Social Mobility: Careers Education
Emma Lewell Excerpts(6 days, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of careers education in improving social mobility.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for this debate. The term “social mobility” is used widely and in many contexts, but it is worth setting out what it means. The Social Mobility Commission defines it as
“the link between a person’s occupation or income and the occupation or income of their parents.”
Where there is a strong link, there is a lower level of social mobility; where there is a weak link, there is a higher level.
For a long time, the focus often centred on moving a select few from the bottom to the top, but there is now a move from a one-size-fits-all model to a broader view of distinct kinds of social mobility, sometimes over shorter distances for a greater number of people. That means not only focusing on, for example, those with the top grades getting into elite universities and then moving to London to work for a top accountancy or law firm, but celebrating the children of parents who were long-term unemployed growing up and getting jobs in their local area.
Such short-range mobility is equally important and should be encouraged, which is why the time is right for a renewed conversation about the role that careers education can play. Over time, we have developed a framework of careers education in our classrooms, but the framework is there to be challenged and improved on, and I look forward to debating it further today.
A report released towards the end of 2024 by the Office for National Statistics showed that around 872,000 young people aged between 16 and 24—about 12% of them—were not in education, employment or training. In many cases, that is not because young people are not willing or do not want to work, but because they perhaps lack the opportunities or support to pursue it. Evidence shows that the earlier the intervention we can make in a young person’s life, the greater chance their chance of succeeding.
Students who are on free school meals are less likely to move into work, education or an apprenticeship when compared with their peers. Part of the reason for that is unequal access to the information and guidance that enable young people to develop their ambitions and make informed choices in relation to their studies. Those from lower social and economic backgrounds are less likely to feel career ready, less confident talking about their skills in job applications and do not always have the support at home and elsewhere to make crucial and important decisions about their own futures.
Crucial skills for job applications—which are too often not talked about, but make a significant difference—include effective communication, problem solving, the ability to plan and adapt, leadership and effective teamwork. These skills, sometimes referred to as soft skills, are often taken for granted, but the reality on the ground tells us a much different story. A National Foundation for Educational Research study found that by 2035 up to 7 million workers may lack the essential skills they need to do their jobs.
Almost 90% of the 2.2 million new jobs that are expected to be created between 2020 and 2035 are set to be in the professional sector. We need to send school leavers out with the mindset that these skills are just as important as their technical or academic qualifications, and just as crucial when it comes to progression in their chosen profession. It is therefore vital that when it comes to careers education, we seek to ensure that soft skills education becomes common practice in educational institutions and other environments across the UK. As suggested by the Skills Builder Partnership, we could look to achieve that by adopting a common language for essential skills and introducing a national standardised framework for teaching and assessing them, starting at a younger age and with clear milestones. We want all our young people to have ambition in abundance, but ambition is too often frustrated not by talent or ability but by a postcode or someone’s background.
When we think of careers education, including our own experiences, we are probably more likely to remember it as being part of our secondary or further education, but it is increasingly clear that attitudes towards ambition and achievement are often set much earlier—at primary-school age or sometimes before. Evidence also tells us that children begin to form ideas about their futures when they are as young as five or six. By the age of 10, many young people have already made career-limiting decisions, which can be set in stone by the age of 14.
When asked as part of the covid, social mobility and opportunities survey, 16 and 17-year-olds from low-income or “never worked” households were more likely to agree that people like them do not have much of a chance in life, particularly when their household net income was £19,000 or less. The Social Mobility Foundation found that parents and their social networks are the key source of careers advice for 76% of young people. As it rightly said, such reliance on parental support risks replicating existing networks and employment structures. The parents and their individual networks are more likely to have sector knowledge, therefore making parent-child career replication far more likely.
The issue is further compounded by geography. Rural areas are less likely to have the same diversity of employers and sectors as cities, reducing opportunity and crucial interactions that can have an incredible impact in broadening horizons.
One part of the solution can be found in Wales, where careers and work-related experiences—known as CWRE—cut across the curriculum for students from the age of three up to 18. The aim is to ensure that, from the offset, children develop the attitudes and behaviours that support them in overcoming barriers related to employability. The Rofft primary school in Wrexham reported that it supported the development of children’s self-growth, confidence and employability skills, as well as authentic, purposeful, world-of-work experiences.
It is very welcome that in their “Get Britain Working” White Paper the Government have set out a vision for a youth guarantee that includes an entitlement to two weeks, or 15 hours, of work experience for all school and college students. However, we must ensure that with quantity comes quality, and that work experience is both worth while and impactful for every young person’s prospects. One way to ensure that could be through a national platform for work experience that enables virtual opportunities, and allows schools to select opportunities that fit the needs of their pupils, removing a large part of the administrative burden that can so often emerge.
Funding is, of course, also crucial. When asked, almost half of schoolteachers in the state sector said they wished to see more resource and funding allocated to careers guidance in schools. Notably, there was recognition of the need for remuneration for those who work as career leaders, to give them more time to focus on that work. Private schools are estimated to invest up to four times more in careers education than the state sector. If we do not act and take practical steps to close that gap, we risk further educational divides and entrenching low social mobility outcomes.
I have spoken about work experience in the school years, but it is also important to look at what it can offer to young people for whom, for whatever reason, education may not have worked, or who have fallen through gaps. WeMindTheGap, which is based in Wrexham, works with people aged between 16 and 25 in north-east Wales and north-west England. Known as “gappies”, those taking part engage in an 18-month fully-funded programme that offers work placements, including a paid six-month placement, and a mentor who is with them every step of the way. The results and effects on young people’s lives have been transformational.
I have some testimony from people who have been through the programme. The transformation is clear in what they have experienced. Vicky finished college and had been on jobseeker’s allowance for nearly a year when an adviser suggested the programme. Vicky spoke of being shy and withdrawn, and of her life not having focus. She said:
“Going for interviews then, I never heard anything back”,
but by the end of the programme
“I was far more outgoing and could not stop talking, thanks to all the support I received from the charity. I enjoyed all my placements, especially the Ramada Plaza Hotel. I got a job at the end of the programme, but the biggest change was that I started to draw again. I did a placement at Glyndwr University, who took me to their Art Department. Laura”—
one of the mentors—
“encouraged me to show them my drawings. After all these years of being told I cannot draw I found that people like what I do, and people call it a talent.”
Sophie was 16 and found herself living in a hostel in Wrexham. Her supporter at the hostel said that she should apply for the programme at WeMindTheGap. Sophie said:
“Looking back, I must have been horrible. If I did not like doing something I would say so, loudly; if things went wrong for me, I did not know how to try again. I liked all my placements, but my favourite part of the week was Essential Skills. We always started with a maths quiz, and I would win easily. I had GCSE maths and Pam helped me think about getting more qualifications. I asked the team to help me apply for an Apprenticeship in a Bank or Finance office because even I realised I was good at numbers.
“I got nervous at the end of the programme about leaving but Laura and Diana said they would still be there for me. I had no other work experience and I was just 18 and it was hard getting a job. All the other gappies on my course got something and I felt if I wasn’t careful, I could slip back into my old habits. So, I asked if I could come into Moneypenny and volunteer over Christmas. I had so much fun and loved being part of the team. Diane told the Finance Director how good at numbers I was and after a couple of months, I was offered a permanent contract! Diane got in touch with Coleg Cambria and got me on an Apprenticeship accountancy course to help me alongside.
“I am Moneypenny’s first Finance Apprentice. I completed my course in June 2019. I work 4.5 days in the busy finance team and am responsible for looking after client accounts, reconciliations, and debt recovery. I have a much better relationship with my family —they are proud of me. I’ve also been on my first holiday abroad. I participate in We Belong sessions, I love meeting new gappies.”
Those are but a few of many success stories from that one body doing that work, but there is a wider general message: if we meet young people where they are, recognising their circumstances and their hopes and aspirations, we give them a greater chance to succeed. Fewer than one in five 16 to 21-year-olds feel that they have had sufficient guidance, so there is a clear need to rethink how we support young people during those pivotal years. Rather than expecting them to navigate an often complex and unequal system alone, we need to invest in personalised, compassionate guidance that acknowledges their lived experiences. This means more than just providing opportunities: it means building trust, offering consistent mentorship, and creating environments where every young person feels seen, heard and believed in.
To summarise, there is a lot to be proud of when it comes to careers education, including the fantastic work being done by careers leaders in schools to guide young people, and the many organisations opening doors and broadening horizons. It really has come a long way but, none the less, we still need to be more ambitious. I have set out a few areas in which I believe we can be, and I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions. One of this Government’s overarching aims is to break down the barriers to opportunity; let us be ambitious and put careers education at the heart of achieving that and improving social mobility.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I remind Members that if they wish to be called, they should bob. I am imposing an informal four-minute time limit.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for introducing this important debate, and I welcome the thoughtful contributions that we are about to hear from across the Chamber. I make my speech within the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This discussion about careers education could not be more timely, with almost 1 million young people in the UK currently not in education, employment or training, and our universities facing unprecedented challenges. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject. It is deeply concerning, as we have heard already, that children eligible for free school meals are 20% less likely to progress into higher education. Shockingly, in Scotland, a total of 1,351 pupils—enough to fill an entire school—left school last year without a single qualification. Even for those who reach university, funding has been reduced since 2013. University student funding in Scotland has seen a real terms cut of 22%, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham rightly highlighted in opening the debate, many of our young people are also being let down within that context.
We all recognise the transformative power of education in creating equality of opportunity, yet in recent years it feels like that has faltered. Too many young people are not receiving the skills training and support that they need to navigate a rapidly evolving job market. Addressing that requires targeted investment in left-behind communities, focusing support—as we have heard—on lower-income families and reforms to ensure that our service delivery achieves the best possible outcomes for children of all backgrounds. One key avenue for achieving that is through careers education. It plays a vital role in improving social mobility by equipping young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, with the knowledge, skills and social capital needed to better access opportunities.
Having spent 24 years as a professor at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, I have seen at first hand the life-changing impact of education—I have also seen students arrive at university who were born after I started working there, but that is a secondary issue. I have also witnessed growing barriers to social mobility and shrinking opportunities for young people in Scotland. Too often, the most disadvantaged bear the brunt of underfunding in the sector. That makes high-quality careers education all the more essential, so that every young person can make the most of the opportunities available for them. It is so much harder for disadvantaged kids to repeat a year or start again, so it is important that we get it right for them first time.
I worry, however, that the budgets for those services will be squeezed in the funding crisis that universities face across the UK, but particularly in Scotland. If we are serious about economic growth, we cannot let that happen. I have seen careers advisers doing exceptional work in that space. They recognise that, while every student has potential, not all have access to the networks and opportunities needed to realise it. A report from the Behavioural Insights Team in 2021 noted that many ambitious pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are held back by “career confusion”, whereby the students do not undertake the qualifications required for their chosen career path. It is clear that those students do not lack aspiration or even aptitude, but they have been let down by a lack of support.
Not only does that hold back pupils and their aspirations; it further exacerbates the social inequalities that we see right across the UK, as young people from more advantaged backgrounds often have better access to informal networks of career advice, which their less advantaged peers do not. Career advisers, and all of us, have a duty to ensure that every young person, regardless of their background, can progress to a positive destination and thrive in work and life. In partnership with employers, they deliver structured and impactful support. It is not just about writing a CV or finding a job; it is also about building confidence, enhancing social capital, and defining and enhancing essential workplace skills, and good careers advisers understand the difference between finding a job and starting a career.
Careers advice needs to inform educational choices, not just respond to them. We often speak in this House about the need to strengthen higher education and expand pathways for young people, including apprenticeships and vocational training, which we heard about in today’s statement. However, we speak far less about the support our young people need to make informed career choices in the first place. As the Government have rightly stated, breaking down barriers to opportunity is not a challenge for tomorrow; it is a priority for today. I therefore welcome the £3 billion investment in skills and training, but we have to make sure that our young people can take advantage of that through good careers advice.
It is particularly important that we are talking about this issue today, as the UK is facing a skills shortage that it is estimated will cost the country £120 billion by 2030. At the same time, ONS data shows that 872,000 young people are out of work, education and training. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham for bringing this important debate to the House. His work highlights the urgent need to invest in proper training, education and support for young people. For their sake and for the future of our economy, I hope the Government continue to act on the issues raised.
Free School Meals
Emma Lewell Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman sets out the current position and what has happened in the past. What we are announcing today will lift more children out of poverty, because more children will be eligible for free school meals. He makes a number of points on breakfast clubs; obviously, we are committed to rolling out the clubs to every primary school in the country. I would be delighted to meet him to hear his particular thoughts and views on how that can make the biggest difference in his constituency.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Hungry children do not learn, so I thank the Government for listening to those of us who have long campaigned for this announcement. This Government’s reforms are starting to put more money into people’s pockets, tackling the root causes of poverty, but they will take time to bed in—time that hungry children simply do not have. The Minister knows that poverty is all-encompassing and extends well beyond the school day. Will he give the 470,000 children affected by the cruel two-child benefit cap some hope today that the Government are seriously considering scrapping the cap, and considering scrapping it very soon?
Stephen Morgan
As my hon. Friend knows, this Government are determined to bring down child poverty. This is a complex area that we need to get right, and it is not for me to comment on particular speculation at the moment. Extensive work is ongoing on the child poverty strategy, which will be published later this year, and an update in the House will be provided in due course.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Emma Lewell Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 6 tabled by children’s food champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and to amendments 212 to 220 in my name. I also put on record my support for new clause 1 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), new clause 7 tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and new clause 49 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). It will come as no surprise that I am also a fan of new clause 34 because, thanks to the last Government, over 4 million children are in poverty, and I will always support anything that makes their little lives and that of their families more bearable.
New clause 6 would introduce a much-needed national monitoring system for school food. Of course, school food standards already exist, but not all schools are meeting them. There is far too much variance. There are some brilliant examples of heart-healthy, nutritious meals that fuel children for the rest of the school day. Then, there are examples where unhealthy fizzy drinks and fried food are the norm. Some 60% of secondary schools have been found not to follow the school standards at all. A study from Impact on Urban Health shows significant differences between what is mandated by the school standards and what is on menus and what ends up on plates. There is far too much free rein. There is no mechanism for school food standards to be checked against what pupils are being served. The new clause would end the postcode lottery of school food so that standards no longer just exist on paper but are on our children’s plates.
The amendments in my name all relate to strengthening school breakfast club provision. After years of pushing my School Breakfast Bill, no one was happier than me when the Labour Government legislated for school breakfasts. It is great to see that three of the pilots are in schools in my constituency. Some 2.7 million children live in food-insecure households. The previous Government’s national school breakfast programme is missing 86% of those children. Most of them will have arrived at school ready to learn, but with a gnawing hunger in their stomachs. Their day is marked with that persistent worry that comes with hunger—a worry that will permeate their entire school day.
Hunger has a significant impact on children’s learning, because hungry children do not learn, no matter how bright and determined they are and no matter how amazing or dedicated their teachers are. Numerous studies have shown the links between nutrition and cognitive development. Hungry children suffer developmental impairments, language delays and delayed motor skills, not to mention the psychological and emotional impact, which can range from withdrawn and depressive behaviours to irritable and aggressive ones.
I have always believed in the transformational power of education. It is certainly not standard for children from my background to end up in this place, so the power of a good education can never be overestimated. The food that fuels that ability to learn and develop should never be underestimated. These clubs will ensure that socioeconomic status is less of a deciding factor in good educational outcomes. My amendments would help realise the full potential of our breakfast clubs.
There is no provision in the Bill to monitor or measure the success of school breakfast provision. It is difficult to scrutinise the efficacy of any policy if there is never any analysis of it. The pupil premium, free school meals eligibility and the income deprivation affecting children index are good indicators of the very children who will need these clubs the most. Any policy should be measured by its impact on these groups, so that we know that those who are most in need are benefiting.
More worryingly, without proper data to prove the success of the policy, a future Government may decide to scrap it altogether. That is why amendment 212 is so important. Not all staff are nutritional experts, and some will have never delivered school breakfast provision before, so it is right that they have the right advice on hand and why a more mixed model and flexible approach is needed from the Government. Amendments 213 and 216 to 218 would achieve that.
The flexibility shown in the models adopted by Magic Breakfast has resulted in a take-up that is 375% higher than in non-Magic Breakfast schools. Yet the Bill requires only one model be delivered: the traditional breakfast club, held in a canteen for 30 minutes before the start of the school day. Many schools already use different models of breakfast clubs, including ones that suit particular schools, such as classroom breakfasts, grab-and-go takeaway models, nurture groups and late provision. A rigid model of delivery will have less success and schools that cannot fit that model will feel that they have to be exempt from delivery. Amendments 214 and 215 would ensure that if a school were to seek exemption from the Government’s school clubs, other models had been considered.
I know that the Minister knows that SEND schools often cater for primary and secondary pupils on the same site. That means that in those schools some children will be excluded from school breakfast clubs. I know from discussions with dedicated teachers and school staff in my constituency that they will not allow their pupils to be disadvantaged in that way, so it is likely they will use their already tight budgets to make sure older pupils also get that nutritious, healthy start to their school day.
Amendment 219 would apply only to approximately 100,000 pupils in England. That would be a modest 2.22% increase in the policy if all those children took up the offer—and we know that that is unlikely, because the children with complex needs do not always require the same food provision accessed by other pupils. For those who do require it, however, it is right that they should have the same nutritious start to their day as other children with whom they share a school site.
I am, of course, pleased that at long last there is legislation for school breakfasts. However, it is essential that we get that right. My amendments will do just that, and I know that the Minister will have carefully considered them. I look forward to her comments at the close of the debate.
Neil O’Brien
With the leave of the House, we have had an excellent debate this afternoon, as we did in Committee. I will pick out only a few of the contributions. We had important words from the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who pointed out how quickly the Bill had been prepared and pushed through. That is why we have so many amendments on Report and, to be honest, one reason that the Bill has run into such trouble.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) gave a great speech, drawing on his experience as the Chair of the Select Committee, and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) gave an excellent speech, laying out why the provisions on home schooling are an excessive burden and go too far. We all agree that it is about making sure that children are not just “not in school”; however, the provisions really are overly burdensome. The hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and lots of Conservative colleagues pointed out the same thing.
I have to say that my jaw hit the floor when I first read the Bill and saw the provisions that treat the parents of children in special schools the same as people who are being investigated by social services. Those people are not criminals, they are not doing the wrong thing and sometimes they need to move to look after their vulnerable children. I hope the Government will think again in the other place.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Emma Lewell Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I rise to speak to new clauses 43 to 47, standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends. New clause 43 is yet another attempt to put my Healthy Start Bill into law. When I first introduced that Bill, 200,000 eligible pregnant women, babies and infants were missing out on Healthy Start vouchers. That is approximately £58 million going unclaimed from a scheme that is already budgeted for. These vouchers provide financial assistance in the form of a prepaid card to all under-18s who are pregnant, families with babies and children under the age of five, and pregnant women claiming certain benefits. This is to help with the ever-increasing cost of fruit and vegetables, milk formula and vitamins.
Just last year, the child of the north all-party parliamentary group, which I chair, heard evidence that children in the north are more likely to die before reaching their first birthday than those anywhere else in the country. It has been widely reported for some time that, in desperation, parents have resorted to the theft of baby milk and formula or to having to water it down, which is not surprising considering that formula prices are at historically high levels. As it stands, there is a lack of awareness about the scheme, and the application routes are overly complex and varied. The reason so many are missing out on vouchers is that the system operates on an opt-in, not an opt-out model. Auto-enrolment for all those eligible would ensure maximum take-up of this essential nutritional safety net. The Healthy Start scheme was introduced by a Labour Government. The current problems with it are the fault of the last Government’s management of the scheme. It is in this Government’s gift to solve those problems.
New clause 44 relates to improving sibling contact for children in care. The Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to allow a looked-after child reasonable contact with their parents, but there is no parity of provision for a looked-after child’s contact with their siblings or half-siblings. If siblings cannot be placed together, they should have exactly the same rights to contact defined in primary legislation as they do with their parents. The relationships that adults deem to be the most important for children in care are not the same as those that are most important to the children themselves. The Government’s own research acknowledges that maintaining contact with siblings is reported by children to be one of their highest priorities. Having that relationship ripped away causes them anguish on many levels.
Although the Department does not collect statistics on siblings’ contact levels, work by the Family Rights Group has shown that half of all sibling groups in local authority care are split up. Many of those siblings come from neglectful and abusive backgrounds. They state themselves that the only constant, positive, reassuring and enduring relationship is the one they have with their siblings. That is especially the case if they have been abused by their parents. Therefore, it cannot be right that our primary legislation gives more weight to a child’s contact with those who have or may have caused them significant harm than it gives to contact with their siblings, who are totally blameless.
Guidance on sibling contact does exist, but it is sufficiently opaque to be ignored, and it regularly is. We all know in this House that guidance is no substitute for a clear duty. I first raised the issue in 2016. Every Minister who followed—there were a lot of them—promised that the regulations would be amended. To date, they have not been amended; to date, children in care do not have contact with their siblings prioritised. This is robbing them of what they cite as their most important and enduring relationship.
New clause 45 seeks to rectify a clear inconsistency in the law, whereby children in stable foster placements can stay with their foster families until the age of 21, under the terms of the Staying Put arrangements, but similar provisions do not exist for children in residential care. We should not be presiding over a two-tier system, where those in foster care receive more comprehensive support from the state than those in residential care. The Minister knows that children in residential care often have complex needs and require an immense amount of support. That need for support continues when they leave care. One of the factors known to give them a better chance in life is suitable and stable accommodation. Staying close is not enough. Local authorities have a duty to ensure significant accommodation for looked-after children in their area. New clause 45 would introduce a similar duty to ensure sufficient accommodation for all care leavers up to the age of 21, not just those in foster care.
I turn to new clauses 46 and 47. Just as children leaving residential care are treated differently from their peers in foster care, children aged 16 to 17 in residential care are also treated very differently from their younger peers. In 2021, the previous Government introduced provisions through statutory instruments to prohibit unregulated accommodation for children in care aged 15 or under, but not for those aged 16 or 17. Later, in 2023, they introduced what they deemed appropriate standards for supported accommodation for children in care and care leavers. These statutory instruments legitimised and encouraged the increasingly shameful practice of placing children in unregulated, unsafe hostels, bed and breakfasts, shared homes and caravan parks. Some children were even placed in tents on campsites.
All those settings have left them without any support, vulnerable to criminal abusers, drug gangs and sexual exploitation. The changes that followed in 2023 to supported accommodation for children aged 16 and 17 included no requirement to provide these children in care with any care at all, no requirement for qualified staff or managers to be present in their accommodation, and no requirement for independent monthly monitoring of that accommodation. Ofsted is only required, on a three-yearly cycle, to look at a small proportion of these accommodations. They also did not prohibit corporal punishment, as is the case in children’s residential homes, and these changes still allowed putting children into care in caravans, barges and boats or accommodation with vulnerable adults and prison leavers.
As of March 2024, the latest statistics that I have are that up to 50%—nearly 900,000—of 16 and 17-year-olds in care were living in this careless, bleak accommodation. I have said before in this House that 50 children in unregulated accommodation have died, that we know of, the details of which are rightly not fully known or in the public domain, but the children themselves I have spoken to have said they are literally surviving. They are not living, they are not being allowed to prepare for adulthood, they are not in education, and they are not in employment. They are literally surviving hour by hour.
I remain deeply saddened that we did not object to these changes at the time, despite my efforts. Our 16 and 17-year-olds in care have been abandoned for far too long. My new clauses 46 and 47 will give them the support and care that they so desperately need and desperately want—the support and care that the previous Government ripped away from them.
While I have been in this place long enough to know that the Minister is not going to accept all of my new clauses today, I remain ever confident and hopeful that he will work with me and consider these new clauses deeply and carefully as the Bill progresses to the other place and eventually returns back to this Chamber.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
As the son of a lady from Limerick, may I offer my mum, my wider family and everybody in the House a happy St Patrick’s Day?
I rise to speak in support of two new clauses. New clause 13 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) requests a review of adoption support services offered by local authorities and requires the Government within 12 months of passing the Act to conduct a review of the adequacy and effectiveness of those services. This will give those providing adoption services and those receiving them the comfort to know that they are indeed adequate and hopefully increase the confidence in adoption services and increase the take-up of those offering their homes to children in need.
On the second amendment I wish to speak to, I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on households in temporary accommodation. New clause 14 tabled by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) has the support of 35 colleagues from both the Labour and Liberal Democrats Benches. It requires local authorities to notify the child’s school and registered GP practice of a household’s homelessness status.
In this debate, we heard from the hon. Member about the impact of living in temporary accommodation, but this new clause will help in detecting any learning or health outcome issues as a result of living in temporary accommodation—accommodation that the Chair of our Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee has mentioned in this place before as being no longer, sadly, that temporary. It is to be hoped, too, that it will help in learning the lessons of the 74 children who have died in temporary accommodation and that being classed as a contributory factor to their deaths. I commend both these new clauses to the House.