority boundaries are in place and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, stated, when there is more evidence that such organisational changes in Clause 3 will improve matters, rather than inadvertently potentially making matters worse?
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, in relation to the culture that might be changed here. If the family help teams do not see that child protection is part of their role, it risks the cultural embedding that has been happening over decades that is similar to a school, where what you need to embed is that safeguarding is everybody’s responsibility. You might then end up with them thinking, “It’s not my responsibility”: it is kind of like the blue light service over there, which is the child protection team. We could lose inadvertently. No one is deliberately trying to make our child protection arrangements less effective, but I do worry about the cultural loss of everybody seeing it as their responsibility, in the family help team and through into the social workers. So I ask the Minister: why not wait until you have done your local government reorganisation and do this afterwards, or maybe do it at the same time, because for the staff this is an awful lot of change in various departments of our local authorities?
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 36 and 40 and respectfully agree with almost everything that has been said so far.
Amendment 40 concerns cases which cross local authority borders, which can present practical problems and sometimes jurisdictional problems. Families, both parents and children, move around and do not conveniently live together at the same time in the same local authority area. Sometimes, as has been suggested, they move to avoid attention, and there needs to be clarification of how and by whom these situations are to be dealt with.
Amendment 36 seems to be more fundamental. There are, of course, existing established arrangements focusing on children in need. Since at least the Children Act 1989, these can involve child protection conferences and child protection plans, which identify risks and assign responsibilities and expectations. It is perhaps not surprising that there are now operational concerns about the new clauses—in particular, whether they will unnecessarily duplicate or even disrupt workable and working existing arrangements.
In particular, we need to know whether the new teams provided for in these clauses will require the introduction of new personnel in a way that will deprive the family of the continuity and familiarity established by the original social work team. It takes time for a social worker to build a relationship with a child and family, and that should not be jeopardised. Changes bewilder the children and frustrate the parents. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, referred to consistency and ownership. Those are not just clichés, they are important and should, wherever possible, be preserved.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we have not got any amendments in this group, but I will make a few observations. First, it is really important we get this right and we have the opportunity to do so between Committee and Report.
I have personal experience of multi-agency working in terms of child protection—not a great deal, but a few cases. The thing that nobody has mentioned is that, when a member of staff has left the job or moved to another authority, the whole process grinds to a halt; the new person who is busy looking at the case files is not able to benefit from the knowledge that has been gained. It is often very disruptive.
Often in Committee, somebody will get up and make a point that you have never really thought about. When the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, had finished, I thought, “Absolutely right”. But I had not thought about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and he is absolutely right: in terms of police involvement, there can be a real conflict. It just proved to me, yet again, the importance of sharing these ideas so that we get a result which is actually workable.
It is interesting that the Children’s Commissioner suggests a
“threshold for assessment and support”
to bring greater consistency. This also picks up on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised about resources—that it is important that we get the resources absolutely right.
I was interested in the point about sharing practice with those practitioners—that they do not come with their own particular viewpoint but have that training and expertise to share and listen. Cross-border working can be very difficult indeed and can sometimes cause real issues as well, but, if we listen to each other, we can get this right.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I make just one point about the proposed new sections to be added by Clause 4 to the 2004 Act, as probed by these amendments. They would introduce an all-important duty to share information and, it should be noted, a discretion to withhold information. It is important to appreciate that, as drafted, the duty to share and the discretion not to share depend only, as I read it, on the subjective views of the person holding the information as to the relevance of that information to safeguarding or welfare and as to the potential detriment of disclosure. Those are crucial factors, but I question whether what happens or does not happen should depend solely on the subjective views of the information holder, which is what appears to be in the new section. I suggest it should be an objective test: if the information is relevant, it should be disclosed; if disclosure would be more detrimental to the child than non-disclosure, it should not be disclosed. Those decisions should not necessarily depend on what the individual information holder considers appropriate. Surely, the holder should be expected to apply an objective test when considering what is best for a vulnerable child.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and strongly congratulate the Government on having picked up the concept of a unique child identifier. I was part of the group, with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, when we did not get there on previous legislation, and we were told that one reason was that the Department for Education could not see how it could do that and link with health, so seeing the Department for Education involved is particularly cheering.
I will make a case quite strongly for the NHS number rather than anything else, partly because I think we need to learn lessons from other number systems. If we look just at hospital records, different hospitals have different numbers and then there is the NHS number, and that has resulted in all kinds of clinical muddles and potential errors. The other thing is that children move around. People do not stay in the same area all the time, and the NHS number moves with them. If they have one number and move to a new area and register with a GP, for example, and then go to register with a school, if there have been major concerns then eventually those case notes will come through and people will become aware.
Going back to my previous experience, sometimes we found that the families with the highest risk had multiple addresses, out of town and in different cities. The other advantage is that, although we have devolved healthcare systems, we have a unique NHS number so, if people move between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, that number will persist. That is not a central database; it is simply saying that the number is there.
Children’s names change and their “known as” also changes. They may be known as another name but the number, a little like their genetic make-up, is fixed, which is really helpful. It will also avoid problems of lots of children having the same name, which is when muddles happen. I am from Wales, and we have a lot of people called David Jones and David Evans, and quite a few called David Williams, let alone Siân and Ceri. They are great names but, if you are trying to differentiate between them, you have to be really careful.
The final reason why I think this is particularly important is about transition and children who have learning difficulties and neurodiversity. Transition is an extremely difficult time for children. In those late teens, hormones are kicking in all over the place and all kinds of things are happening. Their relationships with the people who have been their carers through childhood change, and they can be at particular risk during those times, particularly during puberty if they have real learning difficulties.
I really hope that the pilot with the NHS number continues. When the Minister responds, it will be very helpful to know what kinds of numbers are being evaluated in those pilot areas—I hope there are more than one—so that the studies are sufficiently powered to be valid. Where have the objections come from? Who has not complied with being engaged? There may be some education needed to remove any sense of threat, because it will make safeguarding easier for people who have responsibility for children.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to intervene but, after hearing my noble friend, I cannot help but recall having to deal with some of the children of a man who, on inquiry, had had 11 sons by 11 different women. Because he was the sort of man he was, he insisted that each of them had his name.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Speaking as a Smith, I can say that those of us with very popular names recognise the point made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston —although obviously not in quite the same way.
Before starting, I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that there are no publicly available figures specifically detailing how many incorrect NHS numbers are issued annually. If there were, obviously I would have them at my fingertips. The Personal Demographics Service is responsible for managing and correcting NHS number issues, including duplicates, misassignments and demographic errors, but those numbers are not publicly available.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her generous words.
These centres are really important for children who have come from extremely disturbed backgrounds. One thing that they need to be able to do is to have contact with the parent with whom it is not safe for them to be in custody in another area. As they grow up, if they do not have that contact, they can end up feeling resentful towards the state, and that the state separated them from the parent, rather than understanding what happened. I will not go into the various cases and stories, but there are certainly quite a lot to illustrate that issue.
The reason this amendment is important is that we know that there is a lack of basic safeguarding training in some contact centres; in others, it is at an extremely high standard. There is variability of practice around picking up and escalating concerns, and challenges are faced by the courts in identifying safe and affordable contact arrangements. As has already been alluded to, the harm panel report of 2020 highlighted that child contact centres have a role.
I could speak for a long time about them, but I will not. I hope that the amendment speaks for itself, and that we might be able to have some conversations beyond Committee and before Report about whether there is some way that the Government would like to incorporate in the legislation the principles behind this amendment, accepting that they may not like the wording as it is on the page at the moment.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I would like the Government to incorporate the wording of this amendment into the legislation—it seems admirable. I am asked by my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss to indicate her support for it as well. Accredited child contact centres are safe, neutral places providing for both supported contact and supervised contact arrangements—that is an important distinction. They allow children in separated families to see and enjoy contact with the non-resident parent and sometimes other family members.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her intervention and contribution. It was very interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Meston, say that a lot, if not all, of the contact centres are accredited. According to the NACCC website, there is DBS checking and there is provision in place. I take on board what the noble Baroness is saying, and that is why we are having this discussion—to get everyone’s views aired and come to an agreement.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, just to add to what has just been said, my understanding is that accreditation depends on the centre having been approved by the national association, and that accreditation lasts, I think, for three years.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
On a point of clarification, I can confirm to my noble friend that what we are asking for, and what we asked for in the earlier amendment, is proper training and management, so that in those cases—perhaps only one a year, but to me that is sufficiently important—of domestic abuse that present to a child contact centre, the volunteers will be properly trained and will be able to manage the situation. It is not a case of inspection and increasing fees; it is giving them the confidence so that they know how to deal with that situation.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Meston Excerpts(5 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Nash (Con)
I have a great deal of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I do not think all of us are going to make a nine or 10-minute speech, but I will wrap up now and hope that keeps him happy.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I was unable to speak at Second Reading and I will resist the temptation to make a Second Reading speech now. Rather, I wish to concentrate on Amendment 1.
Any consideration of a proposed purpose clause should take us all back to the Renton report, in which it was said that sometimes such clauses can be useful and sometimes they can be unnecessary, and that they should be used selectively and with caution. On one view, the scope and effects of this Bill are clear enough and there does not appear to me, at least, to be any complexity for which a purpose clause would help interpretation.
However, there is perhaps some value in this amendment, which uses the word “improve” three times, emphasising the intention of the Bill—and the Bill as amended in due course—to achieve improvement in the areas specifically mentioned, and not to maintain or simply tweak the status quo. For that limited reason, I would support Amendment 1.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, in responding I hope the Minister will be able to point out that the purpose of the Bill has a golden spine running through it, and that is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The different clauses should be able to read across to the convention, and wherever the child is and whatever group they are in—and we have lots of groups in this Bill—fate can be extremely cruel, and we know that every day around 127 children lose a parent.
Bereavement is a major issue and hits different groups in different places at different times and affects their outcomes. I hope that we will have a statement from the Minister in responding to this which is about the principle of what we are really trying to do for children across the whole nation, everywhere.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I was a family judge for about 35 years, and I tried mostly care cases. I very much support this amendment and will make three points. First, I entirely agree with the previous speakers: hold the meeting as soon as possible, because it is unlikely that the decision to make a make an application for a care order or an interim care order comes at a very early stage. One hopes that the social workers would have been working with the family before this becomes inevitable. Consequently, the sooner the discussions can be had—and the other members of the family identified where possible—the better it will be, and it may not be necessary to have the care application before the magistrates’ court in any case.
Secondly, not only is it important to have the meeting early but there must be a degree of ability for the local authority to deal with members of the family—because, not in every case but in some cases, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has said, there will be very unhappy divorce proceedings pending, whereby the parties will use the children as the arena for their attacks on each other. That is the typical sort of unhappy divorce case—fortunately not frequent, but one that occurs in care proceedings. Consequently, you may find that one or both of the parents should not at some stage be at the meeting. It is crucial that local authorities are warned, if they do not know already, and given at least, under statutory guidance, some help on how to deal with that issue—not in this Bill, of course, but in statutory guidance.
The third absolutely crucial point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, made is not to let a particular parent or someone with parental responsibility have the opportunity to use the meeting to delay the proceedings that are necessary. Again, it is absolutely crucial that, if a member of the family is trying to delay the proceedings, the local authority can go ahead without having the meeting. That is the one point that worries me about saying that they must have the meeting, although I think that probably, under the later part of Clause 1, it is possible not to have it. Again, in the statutory guidance it is crucial that local authorities are warned that the family meeting must not take place if, in fact, the delays are there for that particular reason.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I, too, have laboured long in the family courts. I think that we are all basically aiming in the same direction, but the detail is important. Family group conferences or meetings, as described in this Bill and in the amendments, are a valuable process, often best used as the pre-proceeding stage rather than after a formal application has been issued. I cannot help wondering whether there is not some lack of clarity in the drafting, at least of the amendment. The Bill as I read it is clear enough; it says that the local authority must include the offer of such a meeting in a letter before proceedings. That is entirely desirable in my view, whereas the amendment says:
“When a local authority starts formal child protection proceedings”,
which to my mind reads as if it means “Once it has actually issued the formal application”. In some cases, that may be too late. I think that there is a mistake, possibly unintended, in the drafting of the amendment.
The general thrust of what the noble Baroness said—that the meetings should be initiated as soon as possible—is clearly right. These meetings are valuable for three main reasons. First, they enable family members to be informed of what has happened and why the local authority has intervened, as well as to learn what is planned or may be planned for the child or children concerned. Quite often one finds in practice that the parents have not told the wider family what is happening, sometimes out of shame or pride, so that the first the wider family learns of the proceedings comes from the social worker—and that can come as a surprise or, indeed, a shock. Even if the family knows what is happening, a formal meeting enables it to get an accurate first-hand account that is not filtered by the parents.
Secondly, conferences enable the social worker and guardian, if one has by then been appointed, to form an initial assessment of the strengths, weaknesses and attitudes of the wider family and the possible realistic options for the support of the parents and any alternative arrangements for the children, either in the short term or in the long term. In the long term, if in reality adoption is going to be the outcome, the court will ultimately have to consider the relatives’ ability to provide a secure environment under the statute that governs adoption decisions.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Meston Excerpts(5 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this was a very reasonable sounding amendment, then the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, took a sledgehammer to it. Will the Minister give us a little guidance on the Government’s thinking on this? When people with experience on both sides are talking it is best that we hear the whole thing, but I will be very interested in what the Government say because if the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—probably our biggest expert in the Chamber—says there is something wrong, I would be very inclined to listen to her. But, as I said, it was a reasonable sounding discussion that brought it forward.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I have already expressed my views on Amendment 4, but I think I need to emphasise, particularly as my noble and learned friend has just made the same point, that I think it is unrealistic and unnecessary for private law cases. Many disputes resolved in private law cases are minor and concern perfectly manageable—I will not say “trivial”—problems over contact arrangements and so forth. That cannot justify a family group meeting.
In any event, as my noble and learned friend has said, the existing mechanisms are already well tuned to dealing with disputes. Cafcass gets involved at an early stage; there is what is called a safeguarding report; and if the dispute does not go away, Cafcass produces a Section 7 report. Along the way, there is a dispute resolution hearing in front of the judge, and noble Lords can take it from me that the judge applies a fair amount of pressure to resolve the matter and to explore the realities of settling the case, which quite often involves exploring what can be done with the wider family. Of course, the wider family may have the time and the resources that the parents lack and help sort it out, but it does not really need a meeting; it just needs someone getting the parties in a room in the court with the Cafcass officer to sort out the practical realities of where things are going. I wish to emphasise that I do not think that Amendment 4 will assist.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
I recognise that the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is to test the extent to which family group decision-making can be used in other circumstances. I think it is a tribute to the significance and efficacy of family group decision-making that people are so keen to test where else it can be used in the process. I will respond to the two examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has identified and then address Amendment 17.
As we have heard, Amendment 4 would extend family group decision-making and, I have to say, was ably opposed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I appreciate the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in seeking to ensure that as many families as possible are offered the opportunity of family group decision-making, including those outside of public law proceedings. The Government recognise the importance of supporting families in private law proceedings. We want to help families resolve their issues quickly and without coming to court. That is why there are already requirements and processes—one of which the noble and learned Baroness talked about—that support families at this point. There is already a requirement, for example, that anyone wishing to make a private family law application must attend a mediation information and assessment meeting to discuss options to resolve their issue outside court, through mediation or other means. The Government also fund the family mediation voucher scheme, providing families £500 towards the cost of mediation. This scheme has helped nearly 40,000 separating parents. The noble and learned Baroness talked about other alternatives as well.
On the Section 7 welfare report, the explanation was ably given by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but my understanding is that, as a welfare report, it can be requested by the court in any family proceedings where there are concerns about the welfare of a child. It is mostly done in private court proceedings, by the local authority if it is involved or by Cafcass if not. I am not convinced, for many of the reasons we have talked about, that this would be an appropriate point to mandate a family group decision-making meeting. I hope the noble Baroness is reassured about the other routes for supporting families in these cases.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to my Amendments, 21, 22 and 23. First, because these three amendments are explicitly focused on family hubs, I declare my interest as a guarantor of FHN Holding, the not-for-profit owner of the Family Hubs Network Ltd.
These amendments are probing because, as I have said previously today, I am interested in hearing how committed this Government are to local preventive family support in every community. More importantly, dedicated teams in local authorities and their partnership organisations up and down the country also need to know what they can expect. Including this infrastructure in safeguarding arrangements makes complete sense because, as I said in my explanatory statement, family hubs support families as the primary means by which children are safeguarded. This can easily be forgotten when we talk about who has responsibility to keep children safe.
This is also important in the wider discussion of the Government’s social care reforms: how do the Government see the role of family hubs in the landscape of the more preventive, early-intervention approach which I support? Families need to experience non-stigmatising and seamless support. Family support staff, perinatal clinicians, mental health professionals, even mediators around the time of couple separation: any professional based in the hub can spot problems early that might need bringing to the attention of social services. This is presumably how schools and childcare agencies will function in their safeguarding arrangements.
Families’ engagement with social workers, even in quite complex interventions, can take place in family hubs or in the wider family support network of buildings and organisations connected to those hubs. When social workers begin to see progress in these families, it is vital that there is ongoing support and lower-level input, including from volunteers in the community, and that they are not just left to flounder.
Active prevention of cycles repeating themselves can also happen by stepping the family back down into what I will loosely call family help. This was how the Isle of Wight came to pioneer family hubs. Its social services were taken into special measures because so many children were not receiving the assessments that they needed, because social workers were so deluged by actual cases. Hampshire County Council, the overseeing council drawn in to help it reform, was very impressed by this solution. Early intervention hubs, also known as family hubs, were set up within existing budgets to help hold families waiting for social services assessments, so risk was managed. They also prevented many families coming to the point when an assessment was deemed necessary: when a child was returned to a family or the parents had received social work help so that their child dropped below the threshold of need, they were stepped down into family hubs. None of this could have happened unless these family hubs were operating skilfully in safeguarding.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, we should pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, in his promotion of family hubs. They are places where families can be offered a range of services and integrated support and information. In my assessment, they have transformed the picture of family law and family practice. They are increasingly widespread and have an important role in the modern functioning of childcare. To that extent, I support the noble Lord’s amendments.
I have a boring technical legal point. A hub is a place, not a person, which uses volunteers and community workers, as well as professionals. If the noble Lord’s Amendment 21 were to be accepted, we would need some clarity on who exactly, under the legislation, would have responsibility on behalf of the hub.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, before addressing the amendments in my name in this group, I echo the appreciation expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for my noble friend Lord Farmer’s tireless work on family hubs. It is fantastic to hear that they are making a real difference on the ground.
My Amendment 26 seeks to find a way through the difficulty in the degree of statutory involvement—the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is not going to like my language—of education and childcare agencies in safeguarding. It requires the Secretary of State to produce a report to Parliament two years after the implementation of the clause which sets out the impact on the resources and costs for education and childcare agencies from their new duties. It could look more widely at the impact on safeguarding and whether there is a need to follow the recommendations of many of the children’s charities and the Children’s Commissioner in making it a full statutory safeguarding partner.
Page 34 of the Government’s impact assessment is studiously vague. It talks about
“possible costs and time implications on LAs to set up new infrastructure”
and
“time implications on some education leaders to engage with systems that they may not have previously been involved in”.
I am not sure how these impact assessments get written, but this feels like it is bordering on the naive. Of course, there will be direct costs for schools and childcare agencies, in both time and money, and we need to understand the extent of them. My amendment seeks to achieve this.
We need to know what this approach will mean in practice for education and childcare agencies, which already have considerable safeguarding duties. Presumably, they will need to put in additional processes and checks; if this is just making the status quo statutory, I do not really understand why it is necessary. Perhaps the Minister could explain in her closing remarks.
My Amendments 27 and 28 are probing amendments, again trying to find out the Government’s thinking on how this will work in practice. The hesitation on the part of the Government in this area, which I think is reasonable, reflects the difficulty in implementation, given the number of organisations involved in education and childcare. My amendment suggests that it would help to have a single point of contact both within the local authority and within the education and childcare sector. Can the Minister confirm whether the assumption is that education and childcare providers can all contact the LADO in their local authority with any safeguarding concerns, and is she confident that the LADOs around the country will have capacity for this? Similarly, is the local authority expected to contact every organisation directly, or is there a role for a single point of contact who could perhaps advise on general queries?
Finally, I have given notice that I intend to oppose the proposition that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. To be clear, unlike some of my other clause stand part notices, this is purely probing. The policy summary produced by the DfE states:
“These arrangements enable education and childcare agencies to have representation”—
this is my emphasis, not that of the policy summary—
“at both the operational and strategic decision-making levels of these safeguarding arrangements”.
The summary continues:
“Practically, this may look like including the breadth of education settings: from early years and childcare to schools including academies, independent schools, alternative provision and further education in operational safeguarding boards, and”—
again, this is my emphasis—
“having representation for their views at executive boards so that they can influence decisions being made about safeguarding in their local area”.
Interestingly, there is no mention of special schools in that list. I am not clear why, because I would have thought that safeguarding would be a particular priority. I think we all have a sense of what this looks like at an operational level, but the policy summary talks about involvement at a strategic level. Will the Minister explain who is going to be able to represent all agencies in an area, what representation of their views at executive boards will look like in real life, and how this will be resourced? Clause 2 is an area where there is broad support for the Government’s approach, but we need more clarity on how they intend to implement these duties and how they will be funded.