Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, as another corporate parent from a local authority, I am pleased to join in this discussion today. It is our duty and our responsibility as a corporate parent to do what we would do not only for our children but for other children. We should focus totally on that.

I want to focus on care leavers, in particular, and the importance of working with partners to enhance their life chances, enabling a continuous celebration of their achievements and talents—and there are achievements and talents in children in care and care leavers. We have a responsibility to work even harder to create a positive narrative about what children in care and care leavers can achieve.

As a snapshot, in north Lincolnshire we have a corporate parenting pledge which incorporates our ambitions for care leavers. We have made a specific commitment in regard to staying put. This includes a children’s campus and a children’s home with four self-contained staying-close suites, where children who move on from the home can live under the same roof and, importantly, have the safety and protection of trusted adults. As one young person said, “Being invited next door for a Sunday lunch is something we treasure”. Care leavers are encouraged to stay in touch and, for our part, our children in care council works with them into early adulthood.

I look forward to the opportunity to innovate, practise and implement new ideas to support and protect children. This includes supporting children and families at the earliest point to prevent the potential need for statutory intervention.

I shall focus, too, on the disengagement of young people and the variety of factors and vulnerabilities that we know may cause it. In the first instance, it could be because of welfare issues, special education needs, additional needs with ill health and school refusal.

It is vital that we look at bespoke alternative education packages for young people who may be outside mainstream education. The Children and Adolescent Medical Needs Education Team, CAMNET, provides direct tutoring and mentoring for children unable to access education due to acute health needs, supports young people who are NEET and provides independent careers advice and guidance. In all cases the aim is to support the child to achieve their hopes, dreams and aspirations. This is fundamentally what this Bill addresses. There is particular emphasis also on the transition to adult plans for disabled children, with mentoring for independent living through progression of education and work. We simply cannot do this alone, so it is about working with schools, colleges and other providers to establish fair access to ensure continuity of education for young people excluded from school in some instances but at risk of permanent exclusion and of disengagement post 16.

I am encouraged that the Bill will address and strengthen the role of local authorities in promoting and defending the interests of care leavers. We do all we can to defend the interests of those care leavers and all who want that support up to the age of 25. The Bill addresses and promotes high aspirations. That is what we need to focus on to help these young children secure the best outcomes, taking account of their views, wishes and feelings. We need to make sure that they feel safe and have stability as we prepare them for adulthood and independent living. I also welcome further support for innovation in children’s social care by allowing local authorities such as mine to pilot new, innovative approaches. We must embrace and learn from other areas where it works well.

Finally, we will help every child in care to build a better life. I welcome the Bill, particularly the steps to help strengthen our social work profession to make social workers feel valued and supported, as well as delivering a valued and personalised service. We should also test different ways of working to achieve better outcomes, and also the same outcomes more effectively.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, when I first studied the raft of amendments tabled to this important Bill it seemed likely that we would have a high quality of debate and of argument. Certainly, what we have heard in the last 36 minutes bears that out. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for moving the amendment. I shall speak to Amendment 7 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt.

Some noble Lords may have been present in the Chamber about an hour ago when the Minister responded to a Question on care leavers and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws asked—I paraphrase her remark—what life had come to when we had to have corporate parents. I certainly echo the view that it is unfortunate that there has to be such a term, but the Minister answered the point well when he established that the term “in loco parentis” is very important in these situations. I believe that corporate parents have a duty to do no less for children in their care than do birth parents for their children. That is a very important role indeed—perhaps one of the most important roles of a local authority. I know from experience that elected councillors take their responsibility in this regard very seriously. Corporate parenting should mean the full and active involvement of the formal and local partnerships needed between local authority departments and services and associated agencies responsible for working together to meet the needs of looked-after children and young people as well as care leavers. Recognising that different component parts each have a contribution to make is critical to success.

One challenge of being a good corporate parent is to help each individual child. In many cases it is not recognised that every child is an individual. Often the only thing that they have in common is that life has not been easy for them and that perhaps at some stage a local authority or a court has decided that compulsory intervention was necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, also made the important point that whenever possible, corporate parents should prevent children coming into contact with youth justice. The Government have recognised many of these sentiments in the seven corporate parenting principles outlined in Clause 1, but principles must reflect duties established by existing legislation and it seems that, in some instances, the principles in Clause 1 actually confer fewer responsibilities on local authorities than currently exist in social care legislation.

I sit somewhat in awe when I hear noble and learned Members of your Lordships’ House pronounce on legal matters, and I would not for one moment seek to question them, so I was very pleased when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, talked about the “having regard to” in Amendment 7, to which I am speaking. If I picked him up correctly, he said at one stage that it would be difficult if a local authority decided to set aside those responsibilities in full. I would be more concerned if there were situations where a local authority concluded—there could be reasons many why—that it could not or would not meet those responsibilities in full. Anything less than that would potentially steer that local authority into difficult waters in terms of the service it was providing as a corporate parent.

I am not going to comment on the detailed legal principle of that, but there seems to be further ground to be tilled in that respect. I am sure that we shall do that and perhaps the Minister can respond, having taken appropriate advice. Just talking about “having regard to” seems rather weak. That is why I hope the Government will recognise that Amendment 7 is put forward in a positive and constructive manner. It seeks to strengthen the Bill and the support provided by making it a requirement that local authorities must ensure that these principles are met in full.

There were other notable contributions, in particular that of my noble friend Lady Armstrong, who talked from experience not just in her own working life but as a Minister in this important sector. I would be very concerned if there were situations where, as she suggested, corporate parenting was used as an excuse for not trying to achieve what should in many cases be the desired outcome: settling the child with his or her family, if that is at all possible. When children and young people become looked after, it is essential from the outset that there is robust and flexible planning for their future. Certainly stability is crucial to a child’s development and happiness, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said. The system should support stability through minimising moves and seeking permanent solutions wherever possible.

For that reason, I believe that the wording in Clause 1 needs to be strengthened in order to demonstrate that we all want our children and young people to have successful and productive lives—and, to ensure that that happens, that we will provide the services and support in every form which will help them succeed, particularly when they have problems to overcome. The amendments in this group offer considerable opportunities to contribute to that and I would not take issue with any of them. I hope that the Minister will respond in a positive manner.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe, Lady Walmsley and Lady Pinnock, and to the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Bichard, Lord Hunt and Lord Watson, for their amendments relating to the corporate parenting principle set out in Clause 1. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, commented on timing and I can assure him that the usual channels, as he so comprehensively described them, will be made aware of his point.

In designing the seven principles, the Government have set out the key decisions that young people tell us are of fundamental importance to being a good corporate parent. Given their importance, it is absolutely right that we should debate the principles to ensure that when they are enacted, they do what is intended—namely, to change the culture within local authorities so that they take into account the needs of looked-after children and care leavers when discharging their functions.

At the outset, I want to be clear that the Government intend that the corporate parenting principles will have a life beyond the statute book. My honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families tells me that he wants every social worker, housing chief, leaving care adviser and council leader to have those principles on the wall of his or her office. He wants them to be discussed at council meetings, at looked-after children review meetings, and by foster carers when they talk to their children’s teachers. In short, he wants to drive a culture of good corporate parenting across the whole local authority and not just through the children’s services team. We cannot change culture through legislation alone, but we can legislate to influence how people talk about their responsibilities and how they discharge those responsibilities in relation to looked-after children and care leavers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To add to that, the danger is that government policy will undermine what local authorities are trying to do. That is why we need government policies that will work with and support local authorities in their corporate parenting, rather than working against them.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 4 and 31 in this group. Clause 1(1)(d) refers to “relevant partners” but, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, stated, that is too vague. I want to emphasise some of the benefits of explicitly including health and housing services in that framework of support.

As my noble friend Lady Lister said, looked-after children, young people and care leavers historically experience poorer health than their peers and are also more likely to need specialist health services than the general population—whether that be mental health services, help with addictions or sexual health advice. Looked-after children, surely, must have access to mental health services and the speech, language and communications support that they need.

None the less, as the Local Government Association has pointed out in briefings sent to noble Lords, children’s services are already overstretched and any new duties must be fully funded so that they do not have an unintended detrimental impact on other services for vulnerable children and young people. Expansion of corporate parenting duties took place in Scotland in 2014 and, for the most part, has been a success without requiring any additional investment from central government. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned there.

Currently, looked-after children are supported by a social worker, an independent reviewing officer, a carer and a personal adviser who advocate for their interests. The most important thing is to ensure that there are good outcomes, and for that to happen there should be a focus on continuity and building strong relationships, not simply adding an additional member of care staff to the structure.

For the NHS to contribute effectively to the corporate family, health services must be able to identify looked-after children and young people accurately, and local authorities must help it to do this. The NHS provides services to assess individual need and provides access to therapeutic services resourced to meet those needs.

Where children are not within mainstream education provision, access should be co-ordinated to make sure that they receive health promotion advice and appropriate health checks, including, most importantly, mental health checks. A lead clinician could be appointed to co-ordinate mental health support in each local authority area.

The days when social housing was provided mainly by local authorities is long gone. Housing services provided directly by councils or in partnership with housing associations remain an integral part of the corporate family. Throughout the country there are many housing associations with close links to local authorities in terms of providing housing for groups of people with specific needs, and care leavers are clearly one of those groups. Homeless people are another and, without proper support, young people in the first of those categories can easily slide into the second one. Care leavers are particularly vulnerable to homelessness, and preventing homelessness among care leavers should be recognised in local strategies and plans.

Moving into independence involves more than simply finding a roof. Corporate parents should satisfy themselves that young people leaving care have the necessary life skills and confidence to cope with independent living. Some young people will need more support than others, and that is why a range of services needs to be made available—and this should include the type of tenancy offered. A single person’s tenancy may not be the best option for a young care leaver striking out into the big, and possibly bad, world for the first time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, talked about this transitional period. She urged us not to talk about people leaving care but to people moving on. That is a very apt description. Health services as well as housing services must support people as they make the difficult and inevitably demanding move into independent life.

The local offer made to care leavers will lack both authority and effectiveness if it is restricted to the list appearing in Clause 1. Given the debate that we have had within this group, that is unlikely to remain the case. If the corporate parenting principles were applied to health agencies, it would encourage them to take greater responsibility. The same would be true of housing.

In closing, I will say that the call of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for consistency is important. He suggested that that could be achieved through some kind of tick list of what agencies are required to be involved. I hope that I do not do them a disservice by saying that my noble friends Lady Lister and Lord Warner support the principle of extending the agencies involved—and so do I.

I hope that the Minister, having heard the various comments in this debate, will accept the amendments in principle and come back on Report with an amendment that broadens the scope of Clause 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I was just suggesting that that should be looked at and that lessons could be learned.

[Lord Nash]

The noble Lord makes a good point: we should look at it and see what lessons can be learned, as Scotland is at least a year ahead of us on this.

To focus on England, we absolutely acknowledge that there is a role for central government—but it is a different role. Central government departments are not the corporate parents of the children taken into care or accommodated by local authorities. The role of government is to set the broader policy framework.

That is not to say that government departments across Whitehall do not recognise that looked-after children and care leavers need more support and assistance. That is why, if we take health services as an example, the NHS Constitution for England makes clear the responsibilities of clinical commissioning groups and NHS England to looked-after children and, by extension, care leavers. It is also why looked-after children are mentioned specifically in the mandate to NHS England.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, made a point about CAMHS not being willing to treat children not in a stable placement. Child and adolescent mental health services should treat children according to level of need, irrespective of the stability of their placements. The expert group set up to look at care pathways for looked-after children will specifically address this point, with a view to ensuring that access to treatment is according to clinical need and in line with existing statutory guidance.

There are other examples where central government in England has championed looked-after children and care leavers. That is why they now attract pupil premium at a rate of £1,900 per pupil—higher than for other eligible pupils. That is why they also get priority in school admission arrangements.

In 2013, the first cross-government Care Leaver Strategy was published. It recognised the need to work coherently across government to address the needs of care leavers in the round. As a result, a number of changes were made, including measures to better identify care leavers so that they got tailored support—for instance, through the introduction of a “marker” by Jobcentre Plus so that care leavers could be identified and offered additional help. This work continues. We are now working on a refreshed strategy, and have been working closely with seven other government departments in England. The development of the strategy, which will be published shortly, has the backing of the Social Justice Cabinet Committee.

Amendments 36 and 37 seek to require government departments to publish information about services that will help care leavers prepare for adulthood and independent living. As with Clause 1, Clause 2 is about local authority services. The local offer is a manifestation of what it means for each local authority to be a good corporate parent. I agree that central government has responsibilities to looked-after children and care leavers alongside local government. The work we have been doing with each government department at both ministerial level and involving senior officials meeting regularly to discuss what more can be done to support care leavers at the level of national policy represents a significant step forward in increasing the understanding of and commitment to care leavers across Whitehall. Guidance of course is incredibly useful and we shall be consulting fully on what the guidance on corporate parenting should include. But although—quite rightly—central government can and is setting the framework for good corporate parenting, the biggest impact on the lives of looked-after children and care leavers will be made at local level.

We have not extended the principles beyond local authorities in England because it is their duty to both looked-after children and care leavers—and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her remarks in this regard. These principles will guide local authorities in how they should exercise their existing functions and duties in relation to these vulnerable children and young people. As I have said, through these high-level principles we want to embed a corporate parenting culture across the whole local authority.

I recognise that looked-after children and care leavers need more support and assistance from a variety of public bodies. They will need to be able to make best use of services provided by other bodies, including clinical commissioning groups, NHS England, schools, housing and sometimes youth offending teams. That is why the fourth principle sets out a requirement to have regard to the need to help looked-after children and care leavers gain access to and make best use of services provided by the local authority and its relevant partners.

Of course, one could seek to apply these principles to a whole range of other public bodies. However, I believe that in doing so we would risk creating an overly bureaucratic tick-box approach that would do little to improve the life chances of looked-after children and care leavers. Instead, we need to embed a cultural shift. As I have said, the duty to co-operate with the relevant parties is already on the statute book in Section 10 of the Children Act 2004, where there is a duty to co-operate to improve the well-being of children and care leavers.

I emphasise that though we do not believe that extending the principles in law to other bodies is the way forward, we recognise that there is more to do to raise the awareness of these young people. Indeed, the consultation which local authorities will undertake with their local practitioners on developing the local offer being introduced under Clause 2 will ensure that access to NHS services and housing is inevitably brought into the process without the need for further prescription. To reinforce this, the department will also set out in statutory guidance how the corporate parenting principles should be applied in practice. Partnership working and commitment to care leavers is at the heart of the sea change that is needed to transform their lives.

Last month the Prime Minister signalled the Government’s intention to create a care-leaver covenant. This will provide a means through which public, private and voluntary sector organisations will be able to demonstrate how they support these young people and improve their lives. I would expect partners such as police and health bodies to consider how they can contribute to supporting care leavers. I also hope that many organisations in the private and voluntary sectors will commit to supporting young people leaving care through the care-leaver covenant.

I hope that noble Lords are reassured and that the noble Lord can be persuaded to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, nothing has been said during this debate that one could reasonably disagree with. My only question is: would it help if we had it all in the Bill? I would draw attention to the Local Government Association’s concern, which is that if all these things are in a Bill they restrict the capacity to think through the targeting of where there is greatest need. In some communities, the greatest need may not be for the in-care community.

We know, as I said this afternoon during Questions, although I was rather interrupted, that the children who are on the list of those in greatest need are likely to have a greater need for intervention than some of the children in care. We should not do anything that inhibits local authorities and their partners from making proper assessments and being able to direct those services. I know, having talked at length to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and to other people who have been in poor authorities, that there is some despair about whether some local authorities will ever reach that point of being able to make good assessments. I also know from work that I am doing with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children that some remarkable work and turnaround is happening in other local authorities. We should try to work with the best towards the best and enable a local authority to do that.

I am interested that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is so sanguine about the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I can see a million difficulties in having his suggestion on the statute book. Again, much as the bit of me that was a director of social services would have liked to have had that, the other bit would know how impossible it is to get one person. What is the role now of the independent reviewing officer, for example? We know that IROs have not been particularly successful, yet those are the people who we have identified as the ones to focus on the children. There must be alternative ways.

This is where the two parts of the Bill come together. If we are able to get the social work bit of it right and develop really good social work, it seems that the other issues will not be so pressing—apart from the ones raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. The mental health issues of children in care are of particular concern and I would support her. This is because CAMHS is in such disarray, probably in greater disarray than some other areas in local authorities, and although I think that the Government have good intentions to put money into the service, we know how hard it is to get that funding properly directed. However, we could make a real difference to young people’s progress if we ensure that their therapeutic needs are met early on, not when they are developing serious mental disorders and personality conditions. We know that behavioural work with children at an early stage works very well. While I am finding it difficult to support a wide range of the amendments, again because I want to keep the Bill as simple and implementable as possible, we should look seriously at these mental health issues.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, undoubtedly many telling points have been made on these wide-ranging amendments. I cannot offer my support for all of them, but I certainly can in respect of those tabled by my noble friend Lady Massey and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, concerning mental health. My noble friend urged the promotion of mental health, something that we might imagine was not necessary but unfortunately it is. Current statutory guidance requires that children entering care should receive a physical health assessment by a trained clinician, yet mental health and emotional well-being are assessed only through a strengths and difficulties questionnaire. That is not an alternative to a full assessment conducted by someone with the appropriate qualifications in mental health, which should be instituted as a matter of urgency. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, sets it out clearly in her Amendment 87. This is not a new demand. I can recall asking for it on several occasions during our consideration last year of the Education and Adoption Bill, and I was not alone. Noble Lords from all sides of the House expressed the same call.

It is now well past the point when Ministers should get it, by which I mean the fact that 45% of children entering care have a diagnosable mental health condition. Their needs should be identified early and clearly. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, referred to the plans that form part of the implementation of Future in Mind, and I hope that I am quoting her accurately when she said that only 14% of children entering care receive proper mental health assessments despite the proposals in the document. I would suggest that the time for that situation to change dramatically is now long overdue. We missed the opportunity in last year’s legislation, so I hope that will not be allowed to happen again.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 10, 16, 17, 21 to 25, 28, 33 and 34, 80A and 81A, 84A and 87 regarding the promotion of the mental, physical, emotional and social health and well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, as well as their educational outcomes, along with the educational outcomes of children who leave care and return to their parents. I fully agree that promoting the mental health and social and emotional well-being of looked-after children and care leavers and promoting positive educational outcomes for these groups is critically important, and I shall deal with each of the amendments in turn.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for her Amendment 10 and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her Amendment 34. The Government have made clear in Section 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 that a comprehensive health service is one that addresses mental as well as physical illness. The Government’s intention is to ensure that the first corporate parenting principle, which refers to promoting the health and well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, is interpreted as covering both the physical and mental aspects. We think that this is clear in the Bill as currently drafted, but we will clarify the position in associated statutory guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

26: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) to promote early intervention in meeting the current and future needs of those children and young people.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the noble Baroness for that clarification. In moving Amendment 26, I wish to speak also to Amendment 50.

We on these Benches believe that the Bill as a whole would be much strengthened by adding another corporate parenting principle: early intervention. Prevention is of course better than cure, but the earlier that children at risk of harm or in need of additional support can be identified, and the earlier that those children can access services, surely the better their chances of overcoming the challenges they face, having a healthy life and forging a more positive future.

Many of the 10,000 young people leaving care in England each year have poorer outcomes than their peers in terms of education, work, mental health and well-being. Early intervention is crucial in addressing this and should include, for example: support at school and beyond to help children in care overcome barriers that can prevent them progressing in education; financial education; careers advice; and an introduction to the workplace and familiarisation with the world of work to help to build a successful transition into employment, so preventing debt and poverty. Perhaps most important of all is the need to identify and overcome trauma and past harm to prevent more significant mental health needs developing later on, a subject that was referred to in depth on the last group of amendments.

It would be wrong to suggest that local authorities and social workers are unaware of these issues or do not attempt to address them but, for whatever reasons, not enough is being achieved in terms of outcomes for looked-after children, young people and care leavers. An additional corporate parenting principle promoting early intervention would highlight the imperative of meeting these needs, and I hope that the Minister will accept that important principle.

Amendment 50 focuses on the need to even up the provisions for young people in care up to the age of 21. The staying put offer makes provision for children to stay with their foster parents; this amendment would make provision for other care leavers also to have suitable accommodation. We believe that there should be comparability of provision in place for all types of care.

Many young people these days stay at home long after they turn 18, often indeed into their thirties. This is usually for financial reasons but it also reflects the support that comes with being in a stable home. How ironic it is that care leavers do not have a home to fall back on, yet are even more likely to need one. The problem is that, like so many aspects of care leaver policy that we are debating, it benefits only a proportion of those who need it. Many of the most vulnerable young people in care will not be in a stable foster placement, meaning that they will not benefit from staying put. Instead, they are often expected to live independently without appropriate support and without any experience of doing so. We all remember leaving home for the first time and what a dramatic change that involved. Most of us will have been fortunate enough to have had a stable family home to fall back on if things got too difficult. Care leavers have no such cushion and have to deal with situations that can be stressful at best and dangerous at worst.

At present, there is no central funding and no requirement on local authorities to provide accommodation that meets their needs. We know that care leavers are much more likely than their peers to become homeless. Accommodation is at the heart of improving life chances for this group. Without a safe and stable home, how can we expect young people to go to college, gain skills, get a job or even in some cases attend healthcare appointments? Indeed, why should we expect these young people, many of whom are vulnerable and recovering from past abuse or neglect, to know how to live on their own? They often require a supported form of accommodation to give them the basic foundation they need to cope with other challenges.

The Children and Families Act 2014 introduced a special duty on local authorities to support some young people to remain with their foster parents up to the age of 21. This is welcome but it creates a disparity between those young people and others in care who cannot benefit from these arrangements. There are many reasons for providing accommodation up to the age of 21 but, critically, it must be appropriate to the young person’s needs and requirements. It could be residential or supported accommodation; it could be foster care as well. There are course costs to this but the Government should accept that funding needs to be provided to local authorities to meet the cost of this important provision.

In recent years, there has been political consensus that early intervention is key but the austerity Budgets imposed by the Government since 2010 have created an economic climate that has made that difficult to take forward. The Bill offers a real opportunity to send a clear message from government that early intervention should be a guiding principle in everything done to support children and young people in care, and care leavers. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak in particular to Amendments 27, 49 and 88. I spoke at Second Reading about these issues and referred to the Children’s Society report, The Cost of Being Care Free. As we have heard today, young people in the care system suffer inadequate preparation for the financial implications of independent living. Care leavers are already vulnerable and deserve proper support to prevent them falling into poverty. Rent, council tax, electricity, gas, food and general household bills are all a black art and a mystery to them.

The key findings in The Cost of Being Care Free included that young people leaving care alone and with no family to support them are falling into debt and financial difficulty, due to insufficient financial education from local authorities. Almost half of local authorities in England failed to offer care leavers financial education, support and debt advice, leaving vulnerable young people unprepared for the realities of adult life and at risk of falling into dangerous financial situations. Many care leavers receive financial advice only once the situation has reached crisis point. Such dangerous financial situations could be prevented through financial education and advice, so it is important that we should do everything we can to make sure that this happens.

Young care leavers who have spoken to the Children’s Society stress that they would have welcomed more financial education and support prior to leaving care. They said that due to insufficient preparation on the part of the local authority, they had to figure out what bills needed to be paid and what their responsibilities were when they turned 18. Many young care leavers become destitute and homeless, as we have already heard.

On access to the benefits system, out of 4,390 decisions taken by jobcentres to apply for sanctions on care leavers, only 16% challenged them and 62% of those challenges were overturned, which means that 3,960 sanctions were applied to care leavers, meaning that there was one sanction for every 13 care leavers. It is simply unacceptable that care leavers should be sanctioned in this way.

I turn now to Amendment 88. I should say that I have tabled it on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is extremely concerned about the life chances of young people leaving care—in fact, it is more about the lack of life chances. All the information and advice that could be made available to care leavers should be made available, and I fully support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful replies. They give us plenty of food for thought. I am clear that he has given very careful thought to these issues and I am grateful to him for that. It was very encouraging to hear that half of those young people eligible for Staying Put have taken up the offer. Of course, we both want it to go further, but it is encouraging. Staying Put is a very important step forward. I am glad that the Minister is listening to young people in care. We talked about that earlier. Listening to young people with experience of Staying Put is a very salutary, encouraging experience.

There is a concern about ISAs. The Minister may correct me, but I think that they represent a large sum of money being given to very young people. There is a risk that they may not use it well and that they will not be supported in using it. There is also a concern about the sums given by local authorities to care leavers. Some social workers will insist on receipts and manage the money carefully while others will just give them the money. At best the young people may waste that money, but some may use it to their own detriment. Perhaps the Minister could write to me to clarify what support there is for young people leaving care to manage those sums well. I would much appreciate that. I also thank him for his response.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I do not share the enthusiasm of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for the Minister’s response, because he seemed to say that this is all down to councils. These are the same organisations which have had their resources cut and cut and that are going to face more cuts. There would be no concerns if councils were able to deal with the problems, but that is not the case. I am sure that we will return to these issues on other days, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

At end to insert “but that this House regrets that clauses 20 to 40 of the Bill contain only delegations of powers in contrast to the recommendations of the Constitution, Secondary Legislation and Delegated Powers Committees in relation to skeleton bills; regrets that without draft regulations published in good time the ability of this House to perform its core scrutiny function is seriously diminished; and calls on the Government to publish those draft regulations before the House considers those clauses in committee.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks in moving the Bill. For too many children in care, the state does not carry out its parenting functions adequately. Life chances for children in care are poorer than for their peers, and too often time spent in care is a prelude to a life of mental health problems, unemployment and time spent in the criminal justice system. The role of the state as a corporate parent is vitally important. We must ensure the highest standards of support for children in care, the best opportunities and access to the services which will reduce the inequalities they face and set them on a positive path for the future.

In some respects, this Bill is due a welcome, focusing as it does on improving the outcomes and support for looked-after children. The introduction of detailed principles of corporate parenting provides much-needed recognition of the need to reconsider the support offered to the most vulnerable children in our society, and the extension of the personal adviser role to care leavers up to the age of 25 is a step forward. But, mirroring the Government’s track record with education, where teacher shortages continue to be denied, here we have a Bill that fails to tackle the fundamental issues facing children’s social work: case load levels that are too high, high staff turnover rates, a reliance on agency workers, and unqualified social work assistants taking on the role of social workers. When framing the Bill, the Government’s eye was not fully on the ball.

In social work, the Government are on course to repeat the mistakes they made with the teaching profession. Social workers play a vital role in society, yet under this Government many are demoralised through a narrative which blames them for failings in the system. Six in 10 English regions have seen a fall in the number of social workers working in children’s services, while there has been a 50% increase in the amount spent on agency social workers.

As with the Education and Adoption Bill last year, adoption is once more the only destination from care that, it seems, the Government value. Only one in 20 children in the care system is adopted. Where are the measures to cater for those in foster care, special guardianship and kinship care? Although there is a brief allusion to kinship care in Clause 8, no other forms of care merit even a mention there or in Clause 9. I mentioned this issue on the previous Bill and was given assurances by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, that all forms of care were equally valued and would be treated as such. I have to say that there is scant evidence in this Bill that the Government take that view. I invite Ministers to explain why the warm words offered from the Government Front Bench last year have not been translated into action in this Bill.

Three-quarters of children in the care system are in foster care and the Government have failed to champion, support and focus on this group. Three months ago the Government published a paper entitled Adoption: A Vision for Change. When can we expect the publication of Foster Care: A Vision for Change? From the Prime Minister down, Ministers have made things harder for foster carers, by doing down their role and contrasting it unfavourably with adoption. I believe that the Government should be setting out a reform programme which takes a long-term, holistic view of the entire care system and ensures that adequate support is provided to every child. This Bill could have done that but fails to do so.

The seven corporate parenting principles are certainly welcome but they should, we believe, be a duty, as happens in Scotland, and they should cover all relevant public services. If I heard the Minister correctly, he said that other agencies were to be added to the corporate principles. For the avoidance of doubt, we believe that health—including clinical commissioning groups and NHS England—the criminal justice system and police and housing services should all play their full part in delivering the best for looked-after children. We will press the Government to strengthen this clause significantly, so as to encourage joined-up thinking and action on the needs of children in care and care leavers.

The local offer outlined in Clause 2 is welcome, although local authorities need only publish this information. There is a clear need for the emphasis to shift from reactive to proactive, with information given to care leavers, and the information should be given to them up to a year before they are due to leave care, allowing them to prepare and to gain most from the offer. There is no virtue in waiting until they are about to move out the door. Labour would like to see the introduction of a national gold standard for the services care leavers should receive, with government sharing best practice to drive up support for care leavers everywhere. What is needed is a national offer delivered locally, so as to learn from and avoid repeating the vagaries of the postcode lottery that is the SEND local offer established under the Children and Families Act.

The main question posed by Clause 15 is surely, what is the problem it is designed to address? We recognise that the children’s social care landscape has changed significantly since the last major legislative reform brought about by the Children Act 2004. We support innovation if it drives up outcomes for children and standards in local authorities, but innovation can take place very effectively within local authorities, as Leeds has recently demonstrated. We strongly believe that child protection services and, indeed, wider children’s social care should not be run for profit and we are concerned that this clause could be a Trojan horse. The Government have failed to justify such a wide-ranging and wholesale change. Many sensible voices in the sector are very concerned about this and we will press the Government, in Committee, to come forward with a detailed explanation as to why it is necessary. As it stands, the proposals are too wide ranging and without adequate safeguards to protect children and young people if plans to innovate go wrong.

Also, the introduction of a power to become exempt from statutory duties will be seen by some local authorities as an opportunity to drop certain provision at a time when financial pressures may make it difficult for them to meet all their statutory commitments. So it is crucial that where local authorities delegate their services or responsibilities for children in care and/or care leavers, the same principles that apply to local authorities will apply to those now running those services.

Clause 15 raises a number of questions, but at this stage I will ask Minister just two. Have the Government made any assessment of the risk to children of proposals to exempt local authorities from some key duties for keeping children safe? Secondly, if outsourced services are not subject to Ofsted inspections, how will it be known whether outcomes for children are improving?

Part 2 of the Bill covers social work, including, crucially, regulation. However, what is meant by Clauses 20 to 40 is just not known, because that is where the Bill disappears off into the mist. From that point it is a skeleton Bill, despite recent comments by the Minister. What do these clauses mean? Ask 10 people and you might get 10 different answers. In addition, since the Bill was published the Government have already submitted 14 amendments: none, it has to be said, within the area of Clauses 20 to 40. I think I picked the Minister up correctly when I said that he has announced another one, at least, today.

This is no way to legislate. Were this a one-off occurrence, we on these Benches would not perhaps make too much of it. I think it fair to say that, although we were critical of the Government’s Education and Adoption Bill a year ago, at least that came fairly soon after the general election—an election the Government themselves did not expect to win—and could not have been fully prepared. That has to be accepted, at least to some extent. But we are now well down the line and there is no cover for the Government regarding the Bill we are considering today. This has become an all too familiar pattern with not just this Bill and the Education and Adoption Bill, but other Bills in your Lordships’ House over the last year. That is a completely unacceptable development. That is why we submitted the amendment standing in my name: to draw attention to the fact that the Government are treating Parliament with contempt.

Just five days ago, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was challenged in exchanges in your Lordships’ House over what she called “skeleton Bills”. She said:

“I want to ensure that as Parliament proceeds, it has the information it needs to do its job. Having gone through one Session, I feel that I have learned lessons that I want to ensure are properly applied by the Government ... I can assure noble Lords that I am taking very seriously my responsibilities to ensure that legislation is brought forward in as complete a fashion as possible.—[Official Report, 9/6/16; col. 898.]

It surely goes without saying that we are not there yet. Noble Lords do not need to take just my word for it. Yesterday, the Constitution Select Committee in your Lordships’ House published its report on this Bill. I am sure that both Ministers will have read it with interest. Inter alia, it said:

“The Bill grants extensive powers to the Secretary of State—in particular in relation to … Clause 11 … and … Clause 20 … these provisions appear to continue the trend we noted in several reports last session—the introduction of legislation that leaves much to the subsequent discretion of ministers. We regret that, despite the concerns expressed in the past by this and other committees, the Government continues to introduce legislation that depends so heavily on an array of … delegated powers”.

These words may be couched in moderate terms but they are none the less hard-hitting. I hope the Minister, on behalf of the Government, feels chastised, because I believe that he should. He should also explain to noble Lords why the Government continue to introduce Bills that deny opposition parties and Cross-Benchers the ability to scrutinise legislation effectively. We cannot scrutinise that which we cannot see.

I think that the Minister pointed to only two lots of regulations that appear in Clauses 20 to 40. I have asked my noble friend Lord Hunt to have a quick look at the Bill while I have been speaking. He has come up with 29 lots of regulations and powers within those clauses, so there is a considerable difference. That emphasises why we felt it necessary to bring forward the amendment before your Lordships today.

What little we can discern from the second half of the Bill is that it contains no detail on the proposed new statutory regulator, not even a framework. It is unclear why the Government wish to commit to the considerable cost of setting up a new regulator—as happened with the General Social Care Council around 10 years ago—at a time when council social care budgets continue to suffer as a result of reductions in central government funding.

Another document that I am sure the Ministers have read is the Bill’s impact assessment. On page 5, the conclusion the Department for Education reaches regarding social work regulation is that the Bill simply enables the making of secondary legislation and does not itself have any regulatory impact. Well, well—who would have thought it? That is repeated at least twice more in the impact assessment, which means that that assessment has not been able to be carried out effectively. That in itself is a matter for concern.

We on these Benches are greatly concerned that, as things stand, the system outlined in the Bill places regulation of the profession under direct government control, removing the independence necessary to win the trust of social workers and the public. Even if the Secretary of State could become the regulator—we know that will not happen—even a government-appointed body would risk professional standards being subject to the political priorities of government, rather than a professional evidence base. These proposals will make social work the only health or social care profession to be directly regulated by government, and the Bill must be amended to create greater independence for any regulatory body established.

Labour does not oppose new ideas in social work training and practice, as hinted at in Clause 25. The expansion of, and support for, Frontline as a means of training new social workers was part of our manifesto last year. However, the intention was not to deny universities a major role, and student places must not be capped, as has happened with some teacher training. We know that the Government target for 2020 is for one in four arrivals to social work to be via Frontline or Step Up, the masters course for bringing in new social workers. That is not a matter for concern at the moment, but the Bill allows the Government to direct the content of training for social workers, which raises concerns of a drift towards a two-tier social work system for those on fast-track courses, with non-university providers being favoured for funding.

Social work is among the most important work in our society. Social workers make an amazing contribution to the country. We intend to improve the Bill to enable it to support that. Great social workers combine skill and knowledge with care and compassion to help transform the lives of the most vulnerable young people and families. We need to attract more life-changing social workers, and to do that we need to treat them with respect. If we do that, we will enable them to deliver what every child deserves: the best possible childhood, free from abuse and neglect. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

I will not say any more now in view of the time, except that I would be delighted to host a joint briefing on the matter. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate and look forward to Committee.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, earlier in the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, expressed the hope that the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper would not dominate the debate. I cannot speak for her, but I think she would agree with me that that has not been the case; nor was that ever the intention of these Benches in tabling the amendment. Many noble Lords have referred to it. In his recent contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, to some extent alluded to the consequences of the paucity of information in Clauses 20 to 40. It is slightly disingenuous of the Minister, although I do not propose to get into a tennis match with him over what is and is not in those clauses—but if we did so, we might call on the services of an umpire. On this occasion, we have an umpire in the form of the Constitution Committee, and I shall repeat a small part of what it said about this Bill. It said that,

“the government continues to introduce legislation that depends so heavily on an array of broad delegated powers”.

That seems unequivocal to me and to my colleagues on these Benches, and that is why the amendment was tabled.

It is inappropriate for the Government to continue to ride roughshod over the views of committees of your Lordships’ House—the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will give us its views in due course—and the views clearly expressed in this debate by noble Lords. Although it is not my intention to test the opinion of the House on this amendment, if this continues in future and further Bills come forward in a similar form, the Government should expect the Opposition to come forward with a similar amendment, and on that occasion we may not be as accommodating. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, several noble Lords have suggested today that the Government’s legislative programme is rather thin and even timid. I have to say that I find it interesting to read some political journalists describing the gracious Speech as a small “l” liberal programme while others see it as a series of social reforms designed to reunite the Conservative Party in the aftermath of the referendum— I say to the Prime Minister, “Good luck with that”, especially should the separatists prevail. I hope very much that they do not, although I know from today’s debate that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, will not agree with me.

The Government’s education policies remain obsessed with structures rather than what matters most, which is what works in terms of educational outcomes. Under this Government, school budgets are falling, there are chronic teacher shortages about which the Department for Education remains in denial, inhabiting a world of its own, and not enough good places are available. Despite being forced to make a tactical shift—I believe that it was tactical rather than strategic—the Government are continuing to force good and outstanding schools to become academies against their wishes. As I have said many times in your Lordships’ House, there is simply no evidence that academy status automatically raises school performance; in fact much of the evidence points in the opposite direction, as highlighted by my noble friends Lord Griffiths and Lord Murphy. Yet the Government plough on regardless.

My noble friend Lady Massey spoke eloquently on the question of academisation, but it has been widely reported that the Government have retreated from the mass academisation programme in the face of widespread and vociferous opposition. They have not fooled many in the education community with their apparent U-turn. The notes that accompanied the education for all Bill said that the Government would:

“Convert schools to academies in the worst performing local authorities and those that can no longer viably support their remaining schools, so that a new system led by good and outstanding schools can take their place”.

There already is a system led by good and outstanding schools—the local authority system. Is there room for improvement there? Of course: there always is, just as there is room for improvement in the academy and free school sectors. Is there any basis for binning the entire local authority sector in favour of the other two sectors? Absolutely not.

Just yesterday I visited Tollgate Primary School in east London, a teaching school that leads an alliance of 30 schools across seven London boroughs. It was already an outstanding school, and in 2013 its executive head also took on that role in nearby Cleves Primary, which had a “requires improvement” rating from Ofsted. Within just 18 months, Cleves joined Tollgate in being judged as outstanding in all areas. To achieve that in 18 months is very rare, and it was made possible by the schools working jointly in a federation. But the Government have effectively outlawed any new federations of maintained schools and Tollgate is now considering becoming an academy because, if it does not, it will be unable to progress from its current position as a teaching school.

That is an example of the covert pressure applied to outstanding maintained schools to make them bend to the will of the Government. I suspect that we can expect more underhand tactics when the Bill announced yesterday is rolled out. The Minister did not spell out how it would define local authority “viability” or a “minimum performance threshold” for local authorities, but it is to be hoped that there will be consultation on these definitions.

The independent think tank CentreForum has done some calculations on this. Working on the basis that a local authority is “unviable” if less than half of pupils in the area attend local authority maintained schools, and a local authority is “underperforming” if its maintained schools at either key stage 2 or key stage 4 are below the current national average, CentreForum has calculated that as many as 122 local authorities responsible for 12,000 maintained schools meet these not unreasonably assumed criteria for defining “unviable”. Forcibly converting those 12,000 schools to academy status would result in around 85% of all schools being academies, which, along with those converting voluntarily, would in turn render most remaining local authorities unviable.

Hey presto: the Government are within touching distance of their wish for all schools to become academies and so, by smoke and mirrors, the apparent pulling back from mass-academisation is not what it seems at all—not so much a U-turn, more a Z-turn. If I am wrong or this analysis is overly pessimistic, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, will write to me pointing this out. At a cost of around £1 billion the mass conversion of schools is simply not good use of public money, particularly at a time of huge funding pressures on schools.

We welcome the improvements to support for care leavers outlined in the Children and Social Work Bill. I listened closely to the wise words of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who regularly demonstrates his knowledge of and commitment to issues associated with children in care. Approximately 10,000 young people leave care in England every year, in many cases before they turn 18. Research shows that they are more likely than their peers to have poor outcomes later in life. This includes education and work, homelessness, contact with the criminal justice system and mental health problems.

It will also be important for this Bill to make up for the missed opportunity in the Education and Adoption Act by ensuring that, this time, provisions are introduced to ensure that children’s mental health is properly assessed on entry into care and then throughout their time in the care system. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, leaving care is often traumatic, yet the Government have failed to provide adequate adoption support, and cuts to services are putting pressure on the system. Measures that will increase adoption are welcome, but it is vital that action is taken that is in the best interests of the individual child. It is unacceptable that the Government have not yet developed a strategy for the wholesale improvement of the care system that delivers for all, not just those children being considered for adoption. As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, told noble Lords, social work should be seen as an honourable profession, yet often it is not. It is certainly a vital one. It is essential that other forms of care, such as kinship care and fostering, are not marginalised, because that will prevent the step change we need to see in outcomes for looked-after children. This Bill invites more than a few questions for the Government, but rather than list them now I will wait until 14 June when the Bill will have its Second Reading.

We believe that the digital economy Bill should detail a comprehensive approach to address the digital skills challenge in the UK and improve digital inclusion, improve the communications infrastructure and connectivity and make the UK the best place to start and scale up a high-growth tech business. As my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn said what seems a very long time ago now, the Government are letting down millions of households and businesses over the rollout of high-speed broadband. Six years after abandoning Labour’s fully-funded commitment to universal broadband, the Government’s superfast broadband rollout is still suffering delays. Many noble Lords have either outlined problems that they have experienced personally or talked about it in general terms. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, they simply must do better because the economy as a whole is suffering.

We welcome the focus on the age verification of websites containing pornographic material. However, in the knowledge that children’s digital lives play out across various social media platforms as well as websites, we remain concerned that unless we extend age verification measures to these platforms, children will continue to be exposed to pornographic and age-inappropriate material online.

Despite not meriting a mention in the gracious Speech, the elephant in the room throughout this debate has been the BBC, and understandably so. In fact, the elephant trumpeted loudly on many occasions, to the extent that it would be simpler to list noble Lords who did not mention the BBC than those who did. If I mention in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Addington, and my noble friends Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, Lord Cashman and Lord Stevenson, I hope other noble Lords who spoke on the BBC’s behalf will forgive me. Although the proposals published in the White Paper last week do not require legislation, it is, of course, very much a hot topic. Noble Lords who spoke warned of the need to be wary of the Government undermining, underfunding or otherwise weakening the great institution that is the BBC. I echo the view of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that the BBC’s independence and impartiality must be upheld and decisions as to who will form the new unitary board should be the preserve of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It is also essential that the licence fee should be protected, if the BBC is to continue to serve the whole country, which I and many people believe it does very effectively.

The Higher Education and Research Bill marks a sharp turn away from the established university system and on the face of it will empower more people than ever to access higher education in their local area through a college. So it was perhaps appropriate that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who outlined with great clarity some of the issues that will arise. It is to be welcomed that the new regime will provide a wider choice of courses linked to employment, but there are two buts. First, as my noble friend Lord Murphy told the House, under this Government and the previous one tuition fees have already trebled to £9,000 and we could see them climb even higher, saddling young people who want to go to university with tens of thousands of pounds of debt. That is likely to act as a disincentive to many would-be applicants and is an issue that the Government must address if they genuinely want to expand the social background from which students are drawn.

Secondly, what the noble Lord, Lord Nash, called a “wide range of providers” sounds like a free-market free-for-all, very much like the US model. As my noble friend Lord Stevenson, said, that is a matter for real concern because any brief examination of that system reveals the dangers, with many degrees next to worthless and students often left no more employable at the end of their course than when they started it. It would be encouraging to hear the Minister tell us that that will not be the case, although I suspect that the detail of the Bill is not yet complete.

On an NHS overseas visitors charging Bill, we will support any moves that are about ensuring fairness in the system and getting a better deal for taxpayers. However, we need to avoid turning NHS staff into border guards and the key test of these proposals will be whether they can be effectively enforced and whether it will cost the NHS more to administer the charges than it ends up receiving. We will also be seeking a guarantee that certain exemptions will remain in place, such as those for asylum seekers and people with infectious diseases.

Since the gracious Speech we have learned of agreement being reached between the Government and the BMA on junior doctors’ hours. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, highlighted some of the contract conditions apparently withdrawn by the Secretary of State, enabling agreement to be reached. That is, of course, most welcome, but it demonstrates what many have believed for some time—that Mr Hunt wanted this dispute, he planned it and he prolonged it. The agreement reached yesterday could have been achieved weeks ago, obviating the need for industrial action. Very few employees in any sector go on strike unless it is the last resort. That was particularly true of the junior doctors. Yet, the Secretary of State’s intransigence left them with little choice because media coverage of cancelled operations and picket lines outside hospitals served his purpose. That is shameful. Now we are at an end point, it should be understood that it is despite the approach adopted by Mr Hunt, not because of it. The priority for Ministers now must be to repair the damage the dispute has done to staff morale and begin the process of rebuilding the trust of the very people who keep our NHS running.

In the weeks and months ahead, the detail of the 21 Bills announced yesterday will emerge. It is to be hoped that, unlike last Session, we are not presented with skeleton or framework Bills which are not even fleshed out fully during consideration in both Houses but are left for Government to fill through secondary legislation at a later date. This is not an acceptable or even responsible manner in which to legislate. As my noble friend Lord Murphy suggested, in perhaps the most perceptive speech of what has been a debate of genuine quality, the Government need to give more thought to the implications and practicalities of proposals that they bring forward. I echo that plea. Will Ministers heed it? We shall see.

Education: Academies

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. In it there was mention of people crowing at the Government’s climbdown. I am not going to adopt that approach, although I have to say that I can understand why many would. U-turns are becoming a regular feature of this Government’s attempts to initiate or see through legislation, and the number of times that we have witnessed the brakes being applied soon after bold statements of intent suggests that a little more than bad luck is at play here. Bad judgment is more likely, I think, and that is certainly the case with forced academisation. Before I leave the issue of crowing, I find it rather depressing to hear the Statement say that people are crowing about a victory in their “battle against raising standards”. Is that really what Ministers believe? Nobody is against raising standards. The Minister and the Secretary of State should realise that they and the whiz-kids at the No. 10 Policy Unit do not always know better than those who, day in and day out, are at the sharp end of things, delivering education for our children. Of course there are examples of where schools are underperforming, and they must be helped to improve, but that does not justify the conclusion that academisation is the only answer.

The opposition to the White Paper proposals encompassed a broad alliance, including head teachers—I hardly need to remind the Ministers here this evening that head teachers made their collective voice very clear to the Secretary of State when she spoke to their conference—and also parents, governors, teachers, local government leaders from all parties and Members of Parliament, more than a few from their own party. Although the Secretary of State has conceded on the ideologically driven idea of forcing good and outstanding schools to become academies against their wishes, she still apparently holds the ambition that all schools will become academies, though still without advancing a single convincing reason as to why this aim is sensible in the first place.

The Statement today is certainly welcome, but it none the less leaves questions, one of which is whether high-performing schools will be forced to become academies. At one point, the Statement says:

“We will therefore seek provisions to convert schools in the lowest-performing and unviable local authorities to academy status. This may involve in some circumstances conversion of good and outstanding schools when they have not chosen to do so themselves”.

Yet later it says:

“While we want every school to become an academy, we will not compel successful schools to join multi-academy trusts”.

I say to the Minister: which is it? The Government clearly cannot have it both ways.

There is also the issue of autonomy. Do the Government really believe that that is the outcome when a school becomes part of a multi-academy trust? They claim that academisation devolves power to the front line, but that is a myth. Schools and academy chains actually lose most of their autonomy because the chain controls their premises, their budget, their staffing and their curriculum. The ultimate irony is that chains have far more power over schools than local authorities currently do.

Last week, I asked the Minister in your Lordships’ House whether there was any evidence that academies automatically performed better than local authority maintained schools, particularly those that are already categorised as high performing. The Minister avoided answering the question, perhaps for the good reason that the honest answer was no. What he did do was to pray in aid what he thought was a supportive comment from the Sutton Trust. But what he did not tell the House was that the research by the Sutton Trust found that there is a very mixed picture in the performance of academy chains and no evidence at all that academisation in and of itself leads to school improvement.

The White Paper promotes academy chains as the preferred model, yet many chains are performing badly and significantly worse than many local authorities—a point recognised by the head of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw. There have been too many examples of financial mismanagement verging on corruption in academy chains and—perhaps it is a debate for another day—the Education Funding Agency is widely recognised as not being up to the job of supervising even the number of academies that we now have. So I again ask the Minister what evidence the Government have that only academisation leads to school improvement. Where is the choice and autonomy that the Government are so fond of emphasising despite advancing a one-size-fits-all approach? Is there sufficient capacity and accountability in the academy system to ensure that it is best practice, not poor practice, which is being spread?

These questions remain as the Government seek further powers to speed up the pace of academisation. Your Lordships might like to ask why this has been deemed necessary so soon after the Education and Adoption Act was in your Lordships’ House. We spent many days and hours going through the fine detail of that Bill; but were the White Paper proposals to be adopted, it would mean that we had effectively wasted our time on it. If the Government were so convinced that only forced academisation would do, why did they not amend the then Education and Adoption Bill appropriately? That would have been the honest approach instead of leading noble Lords and MPs down what is effectively a false path, knowing that the Bill was merely a stop-gap measure.

It is surely self-evident that we all want to see educational excellence everywhere, but at a time when schools are facing huge challenges from falling budgets and teacher shortages, top-down reorganisation of the school system will remove even more money, time and effort from where the focus should be. It is high time the Government recognised that further structural changes are at best a distraction and, at worst, could damage standards. Will the Minister now accept that, when it comes to change in education, the Government need to carry the professionals with them if such change is to be successfully delivered?

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is actually good to listen; it is good to hear what other people have to say rather than immediately jump to conclusions, and I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to people who have considerable experience in these matters and adjusted the likely content of the forthcoming Bill.

The Minister said in the Statement that the Government wanted to,

“deliver a great education to every single child”.

But don’t we all? I suppose that the difference is that some of us do not believe that the blind concentration on structures and types of school is really the answer. We think that, more importantly, it is about the quality of leadership of those schools. It is about the teachers—who are highly trained, highly respected and given proper continuing professional development. It is about a broad national curriculum which every pupil takes, and includes, as some of the Minister’s colleagues believe, PSHE and good careers advice. It is about parents being involved in the education of their child, not divorced from it; and it is about a curriculum which celebrates technical, vocational and creative education.

There is no evidence that turning a school into an academy will improve standards. In fact, academies tend to perform less well in Ofsted inspections than local authority schools do. I hope that we will see, once and for all, the end of the ideological obsession with pushing aside the role of local authorities in community schools. They need to be cherished, nurtured and given the resources to do the job.

I am very pleased with what the Minister said in the Statement about rural schools, which have been neglected for far too long and need special attention. But putting them into multi-academy trusts is not always the best solution. If they have to go into a multi-academy trust, the trust has to have a relationship with the community that the school is in, because the community is hugely important to the rural school.

I have two questions for the Minister. So far, he has resisted publishing tables to compare trusts’ overall performance. Will he now agree that that should happen? Secondly, he has refused to let Ofsted conduct full inspections of academy chains. Will he now agree that this should happen as well?

Schools: Academies

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there is any evidence that academies automatically perform better than local authority maintained schools, particularly those that are already categorised as high-performing.

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

My Lords, schools that have chosen to convert to academies—that is, those that are high-performing—are obtaining better results, improving their results and more likely to be rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. Secondary converter academies are performing seven percentage points above the national average and continue to improve. Primary converter academies improved by one percentage point in 2015, and those open for two years or more by four percentage points since either 2012 or their last results as an LA-maintained school.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Academy status is appropriate for some schools, but there is simply no evidence that mere conversion in itself guarantees success, as the Education Select Committee reported last year. What counts is hard work and a clear plan for improvement, both of which can be achieved without conversion. The Government need to accept that they have failed to win the argument on mass academisation. They have, however, achieved a remarkable feat: since the publication of the White Paper we have seen the emergence of a broad alliance involving parents, head teachers, trade unions, local government leaders, both Labour and Conservative, and MPs, more of a few of whom are Conservatives—all implacably opposed to forced academisation. Can the Minister tell the House who, apart from existing academy chains, has come out in favour of the White Paper’s proposals?

[Lord Nash]

A great many people have come out in favour of the White Paper’s proposals. I am glad the noble Lord got to a question eventually; I think I answered his original point in my first Answer. There has been lot of international research. The Sutton Trust has told us that sponsored academies are doing better at closing the gap. Ofsted has said that attainment in sponsored academies has increased over time, with the longest-standing academies having the strongest performance. The NFER has told us that the attainment gap between pupils eligible for FSM and those not is narrower in converter academies than in similar maintained schools.

Schools: Parent Governors

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

I agree that we should encourage parents to stand for governing bodies, but we have been very clear over the past few years about focusing governance on skills. It is a skills-based function and that is why we have continually focused on skills. Anyone sitting on a governing body must have those skills, or certainly be able to develop them in relatively short order.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have announced that academies will be required to have parent councils. I think that this is a good idea, but if it is, why was it not included in the White Paper? The truth is that it was rushed out in response to a reaction to the White Paper about the marginalisation of parents from school governance. Is it not the case that the White Paper on the forced academisation of schools is actually the back-door privatisation of the education system, and that the Government are not willing to tolerate opposition from parents or anyone who opposes that ideology?

[Lord Nash]

Actually, it was made absolutely clear in the White Paper that we would create a new expectation that every academy would put in place meaningful arrangements for engagement with all parents. We do not want to be prescriptive about the precise nature of that engagement, but of course a parent council may well be a good way of doing that. So far as privatisation is concerned, it is interesting to note that anyone involved in an academy or in a governance relationship with an academy cannot profit from their arrangement in that, whereas of course that is possible in a local authority-maintained school.

Regional Schools Commissioners

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

As I think everybody knows, we are not planning to abolish parent governors. We greatly value the role of parent governors in schools, and I pay tribute to the many thousands of parent governors that we have. Indeed, we want to increase the role and involvement of parents in their children’s education. We will exert a new expectation on every academy to put in place meaningful engagement arrangements for all parents, but we must focus governance on skills. On the localism point made by the noble Lord, four members of every head teacher board are elected. They are local professionals who are well steeped in their local communities and local issues.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, we should not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about public education here, paid for from public funds. That should mean that public accountability is a given—real accountability, not just accountability to the Secretary of State. In its report published in January, the Education Select Committee, which has a Tory majority and a Tory chair, called for greater transparency and accountability for regional schools commissioners. Will the Minister say what action he intends to take in light of that recommendation, particularly since the White Paper was published?

[Lord Nash]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. We will publish the following information on the GOV.UK website this month: a high-level outline of the regional schools decision-making framework; each regional schools commissioner’s regional vision; a description of the national schools commissioner’s role; and the terms of reference for head teacher boards.

Schools: Funding

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, without suggesting that the current funding formula is beyond improvement, the proposed national formula is another example of the Government’s centralist mindset. It is not the latest because, since this was announced, we have also had the White Paper on academisation. However, the national funding formula proposes to remove from head teachers the ability to have any say in the distribution of funding within their local area. Why does the Minister believe that civil servants are better placed, and know more, than head teachers about the funding needs of each area of the country?

[Lord Nash]

The simple fact is that we inherited a funding formula from the Labour Government which was incomprehensible and confusing and which, through centralist diktats, got more and more complicated. We have to simplify it.

Children: Maternal Care

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for initiating the debate. Perhaps he and I are the only two people in the Room who know that our titles are very closely associated—although maybe not in their level. Invergowrie is a village on the outskirts of Dundee, where I spent all but the first 18 months of my life. I have an affinity in that sense, if not with the noble Earl.

I should also say that my mother was a teacher. At that time, when female teachers got married they had to give up the job. That seems incredible these days. I am sure that that has brought a sharp intake of breath from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, but that is what happened. In that sense, what the noble Earl seeks happened in some way for some women because they were forced to give up what they had trained to do. They could take other employment, of course, but they could not follow their chosen vocation. I am obviously not advocating that and it is long in the past, but I certainly appreciate the noble Earl’s motivation in the debate. He introduced it in a manner that underlines his clear commitment to ensuring that every child has the best possible start in life. I hope he will forgive me if I say I will not comment on his fiscal proposals. As far as I am concerned there is quite enough in the education portfolio, so I will leave that to others.

As the parent of a child currently in reception, I can say from experience that I appreciate the benefit of the integrated approach to early learning and care promoted by the early years foundation stage framework. It provides a clear set of common principles and commitments for professionals to deliver quality early education and childcare experiences to all children. Some changes were made to the framework in 2014, which have strengthened standards for the learning, development and care of children from birth to the age of five, producing a uniformity that, in theory at least, offers all children the same opportunities. But, of course, I think we know that life is not like that.

There is no equality of opportunity for newborn babies. That is much to be regretted, because the first two years are crucial in shaping a child’s life chances. When a child is just 22 months old it can already be accurately predicted what her or his educational attainment will be at 22 years of age. The noble Earl said that studies reveal that a child’s emotional security develops in a more assured way through maternal bonding than in day centres or nurseries. I certainly agree that maternal—and, let us not underestimate it, paternal—bonding is essential from the minute the child draws its first breath. However, the extent to which bonding alone can sustain the crucial early development of a child depends to a great extent on the home environment to which the baby is introduced. That is where I part company with the noble Earl, because I am convinced that it is both unrealistic and, in most cases, unfair to expect the mother alone to keep the child at home and provide it with all the support that it needs in its first two years.

We have already heard the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, say that two-thirds of women either want or need to seek employment, but the reason I believe a mother needs support is that it may be her first child, in which case she is on a really steep learning curve, or if it is a subsequent child then, for obvious reasons, the time available to have sole responsibility for that child is limited, so she should seek support from a variety of sources. Not least among those is interaction with her contemporaries as mothers, in formal or informal group settings.

In 2010-11 report after report emphasised the enormous importance of early intervention, including the Tickell review of the early years and two reports by Graham Allen MP. At that time it seemed that a cross-party consensus was emerging to prioritise early intervention, but it seems that that soon evaporated, because the coalition Government began to cut early intervention budgets and poorer families have been suffering ever since. Hardest hit, in that sense, has been the network of Sure Start centres. When Sure Start was established by the Labour Government in 1998 the aim was to provide an accessible children’s centre in every community. Each centre would offer a wide range of high-quality services for families with children under the age of five. Sure Start was immediately popular and a network of some 3,500 centres was quickly established.

What was also established was that Sure Start works. There is comprehensive, independent evidence that it delivers quantifiable outcomes and that it is immensely popular with families. However, since 2010 funding has been cut by some 35% and over one-fifth of all children’s centres have now closed, meaning that Sure Start is approaching a point of no return. Last year the Government promised a consultation on the future of Sure Start. We still await this and I very much hope that the Minister can tell noble Lords today when it is likely to begin.

Sure Start was founded on the basis of extensive academic research. There is a plethora of evidence that demonstrates beyond doubt that Sure Start works. The national evaluation of Sure Start has been analysing the long-term development of 5,000 families who used Sure Start when their children were young. The evaluation has found clear evidence that children attending Sure Start centres are less likely to be overweight and more likely to be immunised; they have better social development and are less likely to offend in later life. Parents attending Sure Start centres provide more stable home environments and are more likely to move into work. It is a win-win situation for parents and children, yet the network is having to be dismantled.

Children’s centres have been found to be immensely popular with parents and evidence shows that they have been successful in reaching the parents who are likely to be the most disadvantaged. Also, the beneficial effects for parents persist at least two years after their last contact with Sure Start; often, social interventions do not have such a sustained impact. These findings have been reinforced by the children’s centre census produced annually by the charity 4Children. Its 2015 census found that, from 600 responses, 90% of parents reported that their children’s centre had a positive impact on their child and 83% reported that it had a positive impact on themselves. Tellingly, 80% reported that life would be harder for their family without their children’s centre.

It has been suggested by Government, or perhaps by some of those speaking on their behalf, that Sure Start is dominated by the sharp-elbowed middle classes. Evidence completely contradicts this. Independent Oxford University research in 2015 found that disadvantaged families use children’s centres for an average five months longer than more affluent families. This is because,

“the open-access, walk-in activities encouraged vulnerable families to take part because they did not feel there was a stigma attached to using the Centres”.

The Government have attempted to conceal some of the cuts that Sure Start has suffered. In 2011 the ring-fence established by the Labour Government was ended. In 2013 Sure Start funding was merged into local authorities’ general funding, and we all know what has since happened to that, most recently in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement and, indeed, in yesterday’s Budget. Last year the charity Barnardo’s called on the Government to act to stop the life being squeezed out of children’s centres as many local authorities face impossible stresses and strains on their budgets.

No doubt the Minister will note that the amount of free childcare for three and four year-olds is to be extended, which is an important step, even if it will perhaps not be quite as extensive as we were first led to believe. He will also refer to the fact that more children aged five are making good progress against the early years foundation stage profile, and that is, of course, to be welcomed. More children are reaching the expected level of development in maths and literacy as well as in the key areas of social and emotional development, physical development and language. That is all to be welcomed, but these are measurements of children at the age of five. The progress made by many of them could be much better and much more likely to be sustained if more of them had an early opportunity to benefit from the support provided in so many forms by children’s centres, whose value is widely appreciated. It is to be regretted that the Government do not appear to share that appreciation.

It surely goes without saying that maternal care is of prime importance to any child, but it must be enhanced by external influences: everything from health visitors to educational psychologists and the benefits of interacting with their contemporaries in a secure, welcoming setting. Children’s centres have a vital role to play in that, and I invite the Minister to acknowledge that.

Schools: Food Nutrition Standards

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness raises an extremely good point. It is deeply concerning that many children seem to come to school not having eaten properly, which cannot help their concentration in school. We have funded a Magic Breakfast programme which has resulted in nearly 200 new schools in disadvantaged areas offering breakfast clubs. It is focused on areas where free school meals are 35% or more in the schools. The programme has been very successful and we are looking at it further.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, academies established prior to 2010 and those established from June 2014 have clauses in their funding agreements stating that their schools must comply with national food standards, but those academies established in the years in between do not have such clauses. Can the Minister explain that anomaly and inform noble Lords what he intends to do to end it?

[Lord Nash]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: academies opened between September 2010 and July 2014, of which there were 3,900, do not technically have to follow the school food standards. But those standards were introduced only a year ago. Over the last year, 1,400 of the schools have voluntarily signed up to them, and we are encouraging many more to do so. We believe that most academies follow a healthy eating strategy. Indeed, the School Food Plan authors said that some of the best food they found was in academies. We do not think it is necessary to legislate further.