Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Education
Nusrat Ghani
Main Page: Nusrat Ghani (Conservative - Sussex Weald)Department Debates - View all Nusrat Ghani's debates with the Department for Education
(4 days, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 19—Cases in which duty under section (Corporate parenting responsibilities)(1) does not apply.
Government new clause 20—Corporate parenting duty: collaborative working.
Government new clause 21—Duty to have regard to guidance.
Government new clause 22—Reports by Secretary of State.
New clause 3—National Care Offer—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the passing of this Act, publish a document (the “National Care Offer”) which sets out the minimum standards of information that local authorities must publish under section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 (local offer for care leavers).
(2) Before publishing or revising the National Care Offer, the Secretary of State must consult with persons that appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of care leavers.
(3) Where a consultation under subsection (2) results in recommendations to be made to the National Care Offer, the Secretary of State must—
(a) make the recommended changes or otherwise implement the recommendations; or
(b) where not intending to make the recommended changes or otherwise implement the recommendations, publish a response to the consultation outlining the reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision and the action that will be taken instead.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on and publish a draft National Care Offer, which sets minimum standards for local care offers, within 18 months of this Act coming into force.
New clause 4—Health assessments to include mental health practitioner—
“In regulation 7 of the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, after “practitioner” in paragraph (1) insert “and a registered mental health practitioner”.”
This new clause would make an assessment of the mental health of children in care a core part of the health assessment of those children by ensuring a mental health practitioner is involved in the assessment.
New clause 8—Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment—
“(1) The Children Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 58 (Reasonable Punishment: England), omit subsections (1) to (4).
(3) After section 58, insert—
“58A Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment
(1) The common law defence of reasonable punishment is abolished in relation to corporal punishment of a child taking place in England.
(2) Corporal punishment of a child taking place in England cannot be justified in any civil or criminal proceedings on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.
(3) Corporal punishment of a child taking place in England cannot be justified in any civil or criminal proceedings on the ground that it constituted acceptable conduct for the purposes of any other rule of the common law.
(4) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) “corporal punishment” means any battery carried out as a punishment.
(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations for transitory, transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of this section.
(6) The power to make regulations under subsection (5) is exercisable by statutory instrument.
58B Promotion of public awareness and reporting
(1) The Secretary of State must take steps before the coming into force of section 58A to promote public awareness of the changes to the law to be made by that section.
(2) The Secretary of State must, five years after its commencement, prepare a report on the effect of the changes to the law made by section 58A.
(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after preparing a report under this section—
(a) lay the report before Parliament, and
(b) publish the report.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations for transitory, transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of this section.
(5) The power to make regulations under subsection (4) is exercisable by statutory instrument.””
This new clause would abolish the common law defence of reasonable punishment in relation to corporal (physical) punishment of a child taking place in England, amend certain provisions of the Children Act 2004 relating to corporal punishment of children and place a duty on the Secretary of State to report this change.
New clause 13—Review of adoption support offered by local authorities—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the adequacy and effectiveness of adoption support services provided by local authorities.
(2) The review must include services provided by adoption agencies which have been commissioned by local authorities.
(3) The review must consider in particular—
(a) any updates required to existing regulations and guidance relating to adoption; and
(b) the support needs of, and support services currently available or provided to—
(i) relevant parties in relation to birth family contact;
(ii) young adult adoptees in relation to their transition to adulthood; and
(iii) adult adoptees.
(4) Within six months of the completion of the review, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the findings and conclusions of the review.”
New clause 14—Notification when a child is placed into temporary accommodation—
“(1) This section applies where a local authority is exercising its duty under Section 189B of the Housing Act 1996 (Initial duty owed to all eligible persons who are homeless) to allocate temporary accommodation to a household which includes a child.
(2) A local authority must notify the following of the household’s homelessness status—
(a) the child’s school, and
(b) the child’s registered GP practice.
(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to schools and GPs on how to safeguard and promote a child’s welfare and wellbeing following receipt of a notification under subsection (2).
(4) A local authority must, before issuing a notification under subsection (2), request the consent of the household for the sharing of information relating to the household’s homelessness status.
(5) Subsection (2) does not apply if the household has not consented to the local authority sharing information about it.”
This new clause would establish a notification system requiring local authorities to alert schools and GPs, when a child is placed into temporary accommodation. The notification can only occur when the child’s parent or guardian consent to the sharing of this information.
New clause 15—Implementation of recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, take steps to implement the recommendations made in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse listed below.
(2) The recommendations are—
(a) the establishment of a single core data set on child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation in England and Wales;
(b) the establishment of Child Protection Authorities for England and Wales;
(c) the creation of cabinet Ministers for Children in the UK and Welsh Governments;
(d) the commissioning of regular public awareness campaigns on child sexual abuse;
(e) the amendment of the Children Act 1989 to provide for court action where there is reasonable cause to believe that a child in the care of a local authority is experiencing or is at risk of experiencing significant harm;
(f) the creation of registration systems for care staff in children’s homes, young offender institutions and secure training centres;
(g) greater use of the barred list in relation to persons recruiting individuals to work or volunteer with children on a frequent basis;
(h) the improvement of compliance with statutory duties to notify the Disclosure and Barring Service of the suitability of individuals to work with children;
(i) the extension of the powers of the Disclosure and Barring Service to provide enhanced certificates to people working with children overseas; and
(j) the provision of specialist and accredited therapeutic support to child victims of sexual abuse.
(3) The Secretary of State must, after a period of six months has elapsed from the passing of this Act and at 12 monthly intervals thereafter, publish a report detailing the steps taken by the Government to implement each of the recommendations listed above.
(4) A report published under subsection (3) must include—
(a) actions taken to meet, action or implement each of the recommendations;
(b) details of any further action required to implement each of the recommendations or planned to supplement the recommendations;
(c) consideration of any challenges to full or successful implementation of the recommendations, with proposals for addressing these challenges so as to facilitate implementation of the recommendations; and
(d) where it has not been practicable to fully implement a recommendation—
(i) explanation of why implementation has not been possible;
(ii) a statement of the Government’s intention to implement the recommendation; and
(iii) a timetable for implementation.”
New clause 25—Kinship care leave—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, entitle an individual to be absent from work on care leave under this section where—
(a) the individual is a kinship carer, and
(b) the individual satisfies conditions specified in the regulations.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must include provision for determining—
(a) the extent of an individual’s entitlement to leave under this section; and
(b) when leave under this section may be taken.
(3) Provision under subsection (2)(a) must secure that—
(a) where one individual is entitled to leave under this section, they are entitled to at least 52 weeks of leave; or
(b) where more than one individual is entitled to leave under this section in respect of the same child, those individuals are entitled to share at least 52 weeks of leave between them.
(4) An employee is entitled to leave under this section only if the eligible kinship care arrangement is intended to last—
(a) at least one year, and
(b) until the child being cared for attains the age of 18.
(5) For the purposes of this section, a “kinship carer” has the meaning given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.
(6) Regulations made under this section may make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken.”
New clause 26—Kinship care allowance—
“(1) A person is entitled to a kinship care allowance for any week in which that person is engaged as a kinship carer in England.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “kinship carer” has the meaning given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.
(3) A person is not entitled to an allowance under this section unless that person satisfies conditions prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) A person may claim an allowance under this section in respect of more than one child.
(5) Where two or more persons would be entitled for the same week to such an allowance in respect of the same child, only one allowance may be claimed on the behalf of—
(a) the person jointly elected by those two for that purpose, or
(b) in default of such an election, the person determined by, and at the discretion of, the Secretary of State.
(6) Regulations may prescribe the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated for the purposes of this section as engaged, or regularly and substantially engaged, in caring for a child under an eligible kinship care arrangement.
(7) An allowance under this section is payable at the weekly rate specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may specify—
(a) different weekly rates for different ages of children being cared for, or
(b) different weekly rates for different regions of England.
(9) Regulations under subsection (7) must specify a weekly rate that is no lower than the minimum weekly allowance for foster carers published by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 23 of the Care Standards Act 2000.”
New clause 27—Extension of pupil premium to children subject to a kinship care arrangement—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, for the financial year beginning 1 April 2026 and for each year thereafter, provide that an amount is payable from the pupil premium grant to schools and local authorities in respect of each registered pupil in England who is who is a child living in kinship care.
(2) The amount payable under subsection (1) must be equal to the amount that is payable for a pupil who is a looked after child.
(3) In this section—
“a child living in kinship care” is to be interpreted in the same manner as given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.
“looked after child” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989;
”pupil premium grant” means the grant of that name paid to a school or a local authority by the Secretary of State under section 14 of the Education Act 2002 (power of Secretary of State and Senedd Cymru to give financial assistance for purposes related to education or children etc).”
New clause 28—Admissions arrangements relating to looked after children and children in kinship care—
“(1) For section 88B of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (admission arrangements relating to children looked after by local authority) substitute—
“88B Admissions arrangements relating to looked after children and children in kinship care
(1) Regulations may require the admission authorities for maintained schools in England to include in their admission arrangements provision relating to the admission of children who are—
(a) looked after by a local authority in England, or
(b) living in kinship care as may be prescribed.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular include provision for securing that, subject to sections 86(3), 86B(2) and (4) and 87, such children are to be offered admission in preference to other children.
(3) In this section, “children who are living in kinship care” is to be interpreted in the same manner as given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.””
New clause 29—Establishment of National Wellbeing Measurement Programme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a national children and young people’s wellbeing measurement programme.
(2) A programme established under this section must—
(a) conduct a national survey of the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people in relevant schools in England;
(b) support schools in the administration of the survey
(c) make provision for parental and student consent to participation in the survey, ensuring that participation is voluntary and that results are handled confidentially; and
(d) regularly publish the results of the survey and provide relevant data to participating schools, local authorities and other public bodies for the purposes of improving children and young people’s wellbeing.
(3) A programme established under this section must—
(a) be developed and piloted within two years of the passing of this Act;
(b) be fully implemented in England no later than the start of the academic year three years after the passing of this Act;
(c) be reviewed as to its effectiveness by the Secretary of State every three years.
(4) Any review of the programme under subsection (3)(c) must be published and laid before Parliament.
(5) For the purposes of this section “relevant school” means—
(a) an academy school,
(b) an alternative provision Academy,
(c) a maintained school,
(d) a non-maintained special school,
(e) an independent school, or
(f) a pupil referral unit, other than where established in a hospital.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to introduce a national programme to regularly measure and report on the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people in schools.
New clause 30—Benefits of outdoor education to children’s wellbeing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review on the benefits of outdoor education to children's wellbeing.
(2) A report on the review must be published within six months of the conclusion of the review.”
New clause 33—National standards for children in need thresholds—
(1) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the operation of section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (Provision of services for children in need, their families and others).
(2) The review must assess regional and national variation in the type, frequency, and duration of support provided to children through child in need plans.
(3) The recommendations of the review must include the setting of—
(a) metrics in the Department for Education’s Children’s Social Care Dashboard for assessing the progress of children with child in need plans, and
(b) national guidance for local authorities defining the thresholds of need that children and families must meet to be offered children in need support.
(4) The national guidance issued under section (2)(b) must include—
(a) national triggers for an automatic referral to children’s social care, including when a primary care giver enters custody or inpatient mental health provision, and when a child is arrested,
(b) the Secretary of State’s expectations on how often children should receive help,
(c) the Secretary of State’s expectations on how frequently a child’s support should be reviewed when they have a child in need plan, and
(d) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”
The purpose of this new clause is to reduce regional variations in the type, frequency and duration of support that children receive through child in need plans.
New clause 35—Extension of priority need status to under 25s—
“(1) The Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) In article (4), paragraph (1)(a), omit “twenty-one” and insert “twenty-five”.
(3) In article (5), omit paragraph (1).”
This new clause would extend the priority need status under homelessness legislation to all care leavers up to the age of 25, regardless of vulnerability.
New clause 36—Action to promote children’s wellbeing in relation to mobile phones and social media—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, for the purposes of promoting the wellbeing of children—
(a) direct the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom (“the UK CMOs”) to prepare and publish advice for parents and carers on the use of smartphones and social media use by children,
(b) publish a plan for research into the impact of use of social media on children’s wellbeing, and
(c) require all schools in England to have a policy that prohibits the use and carrying of certain devices by pupils during the school day.
(2) Any advice published under subsection (1)(a) must have regard to—
(a) the paper published on 7 February 2019 entitled “United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers’ commentary on ‘Screen-based activities and children and young people’s mental health and psychosocial wellbeing: a systematic map of reviews’”, and
(b) any scientific or other developments since the publication of that paper which appear to the UK CMOs to be relevant.
(3) Any policy implemented under subsection (1)(c)—
(a) may provide for exemptions from the policy, or for an alternative policy, for sixth form students, in so far as such exemptions or alternative policies do not negatively impact upon the wider policy;
(b) may provide for exemptions for medical devices;
(c) is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate; and
(d) may, where implemented by a boarding school or residential school, include appropriate guidance for the use of certain devices during other periods which their pupils are on school premises, subject to such policies safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in accordance with relevant national standards.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“certain devices” means mobile phones and other devices which provide similar functionality and whose main purpose is not the support of learning or study;
“the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom” means the Chief Medical Officers for—
(a) England,
(b) Wales,
(c) Scotland, and
(d) Northern Ireland
“the school day” includes all time between the start of the first lesson period and the end of the final lesson period.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to promote children’s wellbeing in relation to mobile phones and social media by commissioning a report from the Chief Medical Officers and requiring schools to ban the use of mobile telephones during the school day.
New clause 37—Cessation of Child Protection Plans—
“Where proceedings are initiated or a care and supervision order is issued under section 31 of the Children Act 1989, any cessation of child protection plans for children under five years old must be signed off by the relevant Director of Children's Services or Head of Social Work Practice.”
This new clause would mean that the relevant Director of Children's Services or Head of Social Work Practice must sign off any cessation of child protection plans for children under five years old once proceedings have been initiated or once a care and supervision order has been issued.
New clause 43—Automatic enrolment for the Healthy Start scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, introduce a scheme to automatically enrol certain individuals for the purposes of the Healthy Start scheme.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “certain individuals” means people who are eligible for the Healthy Start scheme on the basis of having a child under the age of 4.
(3) The scheme must provide the means for individuals to opt out of enrolment for the Healthy Start scheme.”
New clause 44—Contact with siblings for children in care—
“(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 34(1), after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) his siblings (whether of the whole or half blood).”
(3) In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 2, after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) his siblings (whether of the whole or half blood).””
This new clause would ensure that children in care are allowed reasonable contact with their siblings.
New clause 45—Arrangements for remaining in a residential children’s home after reaching adulthood—
“(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 23CZA (arrangements for certain former relevant children to live with former foster parents), at the end of subsection (2) insert – “or by which a person who is a former relevant child by virtue of section 23C(1)(b) continues to live at the residential children’s home at which they were resident when they were looked after.
(3) In paragraph 19BA in Part 2 of Schedule 2 (local authority support for looked after children)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), after “parent” insert “or in a residential children’s home”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (3)(b), after “parent” insert “or residential children’s home”.’”
This new clause would extend the “staying put” arrangements that currently exist for young people placed with foster parents to those living in a residential children’s home.
New clause 46—Extension of the ban on unregulated accommodation for 16- and 17-year-olds—
“(1) In the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010—
(a) in Regulation 27A (Prohibition on placing a child under 16 in an unregulated setting), for “under 16” substitute “under 18”;
(b) in Regulation 27B (Exception to the prohibition on placing a child under 16 in other arrangements), after paragraph (1), insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that all accommodation provided to looked after children aged 16 and 17 meets the standards of regulated children’s homes or other regulated supported accommodation.””
(2) In section 22C of the Children Act 1989 (Ways in which looked after children are to be accommodated and maintained), after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) A local authority must not place a looked after child aged 16 or 17 in unregulated accommodation that does not meet the requirements set out in regulations made under subsection (7).””
New clause 47—Requirement for minimum standards for accommodation provided to 16- and 17-year-olds in care—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament regulations establishing national minimum standards for accommodation provided to 16- and 17-year-olds in care, ensuring—
(a) access to appropriate levels of support and supervision;
(b) safeguarding protections equivalent to those in regulated children’s homes; and
(c) oversight by Ofsted or another appropriate regulatory body.”
New clause 50—Establishment of Child Protection Authority—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, establish a Child Protection Authority for England.
(2) The purpose of such an Authority will be to—
(a) improve practice in child protection;
(b) provide advice and make recommendations to the Government on child protection policy and reforms to improve child protection;
(c) inspect institutions and settings at some times and in such ways as it considers necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with child protection standards; and
(d) monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other inquiries relating to the protection of children.
(3) The Authority must act with a view to—
(a) safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children;
(b) ensuring that institutions and settings fulfil their responsibilities in relation to child protection.”
This new clause would seek to fulfil the second recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in establishing a Child Protection Authority for England.
Amendment 176, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from start to “in” in line 8 and insert—
“When a local authority starts formal child protection proceedings.”
This amendment would require the offer of a family group decision making meeting when formal child protection proceedings are initiated or when a child protection plan is failing to protect the child, rather than before a local authority makes an application for a care and supervision order.
Amendment 177, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) A family group decision-making meeting must be offered by the relevant local authority when a family is going through private law proceedings.”
This amendment seeks to reduce the conflict in private law proceedings by offering a family group decision making meeting, allow other family members to support the child as well as to identify where there are significant safeguarding risks to the child/children. It would strengthen the intention that mediation and reconciliation out of court are better for the child.
Amendment 178, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) A family group decision-making meeting must be chaired by a systemic family therapist or other similarly qualified professional.”
This amendment would require family group decision-making meetings to be chaired by a family therapist or other professional with equivalent qualifications. Particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, including coercion and control, it is essential that the FGDP has the expertise to manage this and protect the child/children.
Amendment 172, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 21 to 26 and insert—
“(8) The child in relation to whom the family group decision-making meeting is held should be supported to attend all or part of the meeting if they wish to do so, unless the local authority determines this not to be in the best interests of the child, in which instance efforts should be made to ensure their views are represented.
(9) In exercising functions under this section in relation to a child, the local authority must, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare—
(a) ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings; and
(b) give due consideration (having regard to the child’s age and understanding) to such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain.”
This amendment would require a local authority to ascertain a child’s wishes and feelings regarding all aspects of family group decision-making, to give those views due consideration, and to support the child to participate in family group decision-making meetings where appropriate.
Amendment 179, in clause 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(10) If a child is to be looked after by other family members as a result of the family group decision-making meeting, the local authority must make arrangements to ensure the safety and welfare of the child and prepare a child protection plan that reflects this.”
This amendment would ensure that if a child is going to be looked after by other family members, the local authority takes appropriate action, that is reflected in the child protection plan, to assure their safety and welfare.
Amendment 180, in clause 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(10) If the child is under the age of two, the family group decision-making conference must not delay the timetable for the making of permanent arrangements regarding the child’s care.”
This amendment is designed to ensure that the offer of a family group decision-making meeting does not unduly delay making permanent arrangements regarding the child’s care
Government amendment 111.
Amendment 181, in clause 4, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
“(4A) Where the relevant person considers that the disclosure would be more detrimental to the child than not disclosing the information, this decision must be recorded.”
This amendment requires decisions made not to disclose information to be recorded.
Government amendment 112.
Amendment 182, in clause 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“(6A) Where information is disclosed under this section, the recipient must consider the safety and welfare of others to whom the information may relate or involve and take steps to promote their safety and welfare, particularly in cases of domestic abuse or elder abuse.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that other vulnerable members of a household are not inadvertently put at risk by the sharing of information, and that safety plans are put in place where needed.
Government amendments 113 to 116.
Amendment 174, in clause 5, page 9, line 31, at end insert—
“(8) A kinship local offer published under subsection (5) must state when it will next be reviewed.
(9) Any review of a kinship local offer conducted by a local authority under subsection (7) must involve the participation of children and families.”
This amendment would ensure that kinship families are actively engaged in shaping the support available to them, and that local authorities are held accountable for delivering their obligations.
Amendment 183, in clause 5, page 9, line 31, at end insert—
“(8) In fulfilling its duties under subsection (7) a local authority must annually consult and collect feedback from children in kinship care and their carers about its kinship local offer.
(9) Feedback received under subsection (8) must be published annually.”
This amendment would require local authorities to consult children and carers when assessing their kinship care offer.
Amendment 184, in clause 7, page 12, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) Where staying close support is provided, it must be provided with due regard to the wishes of the relevant person and a record must be kept of that person’s wishes.”
This amendment would require local authorities to take account of the wishes of the relevant young person when providing staying close support, and keep a record of those wishes.
Amendment 186, in clause 11, page 16, line 18, at end insert—
“(1AA) A child who is being looked after by a local authority in England and is under the age of 13 may not, whilst being kept in relevant accommodation in England, be deprived of their liberty in that accommodation unless this has been authorised by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would ensure that deprivation of liberty orders could not be issued to children under the age of 13 unless expressly authorised by the Secretary of State, in line with provisions relating to children’s homes.
Amendment 187, in clause 11, page 16, line 25, at end insert—
“(1C) The Secretary of State must review a deprivation of liberty order every 4 weeks to ensure that is appropriate for the order to remain in place.”
This amendment would require a review of deprivation of liberty orders to ensure that they remain appropriate for the relevant child.
Amendment 185, in clause 11, page 17, line 10, at end insert—
“(8A) After subsection (9) insert—
“(10) Where a child is kept in secure accommodation under this section, the relevant local authority has a duty to provide therapeutic treatment for the child.””
This amendment would place a duty on local authorities to provide therapeutic treatment for children subject to a deprivation of liberty order.
Government amendment 117.
Amendment 188, in clause 12, page 17, delete from line 21 to line 17 on page 21 and insert—
“23A Requirement for inspection
(1) The CIECSS may order an inspection of a parent undertaking, or any of its subsidiaries, if it has–
(a) a subsidiary undertaking which meets the requirements of subsection (2), or
(b) two or more subsidiary undertakings which meet the requirements of subsection (3).
(2) A subsidiary undertaking meets the requirements of this subsection if–
(a) the subsidiary undertaking is registered under this Part as carrying on two or more establishments or agencies for which the CIECSS is the registration authority, and
(b) the CIECSS reasonably suspects that there are grounds for cancelling the subsidiary undertaking’s registration in respect of two or more of those establishments or agencies.
(3) A subsidiary undertaking meets the requirements of this subsection if–
(a) the subsidiary undertaking is registered under this Part as carrying on one or more establishments or agencies for which the CIECSS is the registration authority, and
(b) the CIECSS reasonably suspects that there are grounds for cancelling the subsidiary undertaking’s registration in respect of one or more of those establishments or agencies.”
This amendment would require an inspection if the CIECSS believes that are reasons to cancel a children’s home registration, rather than issue an improvement plan notice.
Amendment 189, in clause 12, page 18, line 6, at end insert—
“(3A) The CIECSS may require an unannounced visit by Regulation 44 visitor to a children’s home, if it reasonably suspects that there are administrative breaches or minor concerns about the quality of care being provided.
(3B) After Regulation 44 visitors have inspected the relevant children’s home or homes, the local authority may issue an improvement plan notice based on their findings.”
This amendment would rely on the use of Regulation 44 visitors to inform the content of an improvement plan notice where the CIECSS has concerns about minor or technical breaches.
Government amendment 118.
Amendment 171, in clause 15, page 29, line 18, at end insert—
“(c) independent schools with caring responsibilities and offering SEND provision.”
This amendment would include independent special schools within the profit cap provision.
Government amendments 119 to 131.
Government new schedule 1—Relevant authorities.
Stephen Morgan
I start by thanking all hon. and right hon. Members for their valuable contributions during the passage of the Bill to date, and in particular, members of the Public Bill Committee for providing substantial debate and scrutiny.
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a landmark Bill and a key piece of legislation that will enable us to deliver the Government’s opportunity mission and our determination to break the link between people’s background and their future success. It will protect children from abuse, it will stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks in services and it will deliver a core guarantee of high standards with space for innovation in every child’s education. It will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout education and throughout children’s social care so that every child can achieve and thrive.
Reforming children’s social care is critical to giving hundreds of thousands of children and young people the start in life that they deserve. Our approach to reform will break down barriers by shifting the focus of the children’s social care system to early support to keep families together. We will ensure that children can remain with their families where appropriate, support more children to live with kinship carers or in fostering families and fix the broken care market to tackle profiteering and put children’s needs first.
The previous Government bequeathed to us a bitter inheritance of not only child poverty across great swathes of our country, which affected one in three, or even one in two, of our young people, not just record numbers of children out of school or not turning up to school, not merely a children’s social care system at breaking point, but—bitterest of all—a fiscal blackhole. That blackhole must be tackled to get this country’s finances and future back on track, but it limits the speed at which we can deliver the ambition that all Labour Members have for a brighter future for Britain’s children.
Let me speak to our Government amendments. New clauses 18 to 22 introduce corporate parenting duties for Departments and relevant public bodies. A previous Labour Prime Minister observed, following Tawney:
“What a wise parent would wish for their children, so the state must wish for all its children.”
That principle lies behind the change that these new clauses seek to bring today, as we ensure that across the public sector we recognise the moral and necessary obligation to do all we can to level the playing field for children in care and care leavers. This group of young people faces significant disadvantages. Twenty-six per cent. of the homeless population are care-experienced, and around a quarter of the adult prison population were in care as children. Care leavers aged 19 to 21 are over three times more likely not to be in education, employment or training than their peers.
New clause 18 introduces corporate parenting responsibilities for Departments and the relevant public bodies, referred to as “relevant authorities”, listed in new schedule 1. New corporate parents will need to be alert to the needs of children in care and care leavers and assess the services or support they provide that are available to them. They will also need to provide them with the opportunities to participate in activities designed to promote their wellbeing or enhance their employment prospects.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I want to concentrate today on our new clause 36, which would ban phones from our schools. The new clause would also write into law some of the content of the very good private Member’s Bill drafted by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), because this does not need to be a party political issue.
When I was on the Science and Technology Committee back in 2018, I got us to do a report on screen time, social media and children’s mental health. Back then, the evidence was already very concerning, but by now every alarm bell should be ringing. Over the last decade, there has been an explosion in mental health problems among young people all over the world, over the exact same period that smartphones and social media have become dominant in children’s lives. The growth in mental health problems is focused almost entirely on young people, not older people. Children now get smartphones at a very early age. As the Education Committee pointed out in a good report last year, one in five of the UK’s three and four-year-olds now has their own smartphone. By the end of primary school, four out of five kids have a smartphone.
There are many different ways in which smartphones and social media cause problems for children. They displace time in the real world with friends. US data, for example, shows that prior to 2012 children spent over two hours a day with friends, but that had halved by 2019. The proportion of children feeling lonely and isolated at school has exploded all over the developed world. But smartphones are not just a time sink; there is also the lack of sleep. Children are tired in school, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has increased massively and concentration is impaired. This is a feature, not a bug. Apps are designed to be addictive and drip feed users dopamine.
At a recent school meeting that I organised in my constituency, I heard from local doctors about how excessive screen time is damaging eyesight and giving young kids the kind of back problems that one might expect from someone in late middle age. Eight out of 10 children are exposed to violent porn before the age of 18, many at a really young age. The average age at which kids see porn is now 13. The shift to a smartphone-based childhood is also leading children to be exposed to graphic violence, sextortion and self-harm encouragement, and is doing terrible things to girls’ self-image. According to the Office for National Statistics, one in five children aged 10 to 15 says they have been bullied online, and 72% of that is happening during school time.
As well as being bad in their own right, these negative effects come together to damage education. Although a ban of phones in schools cannot fix everything, it is a vital first step and can make a big difference in itself. I spoke to one headteacher who said that when they went from a policy of phones not being out to a full, “start of the day to end of the day” ban, with phones being handed in, the number of detentions they had to hand out fell by 40%, and teacher recruitment and retention improved, too.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 3 and 4, which both stand in my name.
The Education Committee was afforded little time to undertake scrutiny of this important Bill, but we worked hard to do so, refocusing our ongoing inquiry on children’s social care to focus on part 1 of the Bill and holding an additional evidence session to look at part 2. I am grateful to all the witnesses who came to give us their evidence.
We have published a report for the Secretary of State setting out recommendations based on the evidence we received. Broadly, the Committee welcomes the scale of the Government’s ambition as expressed in the Bill, which is a key plank of the Government’s opportunity mission to break the link between young people’s background and their future success. We join the Government in wanting to see high and rising standards in our education and care systems to protect vulnerable children and ensure educational opportunity for every child.
We welcome the measures in the Bill to strengthen child protection, particularly the provisions to establish multi-agency child protection teams, including education in safeguarding arrangements and a single unique identifier for children, which has the potential to be genuinely transformative for the delivery of many of the services that support children and young people. We support the measures to improve the children’s social care market through regional commissioning and a financial oversight scheme. Action to remove profiteering in the children’s social care sector is long overdue.
The Committee welcomes the measures in the Bill that will enable more children to remain within their kinship network or, where a residential placement in kinship care is not possible, in contact with family and friends.
The Committee also made some recommendations on ways in which the Bill could be strengthened, based on the evidence we received. The amendments tabled in my name relate directly to our recommendations, and I will now turn to each recommendation that is relevant to part 1 of the Bill.
New clause 3 would require the Government to publish and consult on a draft national offer for care leavers within 18 months of the Bill coming into force. A national care offer would set minimum standards for local care offers and ensure greater consistency between local authority areas. A national offer would act as a floor, not a ceiling. It would not be designed to prevent innovation at a local level or to stop additional commitments being made by individual local authorities, but we believe that greater national consistency, driven by Government, would make a big difference.
The evidence of the unacceptably poor outcomes for care-experienced young people is shocking. Some 39% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 are not in education, employment or training, compared with 13% of all young people in the same age group. Some 14% of young people with care experience go to university, compared with almost half of their peers, and care leavers are 38% more likely to drop out of university. A third of care leavers become homeless within two years of leaving care, and 25% of homeless people have been in care. Care leavers are hugely over-represented in the criminal justice system. These are young people whose corporate parent has been the state, and these statistics are clear evidence that for many of them, the state is not a very good parent.
I welcome the Government’s amendment of the Bill to introduce additional corporate parenting responsibilities, but the Committee heard that there is significant disparity in the support that different local authorities offer to care leavers. We heard about the differences in support with bursaries to pay for university accommodation, access to wi-fi to be able to study and ringfenced apprenticeships for care leavers in local authorities.
In a powerful evidence session in which the Committee heard from young adults with recent experience of the care system, one witness told us that
“there needs to be a national offer for care leavers. The postcode lottery is profound”.
Another pointed to a lack of awareness of the needs of care-experienced people across the wider network of public services. She told us that
“when I had gone to the jobcentres they were very ill-prepared. They did not know any support for care leavers. There were certain grants I could have had to get back into education; they did not inform me, in fact, everything that I have done now is from me Googling it…or asking people. That should not be the case.”
A national care offer would be the foundation for building better, more consistent support for care leavers everywhere in the country. It would provide the Government with an effective mechanism for holding local authorities to account on the quality of their provision, making it much easier for care-experienced people to understand what support should be there for them and stopping the current disincentive to leave home to go to university because of uncertainty about the support when they get there. I urge the Government to support new clause 3.
New clause 4 would require health assessments of children in the care system to include assessment by a mental health practitioner. It would make assessing the mental health of children in care a core part of the health assessment of those children by ensuring that a mental health practitioner is involved. Children in care are significantly more likely to have experienced trauma and abuse than their peers, and they are consequently more likely to experience mental ill health. In 2021, 45% of children in care had a mental health disorder—rising to 72% among those in residential care—compared with 10% of all children aged five to 15.
The care-experienced young adults who gave powerful evidence to the Committee spoke strongly about the urgent need for better mental health support and suggested that local authorities are not always fulfilling their obligations to include emotional and mental health in their health assessments of children in care. One of our witnesses told us:
“Growing up it was only physical assessments; we did not have mental health check-ins at all…I think if my mental health was taken more seriously from a young age, if I had that person to check-in with me…I would probably be so much better. I would not have mental health problems growing up. I do think that mental health check-ins are equally as important—if not more important—as physical check-ins for children in care.”
Another witness said that
“looked-after children should get mandatory assessments, as with physical health. Also, if they are referred to CAMHS the waitlists are horrific right now…looked-after children should have fast tracks and there should be more funding for specialist teams.”
We heard very movingly from a witness who spoke about the need for more trauma-informed training for foster carers and other professionals working with children in care. She said:
“I feel a lot could be explained if they understood the experience of trauma. It will take time. It will not go away at night, and sometimes before it gets better it could get worse. No one talks about that. You will not be okay if you are going into care; there is a reason why you are there, and so it is important that the minute you go into care every child should have a mandatory assessment, physical and mental, and there should be that on-call support for them”.
It is the trauma that underlies the decision to take a child into care—the abuse, neglect, bereavement or exploitation—that often has the most profound impact on their lives. Our care system needs to place dealing with that trauma in a child-centred way at its heart. Ensuring that mental health assessments are properly undertaken is an essential requirement of such a system, because mental health must be assessed before treatment and support can be provided. New clause 4 would help to deliver that badly needed refocusing of the system, and I urge the Government to support it.
I wish to make two further points. First, I support new clause 14, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). It would introduce a requirement to notify a child’s school and GP when they are placed in temporary accommodation. As a constituency MP in south-east London, I see the horrific impact of poor-quality, unstable temporary accommodation on children in my constituency every week. Temporary accommodation is harming children, whether through the sleep deprivation of having to get up at 4 am to travel a long distance to their school, the lack of space to do homework, the fear and insecurity of sharing a kitchen and bathroom with strangers, the physical health impacts of living with damp and mould, or the impacts on gross motor development of being in a space that is too small to crawl or play in.
The impacts are profound, so it is completely right that there should be a statutory requirement to notify the public services that have the ability to help mitigate such impacts, and which have a responsibility for a child’s health and wellbeing when that child is placed in temporary accommodation. The Government should be taking urgent action to reduce the number of people in temporary accommodation, especially families with children. However, in the short term, the new duty introduced by my hon. Friend’s new clause would make a difference to the support those children receive.
Finally, at the same time as we are debating this Bill, the Government are preparing to announce reforms to the welfare system. I wish to emphasise the vital importance of considering the impact on children of any proposed reforms. Children do not get to choose the families into which they are born, but each one is equally deserving of economic security and access to the resources they need to thrive. It is not a justifiable outcome of changes to the welfare system to make life harder for the poorest children, or to increase child poverty by limiting the access to support that their parents receive. The Government must undertake and publish an assessment of the impact of their welfare reforms on children, and must ensure that children do not suffer as a result of any planned reforms.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure and a privilege to rise to speak on part 1 of the Bill, and in particular on the new clauses and amendments that stand in my name.
When the Bill had its Second Reading, I said that there was much in it that Liberal Democrat Members welcomed, alongside areas that we would seek to amend, probe and strengthen. Its progress in recent weeks has seen plenty of debate, discussion and opportunities to constructively strengthen the legislation, although the Government have failed to accept any amendments that were not their own, despite the Minister’s comments in his opening speech. I am grateful to colleagues from across the House who served on the Committee, in which we had some excellent debates. However, I was disappointed last week to see the sheer number of amendments tabled by the Government ahead of Report. I really hope that the Government do not make a habit of depriving Committees of their chance to properly scrutinise Bills, even if most of those measures are welcome and uncontroversial.
Turning to the new clauses and amendments that stand in my name, as the Minister knows, care—particularly kinship care—is a subject that is close to my heart and those of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. In Committee, we discussed a number of encouraging provisions that are included in the Bill, including those dealing with the definition of kinship care, setting out in law the support that kinship carers are eligible for, and providing additional educational support for children in kinship care.
However, what we agreed in Committee falls far short of the ambition that I heard the Secretary of State herself set out at a reception for kinship carers just a few months ago. At that reception, the Secretary of State—unusually for somebody in her position—called on campaigners and policymakers to keep pushing her. I believe that new clauses 25, 26, 27 and 28, which stand in my name, do just that. New clause 25 would ensure that kinship carers are entitled to paid employment leave; new clause 26 would put into statute an entitlement to an allowance on par with that of foster carers; new clause 27 would extend the pupil premium plus to all children in kinship care, based on the definition that is in the Bill; and new clause 28 would prioritise those same children for school admissions.
Kinship carers are unsung heroes, often stepping up at no notice to look after a child they are related to or know because that child’s parents can no longer do so. Time and again, we hear from kinship carers that they want to do the right thing out of love for those family members, but financial and other barriers often stand in their way. One survey revealed that 45% of kinship carers give up work, and a similar proportion have to reduce their hours permanently, putting financial strain on the family. These carers are disproportionately women, and they are over-represented in the healthcare, education and social care sectors, so this issue simply exacerbates our workforce crisis in public services.
In Committee, the Minister pointed to the kinship financial allowance pilots, which ran in a tiny number of local authorities and involved a very small subset of kinship carers. That was not ambitious enough. We must go further and give kinship carers parity with foster carers. That will help save money in the short and long term.
Alistair Strathern
I thank my hon. Friend, who could not have put my next point better.
I completely recognise that this is a really important topic—it is important for parents and schools right across my constituency, too—but I am afraid the idea that, having had 14 years to bring this forward, the Conservatives have suddenly had a damascene conversion to the idea that this is something that cannot wait and must be delivered now, at a time when there is not a clear consensus among educational professionals or parents about the best way to bring such a ban into effect, feels disingenuous at best. I share lots of their concerns and, over time, I hope to be able work across this House to bring forward good protections to that effect. What I simply will not do is indulge this attempt to turn the issue into an opportunity for the Conservative party to posture, because it had so long and did so little on this work.
In conclusion, I am very glad to be supporting a Bill that delivers step changes in protections for young people, steps changes in support for care leavers and a step change in support for kinship carers. For too long, we have not done enough to look after some of the most vulnerable young people in our society, and I am glad that this Bill and some of the Government amendments underline our commitment to ensuring that we do far better on this front than the last Government did.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I urge Members to ensure that they keep their language respectful at all times.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to clause 9 and the important issue of looked-after children, which I think Members from across the House care about greatly. It is for that reason that the Bill is so disappointing, because there are missed opportunities on supply and demand, and particularly on my concern—I represent a rural constituency with cheaper housing—about the concentration of looked-after children in particular communities, which the Bill’s regional commissioning fails to address sufficiently.
I will take those issues in order, starting with supply. In Committee there was a lot of discussion about profiteering, and I am sure the Minister will respond to my pointing out that the Bill is silent on addressing the real and probably shared issue of how we boost supply by pivoting to talk of the profit clawback. My concern about the profit clawback is that when the Minister comes to claw back the money, he will find that it has long since moved. It would perhaps be helpful if the Minister could clarify the estimate that has been given to the Treasury for how much the Department expects to recover in clawback, because the Opposition suspect that it will not be particularly effective.
Likewise, there are missed opportunities in the Bill for reducing demand, and I very much echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) in Committee about boosting foster carers—an issue that is frequently debated in this House. I accept that is not a panacea for all the issues affecting looked-after children, particularly those needing secure accommodation, but one would have expected the Bill to go further in that regard.
It is also the case that what the Government are doing about unaccompanied child migrants is further exacerbating demand. I draw the Minister’s attention to the 2023 Home Office research, which shows a massive increase not only in the number of unaccompanied child migrants, but in the number of disputed cases where people claimed to be children when there was concern that they were adults. In half of those cases—49%—the individual was found to be an adult. That is further stoking demand, and it is very regrettable that the Government are not taking action and, indeed, are reversing some of the safeguards put in place by the previous Government to reduce demand. Again, clause 9 is silent on those issues.
Given that I represent a rural community, my third and main concern is that regional commissioning risks being further detached from local communities where there is cheap housing, and where there is therefore a temptation to further concentrate looked-after children, in a way that does not join across the Government’s silos with areas such as police funding and housing. I will give the House a specific example. Because Cambridgeshire has had significant population growth but the police funding is based on the population in 2012—that is how the police grant is calculated—commissioning does not pick up the additional pressures that the Cambridgeshire force is facing, particularly in its rural communities. Those pressures are exacerbated where we have looked-after children with a troubled history interacting with the criminal justice system, and where there are challenges around unaccompanied child migrants.
Nothing in this Bill says how regional commissioning interplays with the formula for police funding, even though the data I have from Cambridgeshire police is very clear that a significant proportion of their time is spent as a consequence of this policy. An example of that are the requirements on the police when a child goes missing, which is rightly an issue of significant concern. Of course that is something for which the police should prioritise time, but having a concentration of care homes in rural communities can require significant additional resource.
Clause 9 fails to address supply and demand. What will be done about the fact that it is further divorced from the rural communities where commissioning is often placed? Given that the Government are hammering rural communities in so many areas—not least farming—how will they reassure my constituents in Fenland that the failure of the money to follow looked-after children sufficiently is going to be addressed?
I will finish with one example from the recent data coming from councils. The Home Office reimburses councils for their spending on children under 18, at a rate of between £114 and £143 a day. On 15 February this year, councils reported that the payments from central Government do not cover all the costs. The risk is that rural communities, which have been hammered by this Government on farming and in so many other areas, will have to pick up the police costs, the health service impacts and the other impacts on public services that come from more distant regional commissioners, which is exactly what clause 9 risks doing. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a little bit more about that when he comes to close the debate.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak on this important Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
I wish to focus my attention on two new clauses. First, I am calling my new clause 33 Sara’s law, after Sara Sharif, my murdered constituent. This comes out of the findings of the recent review conducted by the Children’s Commissioner. I thank the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others that have suggested a raft of great changes to the Bill when it comes to improving how we look after children in the UK. The list is never-ending, with so many great contributions from many.
Given what happened to Sara Sharif, we know that the system is not protecting vulnerable children as it should. It failed her, so I am hoping to untie that fundamental knot in the children’s social care system. The sad reality is that the level of support a child receives too often depends not on their needs, but on where they live and the thresholds the council has for stepping in and saving a child from abuse and neglect.
There is an unacceptable inequality in how local authorities interpret thresholds for an intervention under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. That means children at risk in one council area may receive early help and intervention if a family is in crisis, yet in another they are left without the intervention that could protect them, if not save their life. Every child in this country has in effect been entered into a postcode lottery, and we are gambling with their lives by not attempting to repair that flaw.
We need to look at the devastating case of Sara to understand the consequences of having a system that lacks consistency and clear national standards. I do not think we can put a price on a child’s life and decide to step in only on the basis of resources, but that is how the current system works. It is clear that social services over the years have struggled with deep cuts to funding and services, and the Liberal Democrats and I are not yet confident that the new Government will fully fund local authorities.
Sara was just 10 years old when she was brutally murdered after, sadly, years of torture and slavery at the hands of those who were supposed to love her. She was known to social services, yet the response was not sufficient to protect her. Would clearer national guidance with stronger thresholds for intervention have made a difference? In my opinion, yes. Would automatic referrals such as those proposed in this new clause have ensured that professionals had the opportunity to intervene before it was too late? In my view, yes.
New clause 33 calls for a review of the variation in the support that children in need receive across the country, and critically, it requires the Government to establish national standards for when and how children should receive help. It sets out clear triggers for automatic referral to children’s social care, such as when a primary caregiver enters custody or becomes an in-patient for mental healthcare, or when a child is arrested. There are moments of profound instability for a child in such cases, yet without clear national standards and a proactive approach, too many slip through the cracks.
My constituent Sara slipped through the cracks. In January, when I asked the Prime Minister if he would call for an inquiry into the failings of the state surrounding the death of Sara, he said the Government would look into it, but we are still waiting for him to update the House. The proposed changes would set expectations about how frequently a child’s situation should be reviewed. Cases like Sara’s remind us that it is not enough to assess a child once and then step away; their needs must be updated and reviewed regularly. The risks can escalate quickly. There are warning signs and if regular checks are not in place, intervention comes too late with morbid consequences.
New clause 33 is about accountability, consistency and, most importantly, protection. We cannot continue to accept a system where a child’s safety depends on geography and resource rather than need. I think MPs from across the House, particularly Government Members, have a moral duty to protect vulnerable children and there are so many children out there who are still in danger. I hope new clause 33 is accepted. If it is not, I hope the Government will consider it in the other place.
I wish to draw the House’s attention to new clause 8, which has been referred to, tabled by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). It ensures that corporal punishment cannot be used as a defence in court if it is being used to hide grievous harm to a child. It is not about preventing parents from reasonably reprimanding their children; it is about closing a legal loophole that abusers have regularly used or attempted to use to evade justice. We saw it in the case of Sara, whose father Urfan sought to use such a defence to avoid accountability for the terrible suffering tantamount to torture—that is what the judge said—that he inflicted. No child should endure such brutality. No perpetrator should be able to hide behind awful outdated legal justifications.
We should standardise child protection in this country and close the loopholes that currently exist that abusers can exploit. The Bill, if correctly amended, gives us the chance to do that. Let us take that opportunity and protect vulnerable children.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 8 in my name, which has the support of many colleagues across the House and organisations including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and the Children’s Commissioner for England. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Woking (Mr Forster) for their comments in today’s debate.
New clause 8 would amend section 58 of the Children Act 2004 to remove the “reasonable punishment” defence that permits assault and battery on children by parents and carers. Children in Scotland and Wales already have the same protections as adults when it comes to being hit, but we find ourselves in the peculiar situation where a child growing up just over the border in England has fewer rights. Why should they? What is the difference between a child growing up in Berwick-upon-Tweed and a child in Bonnyrigg? Scotland and Wales are not alone: 67 countries around the world have already banned physical punishment—Tajikistan last year became the latest—and 27 others have also committed to a ban. There is a global recognition that children deserve better. Indeed, as part of the UK’s commitment to the 16th Sustainable Development Goal, we have already pledged to end all violence against children, and that includes physical punishment in the home. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has stated unequivocally that protection from physical punishment is a basic human right of a child.
Physical punishment is not punishment; it is abuse. We have a wealth of research to draw on from the last 30 years, and not a single reputable study has found that physical punishment positively impacts children’s development. There is no evidence to show that it improves behaviour in children. The reality is that physical punishment does not establish in a child’s mind a difference between right and wrong; it simply evokes fear—a fear of violence and pain. We know that children who are physically punished are at a far higher risk of experiencing maltreatment and abuse by parents, because over time parents may feel the need to escalate and inflict more and more pain to elicit the same response. A 16-year-old girl told Childline:
“When I was younger and misbehaved, my mum gave me a warning and put me on the naughty step. Then when I got to five to 12 years old, it was a tap or a little smack. But now it can be a proper smack, or there was one occasion where she pulled my hair and I fell to the floor and she continuously hit me. I don’t want to get mum in trouble, but I can’t carry on being afraid of her.”
Studies have also found that physical punishment leads to higher levels of aggression directed against parents by their children. Violence begets violence, and teaching children from a young age that violence is an acceptable way of channelling stress and frustration has consequences for all of us in society. It also has a pronounced impact on the children themselves. We know from research conducted by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health that children who are physically punished are almost three times more likely to experience mental health problems than those who are not. We know that physical punishment of children is linked to substance misuse, antisocial behaviour and slower cognitive development. While the majority of parents do not use physical punishment and its use is declining, more than one in five 10-year-olds have still experienced it.
New clause 8 is not about criminalising parents. No one wants to stop a parent from protecting their child who is about to reach for a hot kettle or cross a busy road. Of the many countries that have introduced a ban, there has been no evidence that it has led to an increase in prosecutions. Instead, changing the law is about giving parents, children and professionals clarity, while improving the toolbox parents have to positively raise their child. New clause 8 removes the ambiguity created by the “reasonable punishment” defence and will allow children and adults to come forward more readily to report abuse. A clearer legal framework also makes it easier for professionals like social workers to do their jobs in the best interests of children.
New clause 8 will not, on its own, be able to stop cases like Sara Sharif’s, but it will certainly ensure that the threat of violence many children face will no longer be given the pretence of legal cover. We cannot afford to delay action. The NSPCC has seen a threefold increase in the number of child welfare calls mentioning physical punishment in the past couple of years. We need to act now to ban physical punishment, so we can ensure that children can grow up free from abuse and harm, something I know is a priority for this Government and is the purpose of the Bill in front of us.
Evidence from other countries shows us that bans work. In Germany, for example, the percentage of young people subjected to physical punishment fell from 30% to 3% after it introduced a ban in 2002. Given that 71% of adults believe that physical punishment is unacceptable, it seems to me that sooner or later we will have to change the law. My challenge with new clause 8 is: why not sooner? Why do we not commit to ending this abuse today? Children will not thank us for waiting. Future generations will not look kindly on our inaction, nor should they. We have the evidence, the power and the time. We have the ability to act and we should to protect all our children.