Lifelong Learning

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, on introducing this important debate, in which we have had contributions of very high quality.

On a personal level, having the opportunity to close for the Opposition in the debate to an extent represents the wheel turning full circle. That is because my first job on leaving university in the 1970s was as a tutor/organiser with the Workers’ Educational Association. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned trade union courses. During that period with the WEA, I was a distance tutor for courses for trade unionists, many of whom went on to further study. I echo the noble Lord’s remarks about how valuable they were and, in many cases, still are.

I spent three years with the WEA. They were enjoyable and, I hope, productive, years, helping people who had in many cases returned to education after a lengthy absence and were determined to begin a new phase in their lives. That may have meant a new direction in employment or simply an extension of knowledge to use for their personal benefit or that of their family or community.

Whatever the reason, often that first step into adult education was the most difficult, and the WEA has for more than a century opened such doors for millions of people. It continues to do so and last year it published the results of a survey of its students entitled Changing Lives. It revealed the extent to which adult learning impacts on so many areas of an individual’s life. The survey found that more than half of those under the age of 60 gave improving communication skills as a specific skill developed on a WEA course. Four months after completing their course, almost one in four reported having found employment.

Also last year, the WEA felt compelled to mount the Save Adult Education campaign. A petition, signed by more than 10,000 people and calling on the Government to stop further funding cuts to adult education was presented at 10 Downing Street by the WEA chief executive Ruth Spellman. It highlighted the fact that everyone deserves a second chance and a route back to learning. As Ms Spellman stated,

“it is essential for our economy and society that we continue to provide high quality education for adults”.

For many people living in low-income communities, adult education is a lifeline. It helps individuals and their families break cycles of deprivation by getting the skills they need to forge better lives for themselves. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said in her opening remarks, the adult skills budget has been reduced by 35% since 2009, and funding for adults over the age of 19 on non-apprenticeship courses was cut by a further 20% in 2015-16. I ask the Minister to explain the rationale behind what is patently short-term thinking.

A report by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published as long ago as 2011 concluded that,

“adult learning contributes to other government policies by improving health and wellbeing”—

especially that of older people, and their ability to access digital technologies—

“cultural development and active citizenship, all of which can potentially decrease the burden on public finances”.

I would not refer to public services being burdened, but I welcome official recognition of the real benefits that flow from adult education. However, the years since have not demonstrated that the Government listened to their officials in BIS, because there has been little to suggest that they really value adult learning’s contribution to the growth of the economy.

The Association of Colleges has highlighted the extent to which funding has been shifted from adult education to apprenticeships. The levy on employers has the aim of increasing the quantity and quality of apprenticeship training, but there is a real fear that some employers will offer only the lower-end apprenticeships and may even use the people filling them to replace existing staff. Why should all the burden fall on employers? The whole country will benefit from a better educated and skilled workforce, so the Government should be prepared to provide additional funding to ensure that more apprenticeships are at the higher level.

The situation in higher education is everything bit as concerning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, eloquently demonstrated, speaking from her experience as an academic at Cambridge. If I may say so as a bit of an aside, I owe the noble Baroness an apology. I had not looked at her title closely enough and thought she was Baroness Smith of Newham, thereby associating her with the University of East London rather than Cambridge. I now know better and certainly found the information she imparted to noble Lords based on her experience at Cambridge invaluable.

It is a fallacy to assume that young people will learn more effectively than older people. No matter the stage they are at in their adult lives, part-time higher education is essential in delivering flexible learning for people. The Open University is one of our great institutions. Statements it has issued have often made the point that part-time higher education is a cost-effective way of raising skills levels and training so that students can earn and learn at the same time. It may surprise some to learn that 75% of Open University students come into that category, and of course the benefits of new skills are felt immediately by both the individual and their employer.

It should be a matter of great concern to noble Lords that there has been a significant fall in numbers of part-time students in recent years. The signs are that that decline could continue for some time yet, particularly among those studying for foundation degrees, where the number of part-time students has collapsed by almost 50% since 2011. Of course, foundation degrees are the means of opening doors to higher education, so perhaps the Minister can say what the Government propose to do to counter that trend.

Les Ebdon, the head of the Office for Fair Access, has warned that if sustained action is not taken it may be too late to reverse it, meaning that many talented people who missed out on the traditional route into full-time study at 18 will find their route to a second chance at study cut off. A step change in approach by the Government is needed if the potential of lifelong learning is to be fully exploited. When success is measured, it must be done for all, not simply 18 to 20 year-olds.

The data and assumptions underpinning the Higher Education and Research Bill, currently in Committee in another place, focus primarily on young, full-time students, without taking into account the value of other flexible learning options, such as part-time, especially for mature students. It seems to have escaped the DfE’s notice that 38% of all undergraduate students from disadvantaged groups are mature, but it will need to take that statistic on board if it is to have any chance of delivering on the commitment to double the number of disadvantaged students entering higher education by 2020.

Employers and individuals could be encouraged to invest in education through personal career accounts, where public funding is used to match investment by individuals, with a bigger top-up for those on the lowest incomes. This could operate in the same manner as the Help to Buy ISA scheme. Over time, these could develop further to offer career review and development opportunities, assisting people to make informed choices to deliver training and development.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and the noble Lord, Lord Rees, mentioned, the feasibility of a digital credit system could be examined, allowing people to bank their credits in digital accounts, should personal circumstances mean that they are required to suspend their study or skills development for any reason. A good example is the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework, which integrates work-based and lifelong learning. The benefits are widely acknowledged, from promoting social mobility and employability to supporting employer collaboration and driving up quality.

Part-time higher education could be included in the scope of the new employer levy by broadening the scope of apprenticeship levy funding. Ensuring that the levy can be used for other forms of skills training would give more flexibility to the employer, without affecting existing employer-led initiatives, such as employer-sponsored degrees. An apprenticeship, as currently defined, might not be for everyone; one size certainly does not fit all.

Education is a powerful tool for tackling economic and social disadvantage because it raises aspirations and helps people create their own life changes. Lifelong learning and adult education should inform government policy aimed at improving the country’s poor productivity and closing skills gaps, to improve competitiveness and economic performance. Potentially it is a win-win situation, and for that reason I look forward to hearing a positive response from the Minister to the thoughtful contributions from noble Lords today.

Teachers: Academies and Free Schools

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for initiating this debate. I should also say that, certainly on these Benches, he took us by surprise when he shimmied from the Bar towards his seat while beginning his speech, having been caught slightly unawares. It was rather Sinatra-esque and I half expected “Start spreading the news” to emanate from his lips. He gave us a very good tour d’horizon on teaching qualifications, particularly in academies and free schools.

I also welcome to your Lordships’ House the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. I enjoyed her contribution which is clearly based on great experience, but I was slightly taken aback when she talked of her own school and said that she had no idea what the qualifications of her teachers were. Without being unkind and guessing her age, I should think that it is almost certain that at a maintained school they all had QTS. That is the point of this debate. Teachers with QTS clearly trained her very well for her subsequent career which is why people on this side of the House are very largely in favour of that remaining the case. If it ain’t broke, why fix it? The noble Baroness shakes her head but it was extremely unusual not to be qualified at that time.

All children deserve to be taught by qualified teachers and all parents have the right to expect that this will be the case when their child leaves for school, no matter the type of school—maintained, academy, free school or independent school. Let us not forget that the overwhelming majority of independent schoolteachers have QTS. In 2012 the Secretary of State, Mr Gove, who I notice was with us earlier but has now departed for dinner, allowed academies to appoint teachers without QTS. Parents and teachers saw this to some extent as a cost-cutting measure that could cause damage to children’s education, at least in the short term. Head teachers’ leaders were opposed to the change, and the National Association of Head Teachers described it as a significant backward step likely to damage the professionalism of teaching. Teaching is a skill and the idea of employing individuals who have not been given the tools to do a professional job flies in the face of the Government’s stated aspiration of creating more high-performing schools—an aim to which I unequivocally subscribe.

That is why the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, took my breath away. He concluded his speech with an astonishing remark—I paraphrase because I did not note him down word for word—that restricting academies and free schools from employing unqualified staff can only prevent them becoming better schools. That is perverse. By that logic, the perfect school would have no one with qualified teacher status at all. There may be some trust chief executive whose eyes would light up at that suggestion but it is surely not anything that could be argued for. If we want to improve the equality of schools, we ought to improve the quality of the teachers, as much as other aspects of the teaching. I like the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that if non-qualified staff in each school were to be identified, it would lead to a sharp reduction in their number. I agree, but I suspect it would also result in a sharp increase in the number of parents fairly quickly knocking on the door of the head teacher or the trust executive. Most parents, as I said, expect their children to be taught by somebody who has gone through proper training.

I accept that there could be a benefit for a particularly skilled individual in a subject. It could be sport, drama or music, but if that is the case, and there is an urgent need to employ that person immediately, why not do so on the basis that they will move to qualified teacher status while teaching? There is some controversy about on-the-job training with School Direct. I am not opposed to School Direct. If it brings more teachers into the profession, that is to be welcomed. Why not say that if someone is a particularly skilled individual that it will be part of the process of becoming a qualified teacher? It seems to me that that is important.

As the number of School Direct and other on-the job trainees increases, there has been a corresponding increase in the number of teachers who are working towards QTS, but it remains the case that there are unqualified teachers. I will not repeat the figures outlined already by noble Lords, but one figure really struck me. The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, said there is not what he called an epidemic of unqualified teachers, but there are 22,500. If we were to stop the average man or woman in the street, far less the average parent, and ask, “How many unqualified teachers are in our schools?”, we would expect people to have a very much reduced figure in mind than that, if indeed they expected that any would be unqualified. The idea that it is not a large figure and is not increasing exponentially is not the issue. An awful lot of teachers are teaching with just good will and perhaps a knowledge of their subject, but not necessarily the ability to put it across. As the noble Lord, Lord Maude, said, it does not matter how well an individual knows his or her subject, if they cannot put it across effectively, the children will know fairly soon and that person will be exposed. Anybody who wants to teach should be prepared to go through the process.

Surely no education system can be better than the quality of its teachers. The most successful countries, from the Far East to Scandinavia, are those where teaching has the highest status as a profession. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about Finland, which Mr Gove often highlighted. These are countries where teachers have status because they are properly qualified and understood to have gone through not just the university course but detailed training to be a teacher through regular criteria.

The QTS represents a formal set of skills, qualities and professional standards that are recognised as essential aspects of an effective educator. My noble friend Lady Morris made an outstanding contribution, drawing from her experience as Secretary of State; she said that unqualified teachers may have difficulty in coping with pupils with behavioural issues and special educational needs. They may be an expert on the subject specialism but lack the crucial classroom experience and pedagogical background needed to maximise children’s learning potential and properly support their educational development. That is a very important point, because it is impossible to guarantee consistency or quality of teaching unless the merits of QTS are universally recognised. That is why it is important that all schools, regardless of status, should adhere to the same criteria.

Earlier this year, the Government published a White Paper in which they proposed to replace QTS with what they described as a,

“stronger, more challenging accreditation based on a teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom, as judged by great schools”.

The Government’s proposals included putting head teachers in charge of accrediting new entrants into the teaching profession. That worries me with regard to academies, because it seems likely that a head teacher from another school would be likely to assess the ability of an individual teacher and there would be an interest for another head teacher from within that multiacademy trust in ensuring that the teacher got accredited status.

It is surely important that for many years teachers have had to get qualifications which everyone has understood underpins what they do in the classroom, interfacing with children. Again on the point made by my noble friend Lady Morris, nobody should teach in a state-funded school without QTS, or without working towards it. Children and their parents have the right to expect no less.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for bringing this Question for Short Debate. This is a very important issue, which as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, has already pointed out, is often misunderstood. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.

I start by making it absolutely clear that nothing in schools matters more than good teachers. Evidence from around the world shows that high-quality teachers are the single most important factor determining how well pupils do in school. We believe that all pupils, regardless of birth or background, should receive an excellent education wherever they are, and we cannot achieve that ambition without excellent teachers.

Academies are at the centre of our ambition to drive up standards of education. Our reforms are working. Over the past six years, we have more than 1.4 million more pupils in good and outstanding schools. In a somewhat tougher Ofsted inspection framework, the number of good and outstanding schools has gone up from 68% to 86%, as my noble friend Lord Suri pointed out. We have many more confident readers as a result of our phonics programme, and we have many more pupils leaving primary with the necessary literacy and numeracy skills that they need to succeed in secondary schools. We have doubled the number of pupils doing EBacc—and my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy quoted a number of other statistics in support of the academies programme. That is very much driven by the fact that we have empowered great leaders and teachers to take charge.

It is surely right that the head teacher of a school, who knows the school and its community best, should be able to employ the teachers he or she thinks will best serve the pupils of the school. That is what head teachers should be able to do. That is why, in 2012, the Government gave academies the power already enjoyed by free schools to employ teachers who do not hold qualified teacher status, where they judge it to be appropriate. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of teachers, 95.1% in state-funded schools and 94% in academies, hold QTS, and one-fifth of these are working towards QTS. Those figures suggest that heads are exercising their choice by continuing to employ a significant majority of teachers who have completed initial teacher training.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

What the noble Lord is saying is not without merit, but the point I made earlier was that if it is deemed appropriate to appoint an individual, why would you say to him or her: “Come and work in this school. It does not matter whether you qualify or not”? Surely it should be: “Come and work with us now, give us the benefit of your experience and, while you are doing that, work towards a qualification”. What is the reason for not doing that?

[Lord Nash]

If the noble Lord will let me continue, I hope I will develop the answer to that question as I go on.

It is not surprising that this is happening as we have given head teachers much greater involvement in recruiting and training their own teachers, through our very popular School Direct programmes.

There is a big difference between not holding a particular qualification or status and not being accomplished in a particular field. An influential study by McKinsey suggested that teacher quality is a complex mixture of different attributes, including personal characteristics such as commitment, resilience, perseverance, motivation and, of course, sound subject knowledge. These are qualities which the teacher Iris Williams, who inspired my noble friend Lady Finn so well, clearly had in great abundance—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

And QTS?

[Lord Nash]

She may have had, but I am referring to a study on what McKinsey, based on worldwide evidence, think is most important for teachers. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Finn for her moving and inspiring speech. We need many more like Iris Williams.

One other way in which we are recruiting is through our Teach First programme, which brings teachers without QTS straight into the classroom. We have recruited just over 1,400 of these this year; 62% of them will be placed in schools outside London, many of them in cold spots where we have difficulty recruiting. Many Teach Firsters are helping transform our school system.

The freedoms that we have given academies and free schools around teacher qualifications are part of a broader policy of autonomy. Since 2010, we have given school leaders greater say over teachers’ pay and conditions and the curriculum they offer in their schools. We have even given school leaders and teachers the opportunity to open their own schools. I am extremely encouraged when I hear of schools making use of these freedoms to improve education for their pupils. For example, an academy in Barnsley has hired a published illustrator, without QTS, to teach art very successfully.

Many of our top schools, including independent schools—whose skills we intend to harness more greatly in our school system, as we have discussed several times recently in this House—employ many teachers without QTS. I know it will interest the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the other day I was talking to the deputy head of one of our leading independent schools, who happens to have a PhD in physics and does not have qualified teacher status. His school employs many teachers without qualified teacher status. He told me about his exam results: 90% of his pupils achieved five good GCSEs. When they talk about five good GCSEs in that school, they do not mean five A to C grades; they mean 90% achieving A* to A. I agree entirely with the points made by my noble friend Lord Maude about the importance in our reforms of freedom of movement between these two sectors.

The freedoms we have given schools over teacher qualifications were influenced by the Review of Vocational Education by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, in 2011, which she referred to. I congratulate her on her excellent speech, which was full of truisms about the issue and international evidence. In some schools, the quality of education was suffering because it was often delivered in the absence of professionals with appropriate experience and expertise. Many schools were not even considering employing professionals from industry because they believed it was too difficult to do so. That is why, in addition to the freedoms we have given to academies and free schools, we have also made it easier for maintained schools to employ instructors—a type of teacher who has special qualifications and experience but not QTS. We also ensured that teachers qualified in the further education sector who hold QTLS are recognised as qualified teachers when they are employed in schools.

The Government recognise the enormous importance of pupils being taught by teachers who have a real depth of specialism in their subject or subjects. This point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. It is always more challenging to recruit new teachers in some priority subjects such as maths and physics. That is why we have bursaries available of up to £30,000 in these subjects. Since 2010 we have increased the number of teachers in our schools with 2.1s or better from 63% to 75%. Some 18% of people entering teacher training now have a first, which is higher than ever, and we are putting in place support that trainees and existing teachers need to develop their subject knowledge specialism further. That includes new content for ITT that emphasises the importance of teaching a knowledge-rich curriculum, which is particularly important for pupils from a disadvantaged background who might not get that cultural capital at home, and we have designed programmes to enhance the subject knowledge of both specialist and non-specialist teachers. I hope noble Lords will be glad to hear that the latest data show that the proportion of hours recorded as taught by specialist teachers has increased in 2015 across all subjects.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, for whom I have the deepest respect—she is very experienced—said that we have said that teachers in academies and free schools do not need any qualification at all. We have not said that; we just trust the heads to decide what qualifications are appropriate. She also said that this would enable a free-for-all where teachers could teach any subject to any group of people in any context in any environment. Of course, that is exactly what happens in many primary schools, where teachers have a very challenging task. I pay tribute to the way in which they so often rise to the challenge, and I spoke earlier today about the importance of primary education. It also, sadly, happens in secondary schools which cannot recruit teachers with the right subject. That is why we are so keen to see more subject-specific teaching in our schools by teachers qualified in that subject.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about teacher training being a deep-end approach. I entirely agree. Far too often, that is exactly what has happened in QTS. We must remember that QTS takes nine months, that 65% happens in a school and that at the end of it there are no exams. That shows the importance we attach to training in school—which is why we have so much more training in schools. When I have interviewed newly qualified teachers and asked them, for example, where they learned about behaviour management, they have all said in schools, because that is how they learned it—except that people educated in South Africa say that they have one module in their ITT training on simulated behaviour management training and it is very important. I am delighted to see that our behaviour expert Tom Bennett and Sir Andrew Carter, in his review of ITT, have emphasised the importance of improved behaviour management in ITT.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, referred to our reforms mentioned in the White Paper, as did the noble Lord, Lord Watson, who said if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Well, we don’t think it’s broke but we certainly believe it can be improved substantially. We believe there is more we can do to help raise the status of the teaching profession to take its place alongside other learned professions such as law and medicine. As I say, it currently takes nine months. No one realistically considers a teacher fully qualified and fully proficient after nine months—that is why it is called initial teacher training. It is recognised that becoming a highly proficient teacher takes many years. I was recently talking to a leader of one of our unions who said he thought it took at least four years.

Of course, good schools in MATs have well-developed CPD programmes. I agree with my noble friend Lord Maude about the importance of CPD in this context. My noble friend also invited me to make an announcement about the reinstitution of direct grant schools, and earlier today the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said that he would not be surprised if there were more announcements. I am afraid that I have to disappoint my noble friend about that, but I agree with him about the importance of continuous development.

Under our proposed reforms to QTS in the White Paper, successful completion of initial teacher training would no longer result in a teacher being fully qualified. Rather, teachers would be required to demonstrate sustained proficiency in the classroom, which would continue to be judged against the teachers’ standards. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, makes about the importance of the objectivity of the person who makes that judgment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, talked about the importance of evidence-based theories of education, which are so important. Recognising that requires a significant shift in the current situation. That is why we have worked with experts to produce a new framework of core content for initial teacher training and a new standard for teacher professional development, both of which were published earlier this year. These make it clear that trainees should be familiar with the most recent research and theories in education and view those with a critical eye, and that ongoing professional development should continue to be underpinned by the best evidence.

As well as these important developments, the Government are supporting the establishment of the College of Teaching—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, will be pleased to hear that—expanding our network of teaching schools and working with the Education Endowment Foundation, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, referred.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked about the importance of SEN. The additional freedoms given to academies and free schools to employ teachers without QTS do not extend to special academies. All state-funded mainstream schools are required to designate a member of staff as a SENCO, who must have QTS. The new Framework of Core Content for Initial Teacher Training published this July includes strong emphasis on ensuring that courses equip trainee teachers with the skills they need to support SEND pupils effectively in the classroom. I would be very happy to facilitate a meeting with the groups to which the noble Lord referred to discuss the importance of this further.

I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. I emphasise that the Government are committed to ensuring that we have a high-quality teaching profession in which teachers and school leaders are given the respect that professionals deserve. They certainly deserve that because they do such an important job. That is why we have given heads much greater freedom to bring in the depth and breadth of teaching experience and expertise that they judge to be appropriate for the needs of their own pupils, whose needs, after all, they are surely best placed to judge.

Grammar Schools

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement although it must be said that it was rather vague and unconvincing. Indeed, anyone listening to the Secretary of State this morning would have been struck by just how unconvinced she herself sounded when making it. The Minister will regard it as a backhanded compliment that his delivery was slightly better.

On the day that she assumed office, the Prime Minister announced that she would put social mobility at the heart of her agenda. That pledge was cast into doubt when she quickly abolished maintenance grants for students and any doubts were removed yesterday when she defended plans for new or expanded grammar schools. The Minister said that he was open-minded on the matter; the Prime Minister has already moved at least one step beyond that because whatever claims in support of grammar schools can be sustained, advancing social mobility is not one of them. I was surprised to hear the Minister tell your Lordships’ House yesterday that there is no clear evidence to support the views of the Chief Inspector of Schools, who said that the idea that poor children would benefit from the return of grammar schools was, “tosh and nonsense”. In fact, the Minister need look no further than Buckinghamshire or Kent to have Sir Michael Wilshaw’s opinion confirmed —an opinion, it might be said, that was supported yesterday by the Minister’s colleague and former Education Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts.

In answer to a question following her Statement today, the Secretary of State said that the Government’s plans will not involve a return to secondary moderns. Well, perhaps not in name, but as that suggests that a considerable amount of policy development must have taken place already, will the Minister explain how the Government believe that a return to the entrenched inequality and social disadvantage of the 1950s and 1960s can be avoided? We fully understand why some parents are attracted to grammar schools and accept they want only what is best for their children, but to expand grammar schools by a non-legislative route at a time when school budgets are squeezed and teaching posts remain unfilled shows a skewed sense of priorities. Therefore, can the Minister give an assurance that newly created academies or free schools will not be used as a backdoor method of reintroducing selection into state-funded schools?

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his compliment. I will take any compliment I get from him, backhanded or not. As I said yesterday, I am a great fan of Sir Michael Wilshaw. He has played a big part in improving our school system and I am delighted that he is in the Chamber today. I am fully aware that there are arguments on both sides of this debate. However, we do not want this to be a dogmatic, ideological debate. Just because things may not have worked well in the past does not mean that we cannot find ways of making them work in the future for all pupils. We will make any changes against a background of ensuring that we improve the system for all pupils and against our drive for social mobility. However, we need more good and outstanding school places and we want all schools in the system that are good and outstanding to help us to do that. As I say, we have not made a policy announcement but I am sure there will be further Statements in due course.

Schools: Admissions

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, in the week in which many schools in England have returned from their summer holidays, it is appropriate that your Lordships’ House has been given the opportunity to debate the important issue of admissions arrangements. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on achieving that, and welcome the fact that we are returning to the subject following the QSD in my name on the specific issue of the admissions code, which the House considered in May. The admissions code underscores everything that has been said in the debate so far because the “schools’ admissions arrangements” referred to in the title centre around the code.

I note what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said about schools themselves needing some assistance with the code, but parents also need help interpreting the code, and that is the nub of the problem. Every parent, and I am one, knows of the tension associated with doing their best to ensure that their children secure a place at the school of the parents’ choice. Around 80% are successful in that venture, which is commendable. However, when they are not, they must, at the very least, have the knowledge that they were competing on a level playing field.

The question of school admissions is very much a hot topic, with the Government—whether wittingly or unwittingly—having reintroduced the subject of grammar schools and the selection that that involves. The debate on grammar schools is for another day—in the not too distant future, perhaps, if rumours of an impending Green Paper are to be believed. However, as we just heard vividly from my noble friend Lord Puttnam, a major and long-established problem with the 11-plus exam, which is used to decide who is admitted to a grammar school, is that well-off parents pay for coaching or to get the exam papers in advance. That is a very sensible tactic, but not one that is available to everyone, as not everyone is familiar with Foyles, far less with the Charing Cross Road. It is an important point that some children have additional assistance to get into a grammar school. That is not a level playing field.

Last evening, the Prime Minister commented to Tory MPs that she already believed there was selection in state schools, caused by the ability of some parents to move to expensive housing in the catchment areas of high-performing schools. I very much agree with her. But those who claim to live at advantageous addresses are not always genuine in doing so and the admissions code should be a means of ensuring that that is not often the case.

The current system is open to abuse, and that is where the admissions code comes in—at least, it ought to. It is not acceptable simply to say that we cannot criticise parents for doing what they believe is in the best interests of their child. Actually, we can and we should, if, in so doing so, parents are wrongly or unfairly depriving another child of a place that he or she is entitled to.

All state-funded schools in England must comply with the School Admissions Code and the School Admission Appeals Code, and the statutory legislation that underpins them. Objections to admissions criteria and procedures can currently be submitted by anyone to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator, whose decisions are binding. However, as noble Lords will be aware, for some months now, the Government have been putting forward plans to restrict those who can object to breaches of the code.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has already referred to the Fair Admissions Campaign and the British Humanist Association survey that was carried out. It demonstrated that there are many schools with intakes more favourable than would be expected given their location, and that these are often faith schools or other schools that control their own admissions. The two organisations analysed the admissions policies of a sample of faith schools and found that virtually all of them broke the admissions code in one way or another. I accept what the right reverend Prelate said: that in many case these were minor breaches. However, they were breaches none the less, and the adjudicator upheld 87% of the objections put to her in 48 schools. People have said that that is only 48 schools, but to repeat a remark I made in our debate in the Chamber in May, we are told that a sample of 1,000 can give the opinions of 60 million. Therefore, 48 schools is a valid sample, and a lot of important information was gleaned from that survey. The title of this debate is particularly apposite in the light of those findings.

The question is this: how do the Government provide support to parents seeking to navigate their way through what can be shark-infested waters? The admissions system is becoming increasingly complicated and difficult for parents to find their way through, favouring as it does those with the skills and the time needed to deal with it.

In the debate in May, I questioned the noble Baroness, Lady Evans—whatever became of her?—as to what the DfE had done to make sure that the schools identified in the survey as having breached the code had changed the way that they operate. The noble Baroness did not, at that time, give an answer, so I hope that the Minister may be able to now—perhaps the civil servants behind him can give him the information. Those schools surely cannot carry on as they were prior to that survey.

The issues identified by the survey are only part of the story, because there are a considerable number of devices used by schools that have been found to be acceptable under the code but which enable schools to gain a more favoured intake. The level of segregation of pupils by faith and, less often, by ethnicity and socioeconomic position is dangerously high. It is a significant threat to social cohesion, which of course all schools have a duty to promote.

I was quite taken aback by the powerful contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I knew that there were problems in the way the code does or perhaps does not operate, but I was unaware of the extent of it. I certainly knew nothing about the sixth-form aspect of it. Perhaps I might arrange to meet her at some time to discuss that in more detail, because it sounds like a serious problem.

In opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that parents should choose schools. Surely that is the bottom line; it should be for parents to choose the school that their children go to, not the school that chooses the children. When the Schools Minister led a revision of the code some years ago, it was driven by his wish to allow anyone to object to malpractice. At that time, there was also a Select Committee inquiry. It received evidence from the Sutton Trust, which said,

“all the evidence suggests that those schools that are autonomous or have autonomous admissions are those that are most socially selective when compared to their localities”.

Yet, regrettably, the Government are proposing changes to the code that will reduce the number of complaints. They are supposedly about “unclogging the system”. Neither I nor, I suspect, anyone else has any wish to clog the system; I certainly would not want to see schools overburdened. However, the solution for any school that feels it is being or might be burdened by complaints about code violations is quite simple: stick to the admissions code. If they do that, they will have few if any additional administrative demands placed upon them.

Slightly worryingly, the Secretary of State’s rationale at the time when the changes were put forward was:

“So that parents can be confident that the school admission process is working for them”.

I fear that is little more than a coded message to those who are able to benefit from the present arrangements. Perhaps the Minister can explain how requiring schools to adhere to the rules in some way prevents school admissions codes from “working for them”. Taking issues to the adjudicator is not about changing the rules; it is about enforcing them—unless of course “working for them” means benefiting from the current situation when rules are all too often breached.

There is another issue here: no one is involved in enforcing or even monitoring the code. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, in May whether the Government would bring forward a means of ensuring that the code was at the very least monitored. She did not give me an answer but said that the question was being looked at. Is there any update on that? The noble Baroness said,

“we are looking at whether we need to do more around compliance”.—[Official Report, 11/5/16; col. 1786.]

I hope there may be something to say. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said that one of the options was to strengthen the role of the schools adjudicator. If she was given more staff, monitoring might be an option.

I contend it is essential that organisations concerned about the manner in which the code is being adhered to should retain the right to raise complaints. If it becomes widely accepted among parents that there is in effect a two-tier system on admissions, cynicism will set in. For parents to come to believe that those with sharper elbows will crowd them out would be a gross distortion of what should be a fair and transparent system. It would lead to greater inequality and social disadvantage, which I am confident the Minister will agree must not be allowed to happen. I hope he will set out how he proposes to ensure that that it is not.

Independent Schools: Teacher Training

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

We have bursary schemes of up to £30,000 for recruits in maths and science and up to £25,000 in modern foreign languages. Since 2010, the number of teachers with a 2:1 or better has gone up from 63% to 75%. This year, we have the highest number of teachers entering ITT with a first than ever before, at 18%.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, there is no requirement for teachers in the independent sector to have a teaching qualification, although of course many do, often having come from the state sector. I feel that the independent sector would talk with more authority on the question of teacher training if more of them offered an induction year to newly qualified teachers. However, is not the issue here teacher shortages—an issue on which both the Government and the DfE remain in denial? How else can you square the circle whereby a number of teaching establishments have a cap applied to them—an arbitrary national figure—and when that is reached, teaching establishments are not allowed to take on any more trainees, even if they are only half full? Meanwhile the Government have instituted an international recruitment programme to try to attract teachers from abroad. When many head teachers are finding it difficult to fill vacancies, why should there be any cap on teacher training places at all?

[Lord Nash]

As I have said many times before in this House, the teacher training recruitment situation is no different than it has been on many occasions over the last 20 years, including many years under the Labour Government. It has generally remained very stable. Since 2010, we have 15,000 more teachers and the number of teachers has kept up well with the number of students. We have 14,000 returners this year. To take the point about ITT, we have consulted with the sector and it has become clear that ITT providers would like to have more long-term visibility and stability in their places. That is something we intend to address.

Grammar Schools

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce legislation—including secondary legislation—to expand the existing offer of grammar schools to other local authority areas.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to making sure that every child has the opportunity to attend a good or outstanding school that will allow them to go as far as their talents will take them. As such, we are looking at a range of options to deliver this. We are aware of media speculation on the future of education policy and grammar schools specifically. The Government expect to come forward with proposals in due course.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, that is a clear non-denial. Yesterday’s inadvertent leak—if indeed that is what it was—that the Government are seeking to create new grammar schools has caused widespread alarm. The Minister has not accepted that that is the case. However, something must be afoot. It is not normal for a Permanent Secretary to arrive at the door of No. 10 Downing Street for a Cabinet discussion on a controversial subject without that having been given some considerable consideration in advance. Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no means, either legislative or non-legislative, to increase the number of grammar schools, so that we are not faced sometime in the not too distant future with further ruses such as the so-called annexe at Tonbridge?

[Lord Nash]

To comment first on the noble Lord’s pun in his first statement, I can assure him that the leak did not originate from anybody in your Lordships’ House. I do not think I can add any further to what I have already said. However, we are not interested in any ruses and want the policy to be absolutely clear. The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that she wants a society that works for everyone and all children to have access to a good education. We are exploring our options for delivering this and we want all good schools to help us in this endeavour.

Schools: Drama

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

I agree entirely with my noble friend: studies have shown that this has had the effect of doing that with pupils. As I say, that is why we are so heavily focused on the EBacc. It is appalling that, until a few years ago, so few of our pupils were accessing such a curriculum.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

It is through programmes operated by theatres such as the Young Vic that schoolchildren get the opportunity to experience theatre production, which is so important in learning about and understanding drama, yet the National Association for the Teaching of Drama has reported that, increasingly, schools are removing theatre trips from their timetables because of the difficulty in balancing their budgets. At the same time, the number of drama teachers is decreasing: it went down by nearly 20% between 2011 and 2014. As Sir Peter Bazalgette, the chair of Arts Council England, said, the state sector,

“doesn’t generate quite the creative and acting talent that it could were people in that sector given the same quality of education in performing they get in private schools”.

Sir Peter also argued that it should not be possible for an Ofsted rating of outstanding to be granted to any school unless it offers a vigorous and wide-ranging arts education. Does the Minister agree with that?

[Lord Nash]

We are working with exam boards and Ofqual to make sure that all students see live drama in the theatre, as part of their drama qualifications, and we expect this to be in place from September next year. It is of course not just about GCSEs; many students choose to pursue drama through their school drama societies and in school plays. I cannot think of a school that I have visited which does not have an active drama society and puts on school plays. Ofsted inspects against how well the school supports the formal curriculum with extra-curricular activities for pupils to extend their knowledge and understanding, and to improve their skills in a range of artistic, creative and sporting activities.

Academies: Sponsors

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

We now have getting on for 2,000 sponsored academies. Last year, primary sponsored academies which have been open for two years improved their results by more than double those of local authority maintained schools. The benefits of academy status include the ability to employ teachers from a wide variety of backgrounds and to pay them appropriately.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, Bright Tribe, Cuckoo Hall, Dixons Kings, Durand and Perry Beeches are names the Minister will be familiar with; indeed, they are names that should keep him awake of an evening because they are just the most egregious examples found by the Education Funding Agency of where the financial requirements for academy trusts were not adhered to. Will the Minister assure the House that the new Secretary of State will do what her predecessor plainly did not—get a grip and ensure proper financial oversight of the £50 billion that, as he said, is swishing around the academy system?

[Lord Nash]

I am delighted that the noble Lord is so concerned to see value for money. It is a pity he was not around in the Labour Government; when we came into power, waste was seeping out of every pore. To get the matter into context, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in 2013-14 the Audit Commission identified 206 cases of fraud in local authority maintained schools—given the much less rigorous accounting procedures that are required in relation to those schools, that was generally acknowledged to be an understatement—compared with 22 cases identified in academies. As I said, we need to set that in the context of such a small budget. It is a great pity that people from philanthropic backgrounds are not more appreciated. This is a move started by the Labour Party under the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and it is something that we have continued with gusto. I find this constant sniping from the sidelines very depressing.

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I did not get an answer to my question about which Secretary of State it would be. Strangely enough, although Clause 21 refers to “Secretary of State” in the singular, in his response the Minister talked about Secretaries of State. Will he clarify whether we are talking about the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Health in agreement? If so, what will happen if they do not agree?

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Today’s edition of Written Statements and Answers contains an Answer to a Question that I put down on social work training. It is from the noble Lord, Lord Prior of Brampton. Why is that?

[Lord Nash]

It is clear that the agency will be supported by the DfE and the DH. Both Secretaries of State will be responsible. If they do not agree, I assume we will put them in a room until we have an agreement. Secretaries of State do not initially agree on a lot of things. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the Department of Health is responsible, just as the DfE is responsible for children’s social care. I do not know whether I can say any more at this stage, so I shall go on.

This new regulator will have an absolute focus on raising the quality of social work education, training and practice through setting new and more specific standards. We intend to establish a new executive agency for the regulation of social workers, jointly supported by the DfE and the DH and accountable to the Secretaries of State. I reassure noble Lords that in arriving at this conclusion we considered the merits of a number of different models. We also considered whether the HCPC could strengthen its regulatory framework to deliver the improvements that we want and to make it more social work specific. It is responsible for 15 other professions, and we believe it would require a fundamental shift in its approach to create the model required for social work. It would be likely to involve additional costs and could impact on its ability to regulate the other professions for which it is responsible. We have therefore concluded that at this time we need a bespoke regulator which can bring an absolute and expert focus to standards in social work education, training and practice that the current system lacks.

I know that many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have questioned this approach, given the Government’s wider commitments to regulatory reform of the health and care professions. A number of noble Lords have also highlighted—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has—that the regulation of social workers was moved to the HCPC in 2012. This decision and the decision to close the General Social Care Council were not taken lightly. We believed that it was the right decision at the time, but things do not stand still and, since then, the College of Social Work has also closed, creating a real gap in the representation and professional development of social workers. We have received the independent reports on social work education, which I previously referenced, and have identified continuing concerns about the quality of social work practice in some areas. That is why we think it is right to take a new approach.

However, that does not signal a change in the approach to the regulation of other professions; it is simply about making the right arrangements for social work. The Department of Health remains committed to broader reform of the health and care professions, building on the work of the Law Commission and the Professional Standards Authority in this area. However, it has not yet secured parliamentary time for a proposed public accountabilities Bill to inform wider professional regulation. We are discussing with interested parties how our ambition to simplify and improve the regulatory framework can be taken forward.

The new agency will support improvements across the social work profession by setting higher and more specific standards that go beyond the traditional safety-net approach of many regulations. The agency will set pre and post-qualification standards across practice, education and training, and CPD. It will not be a professional body. We believe this is the right approach for social work. There is no intention to replicate the representative functions of a professional body or membership organisation.

I assure noble Lords that we have, of course, also considered whether an independent regulator should be established. I will set out the key reasons why I believe it is not right to do that at this time. I have already set out the higher level of ambition that we have for our social work workforce: excellent social workers delivering world-class practice. Of course, government has a significant stake in ensuring high-quality social work practice, not least because it delivers vital services for the most vulnerable in the state. There is, however, a notable lack of consensus across the profession as to agreed standards of practice. Various efforts—through independent regulation and the development of the College of Social Work—have, unfortunately, failed to deliver what is needed or to move standards to where they need to be.

There are practical considerations too. Establishing a wholly new independent body will take time, as leadership and infrastructure are built from scratch, and our reform programme is rightly ambitious. The Government have significant resources, and it is right that they bring these to bear to rapidly deliver the reforms that we need. The effective functioning of an independent body requires, we think, a strong professional body. However, the profession has as yet been unable to sustain this, despite the Government investing over £8 million in funding the College of Social Work. I recognise, of course, that many noble Lords have signalled their support for a strong professional body. That was also raised by the Education Select Committee, which the Government also welcome. However, particularly given the recent experience with the College of Social Work, it must be for the profession to develop it.

For the reasons I have outlined, we remain convinced that regulatory reform is needed, but it cannot be addressed simply through the development of a professional body. For those reasons, we believe there is a strong and compelling case for moving the regulation of the profession closer to government at this time. This will allow us to rapidly deliver improvements and to embed a new regulatory system that supports this. I know that this closer relationship is a matter—

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I must first apologise that I was unable to be present when my opposition to Clause 11 was debated. Unfortunately, I have a serious family health problem which has prevented me from being present or even doing any work on this Bill until today, I have to confess. I will speak briefly to oppose the proposition that Clauses 12 and 13 should stand part of the Bill. I assure the Minister that the aim here is not to have the clauses struck out but to provide an opportunity to explore the implications of the two clauses as they are worded and to enable noble Lords to raise any general concerns ahead of Report.

I recognise the need to establish a stronger statutory framework that will introduce greater accountability for the three key agencies involved in safeguarding children—local authorities, the local police and the local health service, as proposed by Alan Wood—though I understand that there are concerns that other services should also be incorporated. However, the single purpose of a new framework, as made clear in new Section 16B(2), is absolutely rightly specified as,

“to ascertain what (if any) lessons can be learned from the case about the way in which local authorities or others should work to safeguard children”.

I hope we can explore how, in drawing out and disseminating the lessons from tragic events, we as a society can avoid increasing the blame culture, which has affected social workers and other public servants so severely in recent years. If we do increase the blame culture, the risk is that good social workers and other public servants will walk away from their jobs, as many public servants have done in recent years; others will simply not take up these professions; and the net result will be that the risks to children will increase rather than diminish. I know that that is absolutely not what the Government want to achieve—but there is a very serious point here, which I hope the Government will take on board.

If a social worker working with a family where a child unfortunately dies or is severely injured does fall short in some way, it is surely a matter for that social worker’s managers. It should not be a matter for national politicians and a national panel—whose role, as the Bill makes clear, must be solely to ensure that lessons are learned and disseminated. At a national level, the worst of all this is what happens when the media get involved—and they will get involved: they just do. That can wreck the lives of front-line workers to the point from which, to some degree, they never recover. I really do believe that it is that bad.

The review will of course need to establish whether any failings were a reflection of procedural issues, system failures or a lack of adequate resources. All of that is right and proper, but somehow we need to protect the individuals, not from proper disciplinary action or whatever is appropriate but from this national glare and utter devastation of their lives. If they have made an error, they probably did not intend to. So we have to get this right. It is terribly important that we do and I do not believe that the wording in the Bill achieves that at the moment.

Subsection (4) of new Section 16B inserted into the Children Act 2004 by Clause 12 requires the panel to publish the report on supervised child safeguarding in practice reviews. Alternatively, subsection (5) states:

“If the Panel consider it inappropriate to publish the report, they must publish any information relating to the lessons to be learned from the case”.

Is it really ever necessary or appropriate to publish a whole report on a specific case, which would inevitably involve publishing material about an individual front-line worker? The only national interest is in the lessons to be learned—the material that would be published under subsection (5). So I would welcome the Minister’s view as to whether subsection (4) could be deleted from the Bill. This would focus the minds of members of the panel on their sole role. It would also go some way to reassuring front-line staff that the Government are not aiming to focus national media and political attention on blaming an individual front-line worker. That is the key point that I hope we can think about in relation to these clauses.

My other point is a concern of the Local Government Association that the national panel, as outlined in the Bill, is too closely controlled by the Secretary of State. Again, this risks politicising the serious case review process, and the concern is again for the protection of front-line staff. But it is also very important to ensure that all the lessons are learned from these reviews, so it is absolutely vital that these reviews are seriously and really independent of government control. A review may need to comment on the impact of national policies on safeguarding failures and make recommendations for policy reform as well as procedural changes that are needed.

The Government have tabled Amendment 114, which risks placing too great an emphasis on the actions of individual practitioners in determining the cause of failures. We need to maintain the systems approach that we have had when undertaking these reviews. A focus on an individual’s failure in a particular area will have no relevance to the authorities in other parts of the country. Will the Minister look at the wording of Amendment 114 with this concern in mind?

The NSPCC has questioned whether it is right to limit the role of the national review panel to those cases that involve a death or serious injury, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. With the focus clearly on lessons to be learned, it may be important to include cases involving near misses or areas where a lot of children have suffered some harm. It may help to clarify that in the Bill.

Finally, it seems important to clarify further the dissemination activities that will be required of the panel. Somehow this business of learning the lessons seems to be somewhat skated over. The Bill needs to make absolutely clear how this country will learn from these serious cases. That is what the panel needs to do.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, we are content to support the amendments in this group that were ably moved and explained by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Meacher. I wish to comment on Amendments 105 and 107. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, when discussing the rights of the child in this Committee recently urged the Government to ensure the automatic review of child deaths in institutions. The two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, would ensure that that continued to happen.

I am sure all noble Lords will have received a six-page letter from the Minister this morning, looking at what we have done on the Bill so far. The last page of the letter refers to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, on which he seeks to give reassuring commitments that the Government are indeed moving forward in a number of fields with regard to the rights of children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

None the less—I understand the laughter from other noble Lords—there are interesting developments on my side of the fence, too. The Committee will forgive me for not commenting on that.

What the Minister said in his letter was reassuring. None the less, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, would ensure an automatic review of child deaths, which obviously is a serious matter that I do not mean to treat lightly at all. Those are the two amendments that I wanted to specify, but all the amendments listed would strengthen the section of the Bill. For that reason, as stated earlier, we are pleased to support them.

As noble Lords will know, my noble friend Lord Hunt is a signatory to the proposal to oppose the question that Clauses 12 and 13 stand part of the Bill, and it is to this that I now wish to speak. We have concerns about the manner in which the functions of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel are to be established. Clause 12(1) states that the Secretary of State shall have power delegated to her to decide what the functions of the panel shall be. The functions are not set out in any detail; the Secretary of State is to be given the right to decide how the functions are to operate. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated in its report on the Bill:

“The arrangements made by the Secretary of State will determine more precisely how those functions are to be exercised, and will accordingly play a significant role in shaping what the Panel is required to do and how it is required to do it”.

The committee goes on to say that as a result, it believes that the arrangements made by the Secretary of State should be contained in a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. So do we, which is why we believe Clause 12 must be strengthened.

We also have objections to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State to the panel, as outlined in new Section 16B(8) in Clause 12. Again, our concerns are shared by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which commented that as the guidance clearly must operate hand in glove with the arrangements being made by the Secretary of State in relation to the panel, the guidance, too, should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, this time by negative resolution.

The same could be said in respect of Clause 13 and the definition of “regulated setting”, relating to the death of a child. “Regulated setting” is not defined in the Bill, which the DPRRC regards as a major failing. The committee says:

“The definition of ‘regulated setting’ is fundamental to determining the scope of a local authority’s duty to provide information about cases”,

within this section of the Bill. That gives the Secretary of State unlimited discretion to determine what falls within the definition, and the committee goes on to say that the delegated power conferred by Section 16C(3) of the Children Act 2004 is inappropriate in providing for the definition of “regulated setting” to be set out in regulation.

More seriously—not least, I suspect, for the Department for Education—the committee proceeds effectively to rubbish the department’s claim that:

“This is a narrow power which will only provide for a list of regulated settings, not raising matters of substance which the House will need to debate”.

The Delegated Powers Committee does not just describe that power as a wide one; it concludes that it is a Henry VIII power, which means that it should be subject to affirmative procedure.

The number of delegated powers contained in the Bill was the subject of some dispute, shall we say, between noble Lords and Ministers at Second Reading. Doubtless we could schedule a separate debate in Committee to resolve just how many there are but, with the exception of the Ministers, every noble Lord who has taken part in debates on the Bill will agree that however many there are, there are too many.

The definition of a Henry VIII clause is of course one that seeks to amend primary legislation by secondary legislation. I cannot resist quoting the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who spoke strongly against such clauses when he was Lord Chief Justice. He stated:

“You can be sure that when these Henry VIII clauses are introduced they will always be said to be necessary. William Pitt warned us how to treat such a plea with disdain. Necessity is the justification for every infringement of human liberty: it is the argument of tyrants, the creed of slaves”.

That may be just a little strong for this Bill but the message is quite clear. There are more egregious examples elsewhere in the Bill of the abuse of parliamentary procedures through secondary legislation—but, for the reason I have outlined, we believe that the definition of “regulated setting” has to be on the face of the Bill.

As was stated in Committee last week, there are concerns over the establishment of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, partly because of the fear that it could be used to blame, or perhaps even scapegoat, social workers if a high-profile local case is referred to the new national panel without full knowledge of the local elements of the case. That is why the greatest attention must be given to defining the arrangements and functions of the panel as clearly as possible and, where they cannot be placed on the face of the Bill, to ensuring that there is adequate parliamentary scrutiny of those aspects of the Bill. For these reasons, we do not believe that Clauses 12 and 13 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I support everything that previous speakers have said about both the amendments and in opposition to Clauses 12 and 13. During our last day in Committee, I made the case that in principle the proposal for the national safeguarding panel failed because it did not take sufficient account of local accountability, local knowledge and local professionals who have a duty to safeguard children in their area. The Wood report, from which a lot of the changes proposed by the Government come, is clear on some of these issues. One factor that it picks out in its analysis of local safeguarding children’s boards is that a review by the Local Government Association found,

“dissonance among the partners between the accountability and the authority of an LSCB”.

The report goes on to say that,

“the duty to cooperate has not been sufficient in ensuring the coherent and unified voice necessary to ensure multi-agency arrangements are consistently effective”.

So from the Wood report we hear that local accountability is one issue that has been raised. The LSCBs are not sufficiently accountable locally, and that has, in part, led to their lack of effectiveness.

The proposals in these clauses move power and accountability, in the most serious cases, from the local to the national level and put it in the hands of the Secretary of State. I think that that places too much power at the national level and not enough locally, and it is also in danger of politicising the whole process, reflecting what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, with which I totally agree. The lack of elected representation on the current safeguarding boards has resulted in them being ineffective. Currently, the boards consist of professionals and there is no full representation of non-professionals—that is, elected representatives—who are also corporate parents. It seems to me that a lack of challenge from non-professionals, who are corporate parents, has contributed to this lack of effectiveness of the safeguarding boards.

I will make a further comment, which is reflected in the Wood report, about the membership of the local boards and the duty to co-operate. The Government’s proposals in later amendments would remove the requirement for some of the professional organisations to be members of the local panels. One of those, the probation service, has in my council area—I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the register of interests as a local councillor in the Borough of Kirklees—since the fundamental changes to the service not attended the local safeguarding children boards. The later government amendments remove that requirement. It is a big mistake not to require the probation service to attend to discuss safeguarding children.

Clause 12, which lays out the functions of the new national panel, falls far short of what is required. Let us consider what has happened with serious case reviews over the past 30 years—probably and sadly—from the Climbié and Baby P reports to the many, many others that we can all draw to memory. They have all issued recommendations to which everybody has agreed but which no one has implemented effectively. Everyone says, “These are good; we must do that”, but they are not implemented.

The big failure in Clause 13, which is why I will oppose it standing part, is that nowhere does it say how learning will be effectively implemented. We can all learn, and social workers across the country will have read the 48—I think—recommendations in the Baby P report, but implementing them is the difficult bit. The Wood report refers to that and makes a powerful case for thinking in much greater detail not about the learning—the learning has been done—but the implementation. In all these cases, similar recommendations are made about the need to co-operate and the lack of collaboration and communication. We have yet to crack how to put that into effect.

If we are serious about child protection and safeguarding children, one element which must feature is how the recommendations are to be put into effect, monitored and reviewed. If we do not do that, we will never move forward. That is my fundamental reason for supporting the proposition that Clauses 12 and 13 should not stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

I will reflect and look into that in more detail. Once it is in the public domain that a particular instance is being investigated, knowing the media, however much you try to protect an individual’s identity, I cannot see quite how one can do it—but I will certainly look at it. The noble Baroness raises a very important point which we are aware of.

I should add that the Government have now responded to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in answer to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson. The response confirmed the Government’s intention to bring forward an amendment at a later stage to modify the provisions to ensure that the arrangements to which the clause refers be subject to affirmative parliamentary scrutiny.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

Has that response been published yet?

[Lord Nash]

Yes is the answer.

Clause 13 requires local authorities to notify the panel of events in their area where a child has died or suffered serious harm and is known or suspected to have suffered abuse or neglect. The clause will place the process of notifying such events to the panel on a statutory footing for the first time, demonstrating the importance that the Government attach to this process and leaving no room for doubt as to whether to report an incident.

If this part of the process is not made a statutory duty on local authorities, there is a risk that some events may not be notified, thereby reducing the likelihood of events being scrutinised and action taken to reduce the likelihood of such an event taking place in future. The DPRRC also commented on this clause in its report. The Government’s response to the report confirms an intention to look again at the definition of regulated setting, as well as agreeing that any future amendments to the definition should be by the affirmative procedure. We intend to return to this matter at a later stage.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about the importance of taking into account local issues. The panel will make its decision on the basis of information from local areas. It will include the probation service in the list of relevant agencies. We will come shortly to a set of government amendments that respond directly to Alan Wood’s recommendations on local accountability. If I may, I will cover the rest of her points then.

She also asked a very good question, supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, about how learning will be implemented. Our whole reform to social work and the point of the national panel is to improve implementation. Our new What Works centre for children’s social care will have a key role in disseminating learning and making sure that it is acted upon. As under current arrangements, local safeguarding will be expected to report on practice improvements identified through the reviews and on action taken in response.

My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay commented on the guidance. I will not talk about guidance in general, but we have significantly reduced the statutory guidance on child protection in the past five years, and we keep it constantly under review. I hope that the explanation of Clauses 12 and 13 provides reassurance about the Government’s intentions, and I therefore urge the noble Lord and the noble Baroness not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

This new clause is purely technical, but fulfils some important functions. Subsection (1) means that the existing provision for LSCBs, as set out in Sections 13 to 16 of the Children Act 2004, will be repealed. Local authorities will no longer be required to establish LSCBs. Instead, they will work with chief constables and clinical commissioning groups to set out Working Together arrangements, as specified in amendments to the Bill that we have previously discussed.

Subsection (2) amends the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 to redefine social services functions by removing the reference to LSCBs and including provisions in relation to joint working arrangements in child death reviews that are the subject of amendments to the Bill. Where the term “social services functions” is used in legislation in respect of local authorities, the arrangements which these amendments provide for will be included. This is consistent with existing provisions for local authority functions relating to LSCBs.

An example of the importance of this provision is the Secretary of State’s intervention powers where local authorities are failing properly to fulfil any of their social services functions. The amendment means that should local authorities fail to fulfil their functions as set out in Sections 16A to 16Q of the revised Children Act 2004, the Secretary of State will be able to issue a suitable statutory direction. I should stress that this provision relates only to local authority functions. It does not cover any failures by clinical commissioning groups or chief constables in these arrangements. Existing provisions for intervention—sitting elsewhere—already cover other such failures. I beg to move.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, the Minister said that this is a technical amendment. Yes, it is, but the introduction of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel will see the disappearance of local accountability for the most serious child abuse. The current process has an independent chair appointed by a national panel of experts, who are themselves independent. That means that local knowledge is retained, because representations can be made by those who are involved with the child and indeed the family, and, importantly, those who have an understanding of local characteristics. If the local safeguarding children boards are scrapped, how can the Minister reassure us that the local input will not be lost?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

I will also speak to Amendment 126. I believe the relationship between what is currently the local safeguarding board and the national one is very clearly understood, with clear roles and responsibilities for each. My county council’s view, from experience, is that safeguarding absolutely must be owned by the local agencies that are responsible on the ground for improving safeguarding. The national safeguarding panel should therefore have a role in understanding local issues. I am concerned that, if the intention is to centralise at the national level, the national panel might not have the capacity or the local knowledge and experience to review and intervene in a timely way. I agree entirely with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

129: Clause 15, page 13, line 21, after “outcomes” insert “for children and young people”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 129 and 132 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt. I am also a signatory to Amendment 131 in the name of my noble friend Lord Wills, but I shall have less to say on that.

As regards the third and fourth subsections in Amendment 131, the huge controversy surrounding Clause 15 and the Government’s intention to enable local authorities to be exempted from providing local child protection and other children’s services requires a firmer base than a local authority simply approaching the Secretary of State to seek permission to do so. Some form of independent oversight is necessary to assuage the widespread concern among charities and other organisations prominent in the sector, not to mention local authorities themselves, as to the possible effects of Clause 15. It is essential that, as advocated in Amendment 132, a local authority is not exempt from corporate parenting principles—a subject on which we talked at length in previous sittings—just because it has been exempted from some of its statutory responsibilities. An assurance from the Minister on this point, even if he does not accept the amendment, would be valuable.

The Government have not made a case as to why Clause 15 is necessary. The Minister needs to explain to noble Lords precisely what problem this proposal is designed to address. As to the underlying premises of Clause 15, frankly, who knows? Suggestions have been put forward by several people and organisations. They vary from requirements in primary and secondary legislation blocking the delivery of effective children’s services to the suggestion that it might make it more attractive for private companies to get involved in the delivery of social work services.

No evidence has been published by the Government to support the notion that legislation is an impediment. Indeed, their Putting Children First strategy published last week, refers to creating,

“a controlled environment in which we could enable local authorities to test deregulatory approaches that are not currently possible, before taking a decision to make substantial changes to existing legislation that would apply across the board.”.

However, the document does not set out the deregulatory approaches, which cannot be tested presently, and a box insert in the report quotes Professor Eileen Munro referring to “unnecessary legal rules”, although, again, they are not specified.

Is it the case that all legislative duties in respect of children’s social care are potentially problematic? I think not, because the Government’s Red Tape Challenge concluded in 2014 that only five regulations needed to be scrapped, three of which were already redundant, and 14 separate regulations were actually improved as a consequence of that consultation. Despite that, the breadth of legislation that can be exempted by Clause 15 is extraordinarily wide. I need do no more than refer noble Lords to Clause 19.

Are the problems in children’s social care so serious that the Secretary of State and her officials require a fast-track process to repeal or change legislation? That is what appears to be the case from the way in which the Bill is framed, because Clause 15 marks a major break with the ordinary legislative process where Ministers publish Green Papers, identify policy problems and potential solutions, expert organisations and individuals respond, White Papers are issued and legislation is then introduced to Parliament. In the Bill, only Ofsted’s chief inspector and the Children’s Commissioner need to be consulted. When legislative changes are proposed by the Minister or by an individual sent into a local authority as part of a ministerial intervention, there is no duty to consult the local authority.

That is relevant because the Government’s ambition was stated in Putting Children First as being that,

“over a third of … local authorities will either be delivering their children’s services through a new model or be actively working towards a different model”,

by 2020. We see the shape that the Government want to achieve in four years’ time, but the route to get there is what concerns many people, not least noble Lords on this side of the Committee.

At Second Reading, the Minister referred to the need for innovation. As I said, we on these Benches are certainly not opposed to that concept. We support innovation if it improves outcomes for children and standards in local authorities, but innovation can and does take place effectively within local authorities. Indeed, several have already developed and successfully piloted innovative approaches within children’s services while meeting their statutory responsibilities.

The Minister will no doubt be aware of this but, while Leeds is probably the most frequently mentioned, I can also cite Cambridgeshire, Durham, Hampshire, Lincolnshire and the London boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston, Richmond, and Westminster. Each of those local authorities already has the necessary freedom to innovate to improve front-line children’s social services by developing new systems of delivering social care and piloting new ways of working with families. They have all been able to do so without the need for new legislation, so again I invite the Minister to demonstrate why, when all the innovation that I have just listed is already possible, the provision is necessary. Indeed, Ofsted’s latest annual report on social care includes several positive case studies and comments. In the best local authorities, leaders have developed ambitious and innovative approaches to practice that are firmly grounded in sound research, confirming again that innovation is possible. I am sure that the Minister will say, “Yes, well, that’s just some local authorities. Some are performing poorly or could even be described as failing”. That could well be the case, but it does not mean that we need a sledgehammer to crack a nut when many local authorities are able to do what the authorities I have mentioned are already doing. There are real concerns about where this could lead.

I shall go into this in a little more detail. At Second Reading the Minister outlined three areas where he foresaw different ways of working. These were: relaxing the assessment process for children’s placements with family and friends; the removal of independent review officers from low-risk children in care; and disbanding adoption and fostering panels. The third of these is by far the most controversial, with noble Lords receiving many emails outlining why it is a foolhardy and potentially even dangerous step. Indeed, statutory guidance on adoption states that adoption and fostering panels,

“play an important quality assurance role, providing objectivity and having the ability to challenge practice which is felt not to be in the interests of children”.

In 2012 the Government consulted on reducing the membership of adoption and fostering panels, claiming that too many members cause delay. However, the proposal was overwhelmingly rejected and in May 2013 the Government concluded:

“We will not introduce a maximum number of adoption or fostering panel members or restrict the number of non-panel members attending an adoption or fostering panel meeting”.

So why the change now? The Minister’s announcement of the removal of the panels altogether goes well beyond even the September 2012 proposals, which, as I said, were strongly rejected. The majority of respondents to that consultation were involved directly in adoption and fostering service, and knew from personal experience the important role that the adoption and fostering panels play. Indeed CoramBAAF, an organisation at the forefront of adoption and fostering, and indeed in training people in those sectors, has said that this is the worst possible move that it could have imagined the Government to have made.

I will not comment at this stage on the other potential areas for exemption, but it is strange that others seem now to be emerging. I quote removing looked-after status from children remanded in custody; removing the duty to review a child’s care when he or she is in a stable placement; and the relaxation of children’s homes’ planning rules. When I say that they have emerged, that is not to say that they were announced by the Government or by anyone on their behalf; they emerged at the recent conference of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. Those are the sorts of areas where these senior people in the field anticipate that some of those services may be exempted. That is a serious matter. If the Minister is able to respond to that, it would be helpful, although I understand that he has not had much notice.

As was discussed in Committee last week when considering Clause 9, removing the burden of requirements to meet statutory obligations enshrined in children’s social care legislation enables local authorities to incentivise private and not-for-profit providers to bid for parts of the children’s social care pathways. The danger outlined by a number of people, and one that we echo, is that this further threatens the extent to which children’s social care can be fragmented into multiple pathways and perhaps diverse provision, threatening the provision of those services that really are best delivered in a joined-up manner to make them as effective as they can be.

Both at Second Reading and last week in Committee I asked the Minister whether he had made an assessment of the risk to children in allowing local authorities exemptions from some key duties in keeping children safe. I did not get a response. I hope it will be third time lucky and that he will be able to give me an answer to that important question, because I am not the only one who is asking it. It has been widely asked by those who have contacted noble Lords.

As it stands, the Bill’s proposals in Clause 15 are too wide-ranging, without adequate safeguards to protect children and young people if plans to outsource services go wrong. For that reason, it is our intention to return to this issue on Report when the House will have the opportunity to express its opinion if it wishes to do so. It is not appropriate for Clauses 15 and 18 to stand part of the Bill unless and until the Government can offer persuasive evidence of their necessity and significantly improve on their transparency and safeguards. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for the offer of a meeting, which I am sure will be very helpful for me. I should have said in my earlier contribution that I am the patron of the National Association of Independent Reviewing Officers, so I have an interest and some experience there. I hear what he says about independent reviewing officers; in my mind, there is certainly a question about tying up so many experienced social workers in one capacity. But one of the concerns is that when a child is in a long-term placement, it may go very well but things can suddenly go wrong. One of the chief concerns that often come up when children need advocates is that while they are in a long-term stable placement, a local authority may suddenly have decided that it is too expensive so they are moved on. There is particular concern that a child may be in a stable placement for a long time and he or she may suddenly need the expertise and professional capacity of an independent reviewing officer. However, I see that there is another side to that.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response but after almost an hour of debate, we have made little progress. I think it was my noble friend Lord Hunt who said that the Minister does not seem to get the opposition to Clause 15. It is not just from these noble Lords but across different parties and the Cross-Benchers as well, who have expressed very strong views as they did in respect of Clause 9 last week. Many of the same sentiments have been repeated here today. There is deep-seated resentment and opposition to this and it will not go away through the amendments in this group just being withdrawn or not moved today.

A lot of noble Lords asked the Minister to give us some rationale as to what is driving this and the purpose behind it. The only specific thing I was able to note down in what he said was that it was to improve the provision of services to children. I think that everyone in the Room—noble Lords, the officials of the House or the department, and even the visitors in the public seats—would throw their hands up at that suggestion. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, encapsulated it when he said that introducing best practice is the way to improve things, not regulation. I urge the Minister to bear that fundamental point in mind.

I welcome the fact that we are to have a meeting and that the Minister will also speak to CoramBAAF. That is important but there are a number of organisations, and if he has not already done so, I think that some of the adoption and fostering agencies would like to meet him because, as I said, there is deep-seated opposition to this.

I do not want to rehearse the arguments and will not do so but I need to say to the Minister that, unless something in Clause 15 changes, he will be riding for a fall on Report. I hope that he will bring forward some sort of meaningful amendment that takes the sting out of some of the arguments that have been advanced over the last hour. They are very strongly felt and there is no political point-scoring here at all. If the Minister wants to make progress with this aspect of the Bill, we need to see something different when we discuss these issues in the Chamber in some weeks’ time.

The response to the amendments is nothing other than disappointing but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I mean it when I say that I look forward to returning to this subject on Report.

Amendment 129 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 133ZA in this group, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Clause 17 outlines the consultation process that local authorities and the Secretary of State must undertake before an authority makes an application to exempt or modify legislation in order to test a different way of working. This is a probing amendment to explore how a requirement could be placed on a local authority to consider how such an application could affect the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities, in addition to consulting local safeguarding boards.

There are concerns that legislation meeting the definition of children’s social care legislation in Clause 19 which can be subject to exemption or modification includes any legislation specified in Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 that relates to those under 18. As drafted, this covers more than 40 pieces of legislation mentioned in that schedule. The Bill could therefore allow exemption or modification of a wide range of social care support that children with SEND currently rely on. Indeed, those with SEND constitute the vast majority of children in need as defined under Section 17 of the Children Act. This group is disproportionately likely to be impacted by exemptions or modifications to children’s social care legislation. However, there is no mechanism explicitly to consider the impact on this group of changes to legislation.

Section 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014 will also be impacted by the Bill, with implications for those receiving social care and health provision as part of an education, health and care plan. Much of this impact could be unintended or unforeseen without specific measures being taken to identify them proactively. There is also the issue of a postcode lottery and creating parallel systems by granting some areas exemptions from the general law. So there is a real need for local authorities to conduct a review of the potential effect of different ways of working on the authority’s ability to meet the needs of children with SEND. It would be helpful if the Minister could give an assurance that some groups will not be prioritised over others if a local authority were to be exempted from some elements of the current provision.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, Amendments 132A, 133A, 133B and 133ZA would amend the consultation, application and reporting requirements that already support the proposed power to test new ways of working. I should say from the outset that our response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which was mentioned earlier and which evidently noble Lords have not seen, proposed putting forward a government amendment which provides for the laying of a statement every time the power is used in Parliament, with any regulations made, explaining how any change is expected to meet the purpose of the power—better outcomes for children and young people—and the protection that a local authority making an application to use the power intends to put in place. I hope that this move will address many of the concerns raised by noble Lords. We certainly believe that such statements will help the House if and when it comes to scrutinise any orders under Clause 15. None the less, I will say a few further words on consultation and reporting.

Clause 17 sets out proportionate expectations of consultation for both the local authority and the Secretary of State. For the local authority, this would mean consultation with health agencies, the police and others; for the Secretary of State, it would mean the Children’s Commissioner and Ofsted. The Secretary of State may also consult such others as she considers appropriate in each individual case. I am confident that, according to the freedom requested, the appropriate persons or bodies will be consulted to ensure that the right decision is made and that, where appropriate, the needs of children with special educational needs will of course be taken into account. But each decision needs to be made on a case-by-case basis; we are not persuaded that standardised, formal consultation would be appropriate. However, we would expect the statements that I have already described to deal with the outcomes of consultation. Of course, the reports would be made available to the public, as would the orders made—which I feel addresses the question of making public any changes made under Clause 15.

Finally I will say something about the annual report that is proposed. We entirely agree that tracking and capturing the progress of exemptions should take place. This will be crucial in coming to a view on whether lasting changes should be made to children’s social care legislation. We will be evaluating the use of the power, and noble Lords will note the requirement to report on how far changes have achieved their purpose if the initial testing period is to be extended. If it is not extended then of course things will revert to the previous position. This seems to be a way to achieve the same objectives in a more proportionate way than an annual review.

I also make the point, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that Ofsted will inspect and report in the normal way, providing another valuable source of public information. I hope that on the basis of our proposal to bring forward amendments, noble Lords will not press theirs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for bringing forward this amendment. The standard of debate has been high and I do not want to add too much more to it. The experience of my noble friend Lord Dubs in this matter—most recently on the Immigration Bill—is well documented and hugely appreciated. When unaccompanied children come to this country, however they arrive here, and try to fend for themselves, it is fraught with all sorts of dangers. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, has just talked about children at school but many of these children never reach school because they are kept in an environment where they are exploited; they are not educated or made into good citizens. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made a point about a two-tier society, and that should resonate with us.

My noble friend Lord Judd, in talking about the action plan, spoke of setting the tone, but I would put that tone into a wider setting. One or two noble Lords referred to the events of a couple of weeks ago which were described as—it is a description that I would subscribe to—pulling up the drawbridge on the world to some extent, and that is the way it is viewed. Britain’s reputation has plummeted and has been matched only, it would seem, by the value of the pound in the last two or three weeks. We need to look at positive ways of showing that that is not all we are about.

I was profoundly depressed to read a report at lunchtime by a man called Mark Hamilton, who leads for the National Police Chiefs’ Council. He was reporting on an unprecedented spike in hate crime in the country within the last three weeks, directly related to the vote on 23 June. If we have an opportunity to show that we can do different and more positive things and that, despite the impression we have given, we are outward looking and welcoming as a country, then small measures can build into larger things. I think that this amendment is one of those acorns that may grow into something much more substantial.

I wish my noble friend Lord Dubs well in his meeting with Mr Brokenshire. I hope that the Minister will go to that meeting as well so that a way can be found of accommodating this amendment. It is important not just for the framework of this Bill and not just for the individuals concerned but potentially for the way that we are perceived as we approach difficult situations and respond to tragedies in other parts of the world. For that reason, I very much hope that a positive outcome for the amendment will be found, because it certainly deserves it.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his amendment. I recognise that it seeks to safeguard and promote the welfare of this vulnerable group, and I assure him that I appreciate the sentiment and good will behind it. I also appreciate the strength of feeling in this Committee about the plight of unaccompanied minors who seek refuge in the UK, as illustrated by the contributions to the debate by other noble Lords, and I share those feelings.

The amendment seeks to ensure clarity on the action that will be taken and the support that will be offered to local authorities looking after unaccompanied children. Under the Children Act 1989, unaccompanied children become looked-after children once they have been accommodated for 24 hours. They will then have their welfare promoted in the same way as any other looked-after child. I emphasise that their country of origin and the circumstances under which they arrived in the UK will have no bearing on the support that these children are entitled to.

The number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children has risen significantly in recent years. In 2015 we saw a 56% increase in the number of unaccompanied children claiming asylum in the UK. However, as noble Lords have pointed out, until now the majority of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have been cared for by a handful of local authorities. This has placed a considerable strain on their children’s social care services, which sometimes has been to the detriment of local children for whom the local authority has corporate parental responsibility. That is why the Government on 1 July launched a new voluntary transfer scheme that encourages all local authorities to participate in the care and support of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who arrive in the UK.

The National Transfer Scheme was created after extensive consultation with the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and individual local authorities. The scheme is based on the principle that no local authority should be expected to care for more unaccompanied children than its services are able to provide for—whether asylum-seeking children, as the majority will be, or unaccompanied refugee children brought to the UK through our resettlement scheme.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raised the point about funding. To support the National Transfer Scheme the Government have increased the amount of funding that they will provide to local authorities caring for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Annual support for each child aged under 16 has risen from £35,000 to £42,000, and each unaccompanied asylum-seeking child aged 16 or 17 will attract £33,000 per annum. This represents a 20% and 28% increase in funding respectively.

Because we are increasing the number of local authorities that look after unaccompanied children, these children will be better able to access services such as mental health and other healthcare services, and local authorities will have more capacity to deliver excellent social work support and care. Local authorities will also be able to prepare themselves and commission the new services that are required, such as appropriate accommodation.

The National Transfer Scheme includes a rigorous administrative process by which the Home Office and the local authority in which the child first presents are able to collect information about each child and then ensure that the local authority receiving the child receives all that information. The scheme seeks to build on existing regional structures and use the regional strategic migration partnerships to co-ordinate regional hubs and enable the regional pooling of knowledge and resource.

A central administrative hub based in the Home Office will work with the regional hubs to ensure a nationally co-ordinated but regionally implemented scheme. Funding that might be provided to the regional hubs via the regional strategic migration partnerships is currently under review, while each region is considering its own data, process and resource requirements. The Home Office will consider any proposals for regional structures to underpin the scheme. Service providers are being encouraged to contact the regional hubs to share their expertise. We know that some regions are already discussing how to pool resources and share expertise.

In addition, two training initiatives are under way. I can announce today that the Department for Education will commission an organisation to deliver training for the foster carers and support workers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who are at risk of going missing from care due to being onward-trafficked. That is a new provision. In collaboration with the Department for Education, the Home Office has already said that it will commission a training programme for the existing independent advocates, who are provided for in statute. This will improve their awareness and understanding of the specific needs of trafficked children and how to support them.

Noble Lords will appreciate that a great deal is happening in this area to promote better support, and the details are laid out in the scheme. While the support and care of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is undoubtedly an important issue, I do not believe that a published national action plan for their welfare is required, given all that is happening under the National Transfer Scheme.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about the Children’s Champion. The Office of the Children’s Champion will remain in the Home Office to ensure that all children’s safeguarding issues are addressed and attended to. In addition, the Children’s Commissioner in the Department for Education speaks on behalf of this group of children.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked about asylum applications. It is always open to a person to make an application for asylum. There is no age barrier and as soon as an asylum application is lodged, it will always be considered.

The Government remain committed to ensuring that Parliament is kept informed about these issues. No one should be in any doubt of our commitment to bring vulnerable refugee children from Europe to the UK, as underpinned by the Immigration Act 2016. Unaccompanied refugee children with family connections to the UK continue to arrive from France and other European countries. We are also in active discussions with the UNHCR, UNICEF, NGOs and the Italian, Greek and French Governments to strengthen and speed up the mechanisms to identify, assess and transfer to the UK children who meet the criteria where it is in their best interests. This is in addition to the support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who arrive from Europe without any assistance. Last year, there were over 3,000 claims for asylum in the UK from unaccompanied children.

I will reflect on the points that noble Lords have made and that will no doubt be discussed in the meetings with Mr Brokenshire. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will feel reassured enough to withdraw the amendment.