Lords Chamber

Thursday 22nd May 2025

(began 3 hours, 51 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
None Portrait Oral questions: Sutton Trust’s Opportunity Index and plans to increase opportunities for social mobility in the UK
-

with us, and especially those who Experience so they can help us move forward in this area.
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:57
11:57
11:59
11:59
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
Palestinian territories.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me begin by joining with others in acknowledging the scale of the humanitarian crisis that we are seeing in Gaza. Lives are being lost, people are suffering immensely. We on these benches join with all noble Lords, I'm sure, across the house and I hope that the across the house and I hope that the conflict is brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Obviously, I appreciate that the U.K.'s position appreciate that the U.K.'s position and influence in this matter is somewhat limited and probably even more so now.

We must never forget that this conflict started when Hamas, a repulsive terrorist organisation, undertook a murderous, organisation, undertook a murderous, viscerally anti-Semitic attack on viscerally anti-Semitic attack on civilian people. The attack continues every single day that hostages remain and Hamas's captivity. Israel has the right to defend itself against this ongoing attack and returning the hostages to their families is the righteous objective. We must support them in this effort and user diplomatic efforts to help to facilitate it.

I therefore want to ask the Minister what engagement has the government held with key stakeholders in the region to help to secure the release of those people who remain in Hamas's hands? Has the UK helps to develop an overall strategy for getting these sons, doctors, brothers and sisters returned to their families? The only way we can resolve this conflict is by getting these hostages home and the government must be able to demonstrate they are taking practical steps to facilitate this. Whilst the conflict is ongoing, getting aid to those who need it is a key practical priority, I hope, for the government.

Noble Lords may recall a debate last week on the recall a debate last week on the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. The government refused to consider this as an alternative to UNRWA which is itself connected to the attacks on October 7, the event that started this in the first place. The Israeli government is rightly suspicious as a banner -- suspicious of UNRWA, given the record. The government seemingly remains committed to supporting the current failing model so can the Minister please update the house on what the government is doing to help get aid into Gaza? What discussions have they had with representatives from other countries to make sure that aid to those who needed -- need it and is not stolen by Hamas? What steps are we taking to ensure that no aid from the UK gets into the hands of Hamas? Finally, we are clear that Hamas will never be part of any future In the Prime Minister's statement the other day he threatened the Israeli government with further concrete steps of they do not comply to his demands.

Can the Minister give us an example of what these concrete steps will be? Or will it be like King Lear to his daughters. I will do such things, I know not yet what they shall be. But they shall be the terrors of the earth. Finally my Lords, following on from the Memorandum of Understanding that was reached between the UK and Palestinian Authority last month, I want to ask the noble Lord the Minister what progress has been made in holding the Palestinian Authority to undertaking serious, measurable and tangible reforms on corruption, on education, and welfare policy and on democracy to help to strengthen resilience against the threat of Hamas in the future? Will the Minister update the House on what work is being done with the Palestinian Authority to advance progress in these areas? Can he assure us these are discussed in talks with partners in the authority? My Lords, we all support a swift end to this conflict.

Which has cost far too many lives on all sides. And has led to an incredible amount of suffering across the region. We need to recognise the practical steps we the UK can take to support this resolution and help those who are in need in the region. To that end I hope the noble Lord, the Minister will be able to cover these questions I have raised and show what steps we are taking today to return the hostages, get aid in and crucially make sure Hamas are finally eradicated.
12:03
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, it would be utterly inconceivable of us to have even imagined walking out of this building of Parliament and witnessing every child in London being forcibly walked to Slough with their mother and back again three times on foot and offered no shelter, beds or sanitary products of the -- sanitary products if they are a girl. And with no food they literally face dying of starvation. This would be utterly inconceivable to us. But it is the reality in Gaza.

And now we see as a result of choices being made at a political level, biopolitical administration in Israel -- by a political administration in Israel, set up a foundation to finance profiteering mercenaries to weaponise food and medicine to children in illegally occupied land which plumbs new depths of moral bankruptcy. To provide that assistance. Can the Minister first of all guarantee not a penny of British money will be channelled through this route? Amongst this utter horror, hostage families are still going through families are still going through torture.

Indeed for those who I have seen and families who I have spoken to, speaking out against the Netanyahu administration is extremely moving because they are still in a situation where their loved ones are not home and they do not know if many of life. I welcome the statement of the government and the intent but I do wish them to press the Minister at this time for the government to go even further. Since the statement in the House of Commons earlier this week now even the British official carrying out their diplomatic role in a territorial we have an absolute right under international to access -- international law to access has been under fire as a so-called warning shot.

This is euphemistic and streets I have walked and British officials carrying out business, what action has the UK government taken as a result of this shocking incident? Also since the statement, Benjamin Netanyahu is confirmed or other extremist Ministers have said his government's policy is now two illegally annexed territory which they have no international right to do. Given this is now clear government policy it needs to be the UK government policy to move on the recognition of Palestine as a state with urgency.

Therefore I urge the Minister to take my noble friend, Baroness Northover's bill in this House and move ahead with the clearest possible intent to prevent illegal annexation of subjugation. These ventures have regretted there has been a lack of action since last February when we called for the wider and expanded sanction of those Ministers in the Netanyahu administration which saw repression in the West Bank and have acted illegally in the outposts of settler violence. That combined with what we now see now which is collective punishment of civilians within Gaza.

Those responsible need to be sanctioned by the UK and there should be no impunity for the tragedy which is being inflicted on the civilians there. This means our government and our partners need to be backed. With regard to the security of the aid being provided, of course there is justification with regards to concerns that Hamas has sought to loot age, to commercialise aid and to prevent it from the source. At a time when we have seen the most effective delivery of aid has been with UNRWA and provided with the ability to do so and Palestinian Authority police force supported by British by British assistance has been able to port and provide security -- to support security and allow the A3.

Will the government provide urgent assistance to the posting and aid authority to make sure aid once over the border can be provided securely. I remind house there is over 100,000 tons of aid waiting to get into Gaza and it is being blocked unjustifiably. And therefore will the government make a clear statement that until this happens Prime Minister Netanyahu and Ministers are not welcome in the United Kingdom? And this will be not conducive to our public good. Finally can the government press the International Court of Justice to accelerate its work to ensure there is an international standard of which we all wish to see an international humanitarian law is adhered to and those responsible for its breach are held to account.

its breach are held to account.
12:08
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
I thank both noble Lords for their questions and contributions. Can I say to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. The United Kingdom has played an active role in coordination of our and with our international partners since the beginning of the conflict. The Foreign Secretary has visited Israel and the occupied territories three times since taking office. We have pressed for a resolution to secure a ceasefire and to see the return of all hostages. It is absolutely the first ask of this government, ceasefire, return of the hostages.

Absolutely. Can I just actually sort of also if I look at the point the noble Lord Purvis made, we are absolutely committed to upholding our responsibilities under domestic and international law. And by the way the independence of the ICJ is also something we have value. We are not going to put pressure on them and they know their job and we will facilitate them but they are independent and we respect their independence as an international Court.

And we have absolutely been consistent in ensuring that international law is acted on in a manner consistent, that we act in a manner consistent with our legal obligations. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis said, humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool or military tactic. The UK will not support any aid members that seek to deliver political or military objectives and puts vulnerable stood -- venerable civilians at risk. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. That is why this government and the previous government were absolutely committed to supporting the best possible means to get aid into Garda -- into Gaza.

It remains UNRWA. We are absolutely committed to that. I think we should see that the blocking of aid and the disastrous consequences of that do not put Israel's case first. The people of Israel who wants security and deserve security, particularly after the atrocities of October 7. They absolutely are not supporting the rhetoric and the means expressed by Netanyahu and some of his Cabinet member. We are absolutely determined we should be very clear about our position. Of course my noble friend, Baroness Chapman the Minister for development has been in Israel this week.

She has been in the occupied territories. The Occupied Palestinian Territories. We have made our position very clear about the position of our diplomatic workers. To the is really government. And we will continue to do so. I have personally visited the occupied territories and I have seen some of the actions of independent of what I would call settler outposts who have behaved in a really appalling way. And now with IDF forces more focused on Gaza those very people, those very people the outpost settlers are now taking on the duties of IDF.

I think that is the cause of some of the problems. But during her visit this week she has announced £4 million in new support to organisations on the ground in Gaza. We will continue to support and this will cover essential, medical supplies, for up to 32,000 people. Safe drinking or for up to 60,000 people. And food parcels for up to 14,000 people. Seeking to get food, water and medicines. That is what we are talking about. Basic fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

And so far since October 7 we have provided 405,000 patient consultations across Gaza, food aid to at least 647,000 people and improved water sanitation and hygiene services. But we know the situation is absolutely desperate. Which is why we took the action. We are together with our partners strongly opposed to the expansion of Israel's military operations in Gaza. We have reaffirmed our cause for the Israeli government to stop its military operations and to allow immediately allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Yesterday the Foreign Secretary announced new sanctions to target those supporting violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank. Following extremely surges in this kind of violence and surges in this kind of violence and we have allowed in part of the statement free-trade negotiations with this will effective immediately. This is because it is not possible to advance discussions on deeper trading relationships of the Netanyahu government that is absolutely pursuing policies which are damaging to the UK, the wider region and most importantly to Israeli citizens themselves.

I think this is the really important thing. We are committed to a two-state solution, we are committed to a political solution. We are doing everything we can possibly do to achieve that. We are committed to supporting the Palestinian Authority. We are supporting their reforms. I am not going to predict how far they have reached but it is absolutely essential we do that because that will form part of the process for a longer term solution. So we are absolutely committed to ensuring not only the people of Palestine and in Gaza and the occupied territories are able to live in peace and security but also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that applies to the state of Israel. Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. My Lords. I should explain I
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:20
12:21
12:23
12:24
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
dissent. And journalist are threatened if they in any way criticise Hamas. What are we doing to support the people of Gaza to help them against Hamas?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is by supporting the Palestinian Authority and its road Palestinian Authority and its road back to reform to become a much more legitimate, that is the answer. That is the pathway to a two-state solution. There is no role for Hamas solution. There is no role for Hamas in the future. They are a terrorist organisation that has committed heinous crimes and we should never forget those crimes. He is forget those crimes. He is absolutely right that they are repressive and they have taken control, and they are resisting any control, and they are resisting any form of scrutiny.

Absolutely. It's also the Israeli government that has also the Israeli government that has not allowed journalists into Gaza as well. I think we should be very, well. I think we should be very, very clear. We want a roadmap to peace, we want a solution, but that peace, we want a solution, but that will only be achieved if we can actually ensure that the Palestinian Authority can reform and be Authority can reform and be supported, and that it can be the legitimate voice of the Palestinian people.

And, of course, Palestine is not just the Gaza strip. It is also the occupied territories. We need to ensure that all the people of Palestine are represented by the Palestinian Authority and can have the voice they deserve. the voice they deserve.
12:25
12:27
12:28
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Portrait Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, may I firstly draw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, may I firstly draw attention to my entry on the Lords Register. Equally, the final sentiment that the Minister has just expressed, I think that reflects expressed, I think that reflects across the House, wherever we are on this emotive and human issue, and that is very clear. May I suggest there are practical steps the there are practical steps the government can take. First of all, I've alluded previously to out-of- the-box thinking on delivery of the-box thinking on delivery of humanitarian aid.

Since September last year, the Minister will be aware, I will ask him again at that aware, I will ask him again at that we must work with Jordan, we must work with Egypt. That is not perfect. LAN solutions must be provided but out-of-the-box thinking, including air deliveries, thinking, including air deliveries, provides some respite. That's the first thing. Secondly, diplomacy matters. -- Diplomacy solutions. Relationships matter, being underground, investing in those relationships. Is not always about public statements. Sometimes it is about private diplomacy and building relationships with those in Israel who want to resolve this.

Finally, on the egregious abuse of human rights. The previous government set up the regime. The Minister will be aware there are those unfortunately be -- unfortunately, regrettably who the Israelis themselves reject. Minister Smotrich and Ibn Ben-Gvir. Them Israel -- the Minister might Them Israel -- the Minister might not be able to comment directly. not be able to comment directly.
12:30
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord. He and I have worked very closely over the years on precisely the issues he has talked about. I agree with him about the diplomatic effort. Sometimes the most effective diplomatic effort is one you cannot see. Shouting is not always the way to achieve what we want. We acknowledge the visit this week to Israel and Jordan. We also had Minister Faulkner talking to and regularly speaking to neighbouring countries. He is absolutely right.

We are not ruling out anything in terms of age. He repeatedly reminded me in terms of the desperate situation that it isn't airdrops and sea routes that could be a way of alleviating things. We are not ruling anything out. But locking eight has had a disastrous effect and we will be absolutely committed I do think we are going to ensure and I think he is right to point out there are voices in Israel, there are extremely concerning voices in Israel.

-- Extremely concerned voices in Israel. He knows I cannot comment on future sanctions but we have committed with the work we have taken new UK sanctions targeting three individuals including prominent settler leader as well as to illegal outposts and is and to organisations who have supported and promoted violence against Palestinian communities in the West Palestinian communities in the West Bank. Individuals and entities sanctioned are numerous. We are absolutely committed to ensure we do focus on these actions.

He knows we are actively considering future designations but I cannot comment who or when they will be. who or when they will be.
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:38
12:39
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
O'Neill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to move amendment 29 and will speak to amendments 31, 39 and 40. In my previous contribution I suggested there were many parts of this bill about which there are major concerns. The multiagency child protection teams for local authority protection teams for local authority areas is the most concerning. The main concern being statutory early main concern being statutory early responsible directors of children's services should not be mandated in statute develop this way of working.

The preference would be the local The preference would be the local working practice should be at the discretion of local areas in how they arrange child protection they arrange child protection services. The problem this is trying services. The problem this is trying to solve, the sad deaths of Starr and Arthur will not be solved by this proposal. The proposal is to separate out family help and child protection. That could mean workers in family help will believe they are not responsible for child protection as is managed by a team elsewhere.

However the reality of life is the family help team need to be able to identify when a child or family situation has tipped into risk. And it is unsafe. In order for the MAC TP to get involved. -- To be alerted to get involved. Instar and Arthur's case even when the team had been in place, the children may not have been referred. Because the workers involved did not recognise the potential risks to both of the children.

I know the Minister said the other day the findings of the pilots would be published in spring 2025 but we are about to go into summer. And they have not been seen yet. That means the model has not been fully tested. And has no research back to the veracity of the model. Surely that has to be done before the bill comes into effect. The MAC TP is predicted on staff being supplied from the police and health as a core for the team.

We know the financial pressures these services are under. So this is likely to be impossible to achieve at this national scale. There is also the uncertainty around the future of the Integrated Care Boards, the ICBs. In the health world. No certainty that Safeguarding badges will not be reduced. There is no additional funding to achieve this. What happens if health and police cannot provide staff for the MAC TP is? Where does the buck stop? Many believe the requirement for MAC TP's should be removed from the legislation.

Or make it they can decide locally how these services decide locally how these services will operate my Lords, amendment 29 seeks to clarify what support the Secretary of State will require multiagency partners to offer. There was a conversation here on Tuesday evening about the role of schools, ably led by my noble friend. Will the Secretary of State be mandating -- be mandated -- be mandating what the partners are responsible for? We know about the questions and discussions about budgets.

Will the Secretary of State be determining money should be ring-fenced? And who will determine what partners are responsible? Health and police are named, education seems to be in question but there will be others who have potentially a role as well. Amendment 31 looks to ensure there is an effective multiagency team. We are all aware of the need for consistency of involvement in Safeguarding. And effective multiagency team will need to have consistent involvement. There will need to be ownership of involvement and attendance or participation will need to be assured.

Amendments 39 and 40 seek to clarify how places that have cost which cross local authority borders will be managed. These amendments are clear. It will be good to understand how issues that straddle local authority borders will be managed and where the responsibility lies. Because we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know our borders... I move the amendments. Amendment proposed, clause 3, page 3. Leave out lines 25 and 26. page 3. Leave out lines 25 and 26.
12:44
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to explain my concern about these child protection teams. Well intended as they are. I think Baroness O'Neill has explained think Baroness O'Neill has explained there are some dangers to the arrangements that has been proposed. I think the good intention behind it is to dresses one of the fundamental problems we have had in child protection in the past which is many of the authorities who are charged with confronting the child abuser have become frightened of them.

A consequence when someone should have gone into the House and dealt with it, they have walked away. It has happened to the police at times I am afraid as well. Generally speaking I think it is better obvious lie when it is necessary there is someone there who is prepared to take on the frightening person who has done so much damage to a child or a baby. My concern is if you are to include the police in this team it leads to a certain amount of confusion about their role.

First of all while the police there? They are there generally because they are there to enforce the law and to use the skills they have in that respect. They are not there because they are particularly good at child protection. That is why social services exist. It is why health visitors exist, it is why schools receive incredible training and are very good at helping children in the developing. Police officers generally it is not their skill set. They are there to confront, investigate crime and confront the suspect.

The second point is they obviously are independent in the operation of their powers. They are not under local authority control and not under control of government. They are not even under the control of Chief Constable as I discovered from many occasions because they have discretion under the law and are held account by the law in 1/4 times. They have to exercise caution with regards to law. What concerns me about this proposal as it appears they are moving under the local authority.

I know there are many great people here from local authorities and I do not judge them at all. Sometimes that independence is vital. Not because the control of the local authority inherently is bad but sometimes they have to investigate local authorities. They have to be separate and they have to be clear. They might Ashley have to investigate a local authority about the care of a child. And therefore to bring them into the team I think is dangerous and could confuse that They can make arrests, they can do searches, they can search for evidence, but I don't think it is wise to bring them under the control of this team and I'm really worried if that should happen.

On my second concern is that clearly there have been pilots of a form of team around the country. I think there are 10 of them. I think the result of that is yet to be published. What's not clear is whether all the pilots are the same. In my experience, and we have multiple pilots of different things that all think they are the same, we sometimes come to the wrong conclusions. I think we need to see the evaluation. Different pilot might draw different conclusions.

If that is the case, that would be concerning for me. There ought to be a clear model that has been tested. If it works, we all want to hear that evidence. But we haven't heard it. It is such a radical change, well intended though it is, the government ought to explain how that is going to be taken into consideration. If there are enough concerns about how it might develop into the future. Well intended though it is, at the moment, I've got more questions than agreement with the proposal as it stands.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Iris to speak to amendments 32 and 35 which relate to children with and 35 which relate to children with disabilities because these children are sadly more at risk and need our protection. Before I begin, could I protection. Before I begin, could I just say to my noble friend baroness Fraser, I'm sorry that she cannot be
12:48
Baroness Sanderson of Welton Portrait Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-
-
Fraser, I'm sorry that she cannot be here today. She is exceptionally knowledgeable in this area. I hope that she will approve of the following arguments, particularly in relation to with cerebral palsy. While there are many different forms of disability, of policy systems and practice can get things right for children with cerebral palsy, then the benefits will be felt by children with other conditions. Evidence gathered by the APPG through its report found that many parents with children with cerebral palsy lack confidence in local authorities to make suitable arrangements further child.

Some feel like local authorities are obstructive, inconsistent, unaccountable. Provision tends to reflect what local authorities are able to provide, rather than what the child concerned needs to have the best chances in life. Now, much of this stems from the fact that when it comes to children with profound disabilities, local authorities are not always necessarily the people with the best knowledge to be able to make the right assessment and be suitably ambitious for the child. Section 17 of the children's act, as referred to in amendment 35, outlines the local authority's duty to assist children who are in need, and this definition includes children with disabilities who may require paediatric developmental assessment to fully understand their needs.

Amendments 32 and 35, when taken together, would provide an acknowledgement of the necessity that a member of the specialist health team involved in the provision of care for the child, someone who understands the condition and has the sector experience to understand what is possible, to be involved in the multidisciplinary children's protection teams. The persons referred to in subsection 3 in relating to provision of health would have to be involved in the bodies -- multidisciplinary teams are only defined as the health professional.

Therefore, this means that the health professional nominated by the board could be the same person who represents the health board for all the other assessments. The text does not specify they have to know anything about the child, the health prognosis of the condition, the services and interventions that must be best for the child, whether or not they are or are not available in any one particular authority -- local authority area. Based on specialist experience of children with disabilities.

In Scotland, children with profound disabilities have a nominated health professional who is responsible for coordinating Takes the responsibility for ensuring the needs of the child Ahmed. Sometimes committees needs, as you might imagine, might be quite specific and technical. For example, when dealing with specialist resources for communication, assistive technology -- assistive technology. This lead health professional who has practical knowledge of the individual child's circumstances and condition would therefore always be included in the multidisciplinary team discussion.

It would not just be a representative of the health board or paediatric health commission. Only recently in her letter to The Times, Professor and Eileen Munro warned against giving these responsibilities to less qualified staff. I urge the Minister to accept these amendments or at least think of these amendments as they outlined the importance of including a member of the children's disability team, someone who knows the condition and not just a generic professional. Guaranteeing the right to representation on these teams will representation on these teams will go a long way to ensure assessments are likely to be safeguarded, that children at risk have swift access to the resources they require and where local areas do lack appropriate provision or expertise, there is a voice of knowledge to ensure there is no fear of commissioning, a voice I can work with other specialist providers in the best interests of the child.
12:53
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to my amendment 36 but I'm delighted to support my noble friend baroness O'Neill and her amendments and also my noble her amendments and also my noble friend baroness Fraser who was represented by my noble friend today. All of these amendments seek to clarify some of the operational issues with the proposed multiagency child protection teams. I don't want to steal from the noble Baroness the Minister's remarks but I think she might remind the house that the context for introducing these teams came from the Independent Review into Children's Social Care which the previous government commissioned and was led by the honourable member for Whitehaven and Woking 10 -- working 10 -- Wokington.

This was tested out along with wider reforms to targeted family help and support for children in need is to find under the Children Act. So the spirit and direction in which this is going is something that we support but our concern, as Lord Hogan pointed out, are about how it is operationalised in practice. Noble Lords may be aware that in a former life for joining Your Lordships' House, I was involved in the establishment of multiagency teams all around the country to address high risk cases of domestic abuse which were known as multiagency risk assessment conferences.

We did that in every local authority in the country. As the income of those children of those teams were managing around a thousand -- in the end, those teams were managing around thousand children's cases. I do feel for better or worse I am familiar with the issues that are important when operationalising this kind of work and the detail is important to these teams. How senior are these people? Is it a senior representative covering all cases? As my noble friend Baroness O'Neill said, who is friend Baroness O'Neill said, who is ? And the noble Lord Lord Hogan, how can we share information legally? How does information sharing translate into action planning and how do we involve the family? These and many other issues are so important to get right and we will explore them in more detail in some of the other groups in this clause.

Turning to my amendment 36, it simply seeks to understand how the government thinks that the new statutory multiagency child protection teams will interact with the existing multiagency work, in particular... There are so many acronyms in this world. The MASH teams. It's in the documentation. teams. It's in the documentation. The MASH teams which are pretty much universal now around the country. They are not statutory. Some are great, some perhaps less so. How does this team interact with the Multiagency Risk Assessment Conferences? Or the multiagency protection...

We know that resources are tight so need to avoid duplication. Equally, we also know that no statutory agencies, and I know the noble Baroness lady Taylor who is in her place knows this extremely well from her work outside this house. Non-statutory agencies at the very least bring different information to multiagency work, but frequently, there really trusted and can build relationships and families that can be harder for statutory agencies with the powers that they hold. I would just be grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister could set out how she expects the multiagency child protection teams multiagency child protection teams MASH, the MARAC and any other -- -- MA acronym that is around.

Just in keeping with my noble friend Baroness O'Neill, my key question in relation to amendments 36 and 39, how does she think the involvement of partners both statutory and non- statutory will be funded? What we hear from the Pathfinders is that it is very difficult to get other agencies outside the local authorities to participate in the teams, and that some of the extra funding that Pathfinders have been given is gone on funding police officers to attend multiagency child protection team, which in my world feels like an odd thing for the local authority to be doing.

And clearly, I assume the noble Lady doesn't think that is a sustainable model, that loan for non-statutory agencies, where all too often we rely on their goodwill and don't acknowledge the pressures on their budgets. I'm also very interested to hear the ministers reply to my amendment 39 and 40. She will know that for vulnerable families, it happens all too often that one parent lives in one local authority and another lives in another. Families move from temporary housing in one authority to another.

Child might be groomed by a gang in another local authority. I think I'm right in saying that a contributing factor in the tragic case of Sara Sharif was that she moved local authorities. The understanding of the degree of harm she faced did not move with her. The language in the bill which talks about child protection teams only working in their local authority area really worries me and I absolutely support my noble friend's amendment 40, which replaced it with a clear statement about cross-border responsibilities of local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to build on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to build on the point made by my noble friend, point made by my noble friend, Baroness Barran, and add my support to amendments 39 and 40. I wondered if in her response, the noble
13:01
13:02
Baroness Berridge Portrait Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support amendment 40, my noble friend, Lady Evans, pragmatic timing issue, which I previously mentioned in your Lordships house. But firstly, close three is not a political matter, -- Clause three is not a political matter, it is well-intentioned response, as highlighted in the tragic cases of what led to the McAllister review foot I would be grateful along with the noble Lady, Lady O'Neill, to know whether these changes would in fact solve the problem highlighted in those two cases that led to the review.

Of course, any new government brings in operational and structural changes. And I join with the noble Lady, Lady O'Neill in the fact that local authorities are dealing with the integrated care board organisations at the moment and of course, they are preparing for perhaps their biggest government, local government, reorganisation since that of Ted Heath. So, in terms of the timing, I wanted to ask the noble Lady, the minister, why it is necessary at the moment to do the structural changes to child protection arrangements, when the local authorities are dealing with other changes at the time? Local authorities, even in times of very restricted finance, have shown many of them that they have prioritised children's social care and actually, overall, England's local authorities are on an improvement journey in that the good and outstanding Ofsted inspections, as far as I understand, are increasing.

So why not wait to do any further structural changes, until the new devolution arrangements, the new local authority boundaries, are in place? And when there is more evidence, that such organisational changes, in clause three, will improve matters, rather than inadvertently potentially make matters worse. I want to join with the noble Lady, Lady O'Neill, that in relation to the culture that might be changed here, if the family health teams do not see the child protection as part of their role, that cultural embedding that has been happening over decades that are similar to a school, where what you need to embed is that safeguarding is everybody's responsibility, you might end up with them thinking it is not my responsibility, it is kind of like the blue light service over there, which is the child protection team.

We could lose inadvertently, no one is deliberately at all trying to make our child protection arrangements less effective. But I do worry about that cultural loss that everybody is seen as their responsibility, in the family help team, and through into the social workers. Could the noble Lady, the minister, please outline, why not wait until you have done your local government reorganisation? Do this afterwards? Or maybe without the same time. Because for the staff, this is an awful lot of change in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

various departments of our local authorities. My Lords, may I speak to the
13:05
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, may I speak to the amendments 36 and 40, and respectfully agree with almost everything that has been said so everything that has been said so far. An intimate 40 -- Amendment 40 concerns cases across local authority borders, which can present practical problems, and sometimes jurisdictional problems. Families, both parents and children, move around, and do not conveniently live together at the same time, in the same local authority area. Sometimes, as has been suggested, they move to avoid attention.

And there does need to be clarification about how and by whom these situations are to be dealt with. My Lords, Amendment 36 seems to be to be more fundamental. There are of course existing established arrangements focusing on Children In arrangements focusing on Children In Need. Since the Children Act 1989, these can involve child protection conferences and child protection plans. Which identify risks and assign responsibilities and expectations. It is perhaps not surprising that there are now operational concerns about the new clauses.

In particular, whether they will unnecessarily duplicate or even disrupt workable and working existing arrangements. In particular, we do need to know if the new teams provided for in these clauses will require the introduction of new personnel, in a way that will deprive the family of the continuity and familiarity established by the original social work team. It does take time for a social worker to build a relationship with a child and family. And that should not be jeopardised.

Changes per world of the children and frustrate the parents. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, referred to consistency and ownership. Those are not just cliches, they are important. And they should, wherever possible, pre-preserved. -- Be preserved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We haven't got any amendments down in this group but I want to make a few observations. First, I think it is really, really important think it is really, really important we get this right. And we got that opportunity to do so obviously opportunity to do so obviously between committee and report stage. I have personal experience of multiagency working in terms of multiagency working in terms of child protection. And, not a great child protection. And, not a great deal, but a few cases, and the thing deal, but a few cases, and the thing that nobody has actually mentioned is that when a member of staff has is that when a member of staff has left the job or moved to another authority, the whole process grinds
13:08
13:10
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. As we start on of these amendments relating to the operational delivery of multiagency child protection teams, can I perhaps just respond to a few general points, therefore I go into general points, therefore I go into the details? Of the points that have been made of the amendments. First of all, with respect to the point that Baroness O'Neill made, both today and on Tuesday, I just have to say it is not true that there is no support for these arrangements amongst local authority, children's services, amongst organisations concerned about child protection and keeping children safe.

There is plenty of support. It is also not the case that this idea has somehow fallen out of the sky. In fact, the noble Baroness, Baroness Barran, gave us a good explanation of the history of this. But of course, this government, last autumn, published keeping children safe, helping families thrive, with provisions, with the provisions that are in this legislation, included within it, so there has been plenty of time, and in fact, the department has taken the opportunity to talk to a broad range of professionals and others, about how we will ensure these, all of the provisions in this bill work properly for tap and of course, the provisions in clause 3, particularly relate to the duty here protect children, with respect to the legislative arrangements around child protection.

And the experience of child protection is that too often this most difficult and crucial area of children's social work is, has been carried out by work is, has been carried out by social workers who are perhaps less experience, who are not experts necessarily in child protection, and they have had to do it without the full story of the children they are trying to protect because of the lack of strongest possible input from a range of different agencies, to create that.

-- Create that full story a child and there needs to make sure they are protected properly. I will say in respect of one of the concerns expressed by Professor Munro, which I also emphasise on Tuesday, it is not the case that these provisions downgrade the quality or the nature of social workers who will be working on child protection. There will actually increase the likelihood that the most experienced social workers will be working in the most difficult area. And we are clear that within the multiagency child protection team, that it will be a fully qualified social worker who will be responsible and there.

Equally, in family help, where the worker is dealing with a child for which there are child protection concerns, that will also be a fully qualified social worker. To turn to the detail of this, and how we got here in the first place, of course, as many noble Lords have said both today and other debate on this bill, nothing is more important than keeping children safe. Ineffective, multiagency working, is a key factor where child protection activity fails. And despite existing legislation day-to-day operations can be inconsistent and ineffective.

In their review, the child safeguarding practice review panel found that inexperienced practitioners, ineffective multiagency working, and poor multiagency working, and poor information she within and between agencies has missed opportunities to protect children. As I said, this is the situation I am sure all of us are keen to improve. Often several practitioners have information about the child and their family, but the lack of joint working means that vital opportunities are missed to protect children from serious harm, for example, the GP treating a parent for their substance misuse, a school that notices a child arriving unwashed and unfed, and the police involved in callouts for domestic abuse.

But no one has the whole picture of the day-to-day life of the child. Early results from the 10 the child. Early results from the 10 local area pathfinders for family first, a program that is embedding family help, multiagency child protection, and family group decision-making, as we discussed on Tuesday, as a single integrated system, do demonstrate better management of complex issues, reducing crisis points, and enabling quicker effective interventions where children need protection. And I hear again the calls for the publishing of the first part of the evaluation of the pathfinders, which I wholly understand.

And I hope, even if it is slightly later than spring, that will be available, I know it will be available for the development of these teams. But we are not even waiting for that. We are using already the experience of those going through the pathfinders to help to support practice in other local authority areas. Through webinars, through the opportunity to share, not just good practice, but the challenges they are finding. And the challenges they are finding. And in fact, the fact some pathfinders are finding some things difficult is precisely the point of having a Pathfinder.

It is so they can actually work out what works, where you might need to change things, how you are going to need to operationalise it, what additional support might be needed, but in this bill, we will establish multiagency child protection teams. In every local authority area. And this is a planet responds directly to recommendations made by the National Child safeguarding package review panel. This will help to assure the lack of join between services is not one of the reasons a child dies or is seriously harmed, and once again, today, some noble Lords have called today, some noble Lords have called There has already been, arguably too many people have understood the problem about the necessary change wasn't made.

That is not to say that I believe that there aren't challenges in doing it. But the sooner we start, the sooner we will be able to overcome those challenges and put in place a system that is better and safer for children. On the point about a local authority reorganisation. I was very pleased, that at the moment at which the noble lady, Baroness Berridge was making this point. My noble friend, Baroness Taylor was sitting next to me. She reassured me that in the plans of the local authority reorganisation there has already provision and great care taken to ensure that whilst long-term reorganisation is going on, short- term transition and activity are also very clearly being carried out and planned for.

And I'm afraid, whilst some people might always wish for a period of calm, in which to make any change. I have to say, in my getting on for 40 years now, a whole range of child -related services. There has never been a period of time when everything has been calm and unchanging and you could therefore safely and easily introduce meaningful change. I am not convinced that awaiting is what would best serve children, or all the professionals working in these areas, at this point.

Turning it Amendment 29 in the name of Baroness lady O'Neill. Concerning the type of support the Secretary of State will require, multiagency child protection teams, confined to the local authority, by regulations. I want to reassure laws that this power is limited, strictly limited to the provisions related to the local authorities a discharge of its duties, under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. In other words, the child protection provisions. And it is subject to scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.

In, the regulations that this government seeks to remove. In addition, the support and operational functions of these new teams will be set out in regulations, following a consultation. Informed from sector experts, safeguarding partners and evidence, as I said, from the Family First partnership program. Turning to amendment 31, about the membership of the multiagency child protection teams. I think that noble Lady, Baroness O'Neill was referring to the group of relevant agencies that are required to support and cooperate with safeguarding partners, when it comes to safeguarding and protecting children.

The bill is clear that there will be a core membership of each of the court compulsory membership of their teams. That will be a police officer, a social worker, someone with experience in education and health. Those in education and health have to have experience of working with children. I think we are coming on in a later amendments to talk about the qualifications that might be necessary, in this area. Section 16 E of the Children Act 2004 already allows a safeguarding partners to determine which relevant agency, those other than those core members that I've outlined, should be included in a safeguarding arrangements.

And under section 16 G, the such relevant agencies must act in accordance with these arrangements. The new duty regulations acknowledge the arrangements about some of these agencies may enter into, in supporting local multiagency child protection teams, to respond to local demographics and needs and harms. You can imagine, couldn't you, that in certain areas the core team, or at certain times, the core team may well decide that they have a particular need to draw on the expertise of particular, of other agencies.

And, for example, in Warwickshire, multiagency working, on child protection has been strengthened, by: location with preparation and use a justice teams. The regulations will designate the relevant agencies that they can be required to work, with a safeguarding partners, to support the teams and then the partners will be able to identify from that list of the relevant agencies appropriate for the local area and to enter into a memorandum with them. And with confidence, setting out agencies in regulations achieves the intention of this amendment, whilst maintaining flexibility, local delivery.

To respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan Howe, who has considerable knowledge and experience, in the leadership of policing. Where however I disagree with him is the suggestion to stop I do not think he quite thinks about this, there is no role for policing in safeguarding and protecting children. I do not think that was what he meant. And therefore, it is wholly right to consider that in order to build that full picture, of children, you would want and need to have police officers, with a particular expertise, in that type of work and my recent experience, in a children's social care was in the West Midlands, where the police of their determined that there were certain police officers who would take a specific responsibility around child protection.

I understand that different forces might want to have different ways of responding to that, but that may well be a way that police forces would respond. And on the point about accountability, which I do agree with the noble Lord is important. Whilst we are saying that there has to be representation from the police, in the team. They will remain linked to their force, local authority will not have any authority, over them. The police person is there to provide the team with the information, that they have, for example if they have been called out on a domestic abuse call, or child criminal exploitation.

They are there to help the social work and the team come to the right decision for the child. And I have to say that I would have thought, for policing, as the other agencies, getting the decision right for the child at this absolutely critical moment is frankly, although this isn't the primary reason for doing it, likely to prevent further work and damage to that child, further down the track. It feels like a worthwhile activity, for me. There is no change in accountability, between the local authority...



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry to interrupt the Minister. On one point she has raised. I can On one point she has raised. I can hear the accountability point. To combine a couple of things that she combine a couple of things that she mentioned. The team can call on the right skills, at the right time, right skills, at the right time, that is obviously a major argument for this team. Skills really the for this team. Skills really the police bring, then child protection experts, they are not children experts, they are not children development experts.

The ability to development experts. The ability to investigate crime. They bring nothing else to the table here. I'm not quite sure, apart from being innately nice people, I hope, innately nice people, I hope, reasonable people. I'm not gonna say they have no skills, that is not the they have no skills, that is not the point. The professional skills they bring to the table, professional powers which are investigated by law is about how they investigate and if the team turns up and says it is your turn to see this fellow., Or this mother.

It is for the police to this mother. It is for the police to call. While I on my feet. The point that is identified about the gap in knowledge and host data that the others may not have access to. That is why we have people sat in groups, around the country as has been mentioned already. That is what they're supposed to be doing. Maybe this report, not doing it as well as they could. I'm not sure this team is going to fill the gap.

My final point in the evaluation, which I know she said, is the only data is how many children got hurt, or died. Or the development was interrupted, or that the satisfaction of the families involved was enhanced, as a result of this team's intervention. Those are the core issues. Do kids get protected more by getting hurt less? And can we prove it? The rest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

afraid is a bit soft. In my view. I wholeheartedly agree with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord on the finer points. That is exactly the objective of what we are trying to do here. Whether or not the evaluation, after a not the evaluation, after a relatively short period of time gives us conclusive proof about that, I would be unsure. That is that, I would be unsure. That is absolutely the objective is not working backwards, through his working backwards, through his points. I think he is right, police play a very important part in multiagency safeguarding hubs.

That multiagency safeguarding hubs. That of course is what happens at the point at which people, or other agencies, are thinking about agencies, are thinking about referring into the system. Quite often it helps to provide earlier support or more clarity about whether or not children should be being referred into the system. It is not specifically about child protection. As I was saying at the beginning, it is probably the most difficult and the most crucial point in thinking about the, the point at which the child is in the system.

And I, I am surprised at the noble Lord, because I think he under cells the point of what police officers do. He knows about the officers he was responsible for would have known when they were being called out to domestic abuse K series, when they were being, what intelligence they had about the likelihood of children are being exploited through gangs. Or in other ways. They would have known who were the people in the local authority frankly who are getting into trouble and whose children were therefore likely to be in danger.

They would have known the events that had happened, that had brought disharmony, or difficulties into communities. All of that information, they would have known who was taking drugs and who was stealing them. All of that information, you can imagine, couldn't you, the right point in this consideration of a child's case would be really, really important, forgetting that full story, about the child. That is why I think it is right that police are involved in this. The noble Baroness Lady Barran did raise the point about funding, which is a fair point.

That is why, as I have previously talked about, I will talk about again. There is more investment, for, for this initiative, that the government is putting in place. I would also, as I think I have been saying, been clear to policing, that this part of their responsibility and I think in many police forces that are recognising that. The multiagency child protection team enables that to be as effective or as possible in the way in which it is put together.

Turning to the amendments, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Fraser. Spoken to today by the noble Lady, Baroness Anderson, which seek to include social workers with expertise in working with children, with disabilities, in a multiagency team. I absolutely agree that the team should be quick to identify and understand and respond effectively, to all children and their families. I want to reassure the noble Lady that there is, as I was describing, earlier, already sufficient flexibility for safeguarding partners to determine which social worker, health practitioners, are most suited to working these teams.

I could imagine that there would be times, when it would be appropriate to have a social worker, or a health worker expertise, in disability involved. The point is that in the legislation, I think it is important to determine, as it does on the face of the bill, who are the key compulsory members of the team. And then to have, in regulations, the other agencies, who could be called on, in order to support the multiagency drug protection team. And it just isn't appropriate to list, in a legislation, every single agency, or worker who might potentially be involved.

That doesn't mean that they would not be important. I do however recognise that disabled children and those with special educational needs have got a particular probability and it is also, with that in mind, worth noting, that statutory guidance, working together was strengthened in Act 2023 to recognise the specific needs of disabled children. Emphasising a whole family approach for support and services. Baroness Anderson also touched on the wider concern around special educational needs and disabilities in education. I can only assure her that this government is very seized of the enormously difficult position that the SEND system finds itself in a moment.

It will certainly be coming forward. Having worked with parents and others, with reforms to help us to ensure that the system, which rank isn't working well enough for families, children or their parents, and the moment, does in fact work Turning now to this amendment, she is right, there is a complex set of arrangements in children's social care, and it is important we are clear about how these new multiagency teams, with the arrangements she outlined. And the integration of course of those teams working across the safeguarding system is essential.

But as I suggested earlier, this duty is clear that new child protection teams will be distinct from other existing arrangements. For example, because they specifically support local authorities to deliver their section 47 duties under the Children Act. In other words, they are focused on child protection, they will bring expert multiagency focus to child protection concerns and swift intervention, where needed. In other words, sharp and fresh focus when a concern is raised about significant harm. And the point is that within this child protection specific area, there is not a multiagency team at the moment the day-to-day operational detail, and I recognise the noble Lady's previous experience, as well as her knowledge experience, as well as her knowledge of Mysterio life and at this -- Ministerial life and in this place.

She will understand that detail firstly will be and should be worked up in the light of consultation with those pathfinders, but also others, in the way this will best work. And will be set down in regulations and guidance. Enabling local flexibility in how these new teams fit with any existing local multiagency child and adult safeguarding system. And turning to speak to amendments 39 and 40, in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness O'Neill, and other noble Lords, who rightly wanted clarity on how areas will work together across local authority boundaries, making sure they do not lose sight of any child who needs protection from harm, but also recognising, several noble Lords did, that quite often, actually working across boundaries may well be the most effective way to deliver the service.

The Children Act 2004 allows safeguarding partners to combine for the purposes of delivering of safeguarding, delivery of safeguarding, in a local area. And in future, this will include the running of new multiagency child protection teams. But accountability is important here. These teams' primary focus is the children who are the subject of the child protection concerns. And we know, from a national and local reviews, the clarity about agency responsibility for individual children who need protection prevents serious harm. Provisions in clause three allow flexibility for safeguarding partners to combine for the purposes of multiagency child protection teams, but they require that the social worker and the education practitioner, nominated by the local authority to work on these teams, can only do so in relation to the local authority area that nominated them.

This is the right approach to take the children, and it ensures importantly the local authority has statutory responsibility for the child and continues to be accountable for that child. Even where the team covers more than one local authority. We do not want to change this at risk children slipping between the cracks. However, I do want to stress this does not prevent, as I have suggested, collaboration or consultation with other local authority areas in terms of decision-making or information. Not least because of the examples that noble Lords have used.

And it does not prevent more than one local authorities being included in a combined multiagency team, it just prevents any confusion about accountability for individual children, which is clear. I hope noble Lords are reassured, that we have considered the functions, flexibilities, and expertise for these teams carefully. We will continue to consider it as we learn from the pathfinders, as we learn from our engagement, and as we develop the regulations and for those reasons, I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
13:36
13:37
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
amendment 30 in my name and the name of my noble friend, Baroness O'Neill of Bexley, and Amendment 37, in my name. Amendment 30 goes to the heart of one of the three major concerns expressed to me by several directors of children's services, and I just wondered whether with the noble Baroness, the ministers, permission, we could park what feel sick. Is developing about with the directors of children's services are supportive of the aims of these reforms. I think they're all reforms.

I think they're all supportive of the aims of these reforms, certainly the once spoke to, I cannot speak to the others, the concerns we are trying to flag are that they are worried about implementation, and so, the noble Baroness the Minister, I just worry she is not hearing the whole picture, and maybe that is something she wants to explore further outside the chamber. But it isn't just those private conversations, perhaps in gentler terms, the local government Association and the ADCS of highlighted concerns in this area about the degree of discretion that local authorities will have in how they implement their new multiagency child protection arrangements.

And my amendment removes some of the prescription that is in the bill around membership. But also, I would commend to all of your Lordships interested in this area to read the Department's Family First Program Guide cunningly titled, which states very firmly that it isn't guidance, but trust me, when you read it and it keeps saying it is going to set delivery expectations, it feels quite a lot like guidance. And that document is prescriptive. So when, document is prescriptive.

So when, , talked about flexibility and so on, that program guide doesn't feel very flexible it says you must have read child protection rules. There will be the removal, in many cases, of independent chairs of child protection case conferences. It gives an overview of the reform across the whole system and I think one of the reasons, and I can no speak personally, that maybe I woke up a bit late to some of the problems with clause three, is that this is the whole system reform.

The Minister rightly referred to the document published in November, there is this document that was published in March, and there have been a number of others. And we need, as a house, to think about it in the round, even if only parts of it are in the bill. But the program guide gives a very tight timescale to direct the children's services to implement these changes. And is very clear about expectations about how the additional funding should be spent. So, I am sure the noble Lady is advised to talk about flexibility, but, if I was stretched to children services, it wouldn't feel very flexible when reading the document.

The concerns that we have heard are, I hope, addressing my amendment. But also, the spirit of my amendment is wider in its aim align autonomy and accountability. Local authorities will ultimately be held responsible for the effectiveness of the multiagency child protection teams, indeed, in part, for some of the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Hope, who is no longer in his place, expressed his remarks earlier. So, with that responsibility, surely more discretion over implementation should be permitted. And I just wonder if the noble Baroness could come in her closing remarks, address that point.

As I mentioned, the worries I heard come from some of the details set out in what I will call the FF PCG, which only those in this House will know what that means. Which risk disrupting the finely balanced approach that finely balanced approach that currently exists, with local authorities, between early help targeted support, section 17 and section 47, but it risks adding costs with the need for additional costs with the need for additional lead child protection social workers for the separate multiagency child protection arrangements.

Where are those social workers going to come from? And how will they be funded? That it risks losing the critical fresh pear revised that an independent child protection case -- Pair of eyes, currently provides. Obviously, we have seen in many cases it is important to have that independent independence from someone who is experienced and can think again about the risks that remain to a child. Those families will now have two social workers, where they are in child protection, with all of the resource and case management implications and indeed, the risks that the family play one the risks that the family play one social worker off against another.

So, rather, as my noble friend, Baroness Berridge, said, focusing on the cultural and organisational issues that make all the issues in the quality of social work, the government seems to be focusing on process and there is a risk of adding complexity, and I think there is no question that it has cost. So, is no question that it has cost. So, again, I be grateful if the -- I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could explain why. And, as has been said, what I think deserves saying it again, the real concerns there isn't sufficient evidence based and I will cover that a bit more in the following group.

Amendment 37, in my name, requires the Secretary of State to produce a report on the impact of the multiagency child protection teams. And I think this would work well if, firstly, the government publishes the evaluation of Pathfinder sites which the noble Baroness has committed that that will happen. Secondly, that it addresses any practical issues arising as she said, and I agree completely, the whole point of the pathfinders to find out what works in practice and what does not. But that timeline in the program guide says March 2025, for 12 months, local authorities are expected to have implemented the changes needed in their teams, to start these reforms from spring of next year.

So, I do not know how we address practical issues and expect them to do that transformation work with no further visibility on with no further visibility on with no further visibility on Thirdly, it makes sense, if the Government agrees with some version of my amendment 30, so that there is some discretion for the direction of children's services, in say Cumbria to implement these slightly differently from children services in say Hackney. There will be some variation in approach and it is both responsible and I would argue useful for the Secretary of State to report on this, so we reinforce a culture of learning, across the sector and support local authorities to evolve a model based on this.

I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments proposed, clause 3, page 3, line 27, leave out from
13:46
13:47
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
happen, if it is, would be very interested to hear. If it is something which is convincing, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hope we can put this to bed. I rise to support my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support my noble friend, Lady Barran regarding amendment 30. Element 30 builds on the previous conversation in seeking to confirm that local authorities to confirm that local authorities can use the discretions in how the multiagency child protection teams multiagency child protection teams are implemented operationally, in their areas. In addition to the their areas. In addition to the contributions previously made about pilots and having the information pilots and having the information about those pilots. I want to make two very good reasons for why I think it is imperative to ensure that it is local decision-making, will become effective.

That is how there can be confusion over legal there can be confusion over legal accountability and how the bill could weaken local authority could weaken local authority leadership. Statutory responsibility for safeguarding will still rest with local authorities. As has previously been said. The partnerships all the multiagency teams. If all functions, a local agency within a multiagency team, it may become unclear who is ultimately accountable. Especially in the case of a serious case review procedures. As was referred to previously, currently, DfE guidance working together in 2023 emphasises other while functions can be delegated, accountability cannot transferred from top I have previously referred to the issue of budgets from other departments, especially police and health and how that might impact their involvement.

We also need to consider the fact that all agencies. In my area, police under leadership and the Mayor of London, a borough relationship, the NHS is 86 borough relationship. I quite often will get notices from the police that will identify a child in Lewisham and I have to say to my team, is there a connection to Bexley? There is a potential confusion there, of course with that confusion comes the ownership. This could create issues. Not least returning the ownership but the cost around it.

The other risk week local authority leadership. Over consolidation into multiagency spaces could disempower directors of children's services, or indeed the lead members as we have been part of. Who are statutory been part of. Who are statutory leads to safeguarding. There is a risk of fragmentation, fragmenting governments. It is for those reasons it would seem sensible to entrust the local authority to use their discretion in how the multiagency child protection teams were implemented, locally, in their own area. I support my noble friend.
13:49
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
I am standing to speak in particular to support amendments at 37, put forward by my noble friend, Baroness Barran. For several reasons. First, she has spoken and others have spoken about the enormous amount of change that is being imposed on the sector, both in structures, currently and prospectively with local government reorganisation and with many processes and through these reforms. And I do think that we have now heard from enough people, here and outside, to think that there is good reason to be concerned about poor decision-making, arising from the blurring of early help, targeted support, children in need and child protection.

There are potentially parallels with the SEMD reforms, a few years ago where a new model was expected to simplify and reduce costs and reduce numbers in the cistern and has actually sadly done the opposite. Other points that have sadly been done about the blurring of accountability. Again, I think there is reason to be concerned. I observed I was part of a national implementation board, post the care review and I will say that I was struck, in that process, more than most government processes that I've been involved with, that many people seem to find it hard to say what they really thought to Ministers, perhaps pull punches a little bit.

I think it is incredibly important to make sure that there is a report that all can see that is really transparent about how these reforms are working in practice. are working in practice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So, we come onto a bit more understandable consideration of how understandable consideration of how the teams will work, in practice and the teams will work, in practice and particularly with respect to local authority responsibility.
13:52
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
authority responsibility. Multiagency child protection teams will only be effective, if they are truly multiagency. There is an understandable concern here about the role of, the significance of the role of local authorities. It probably also is worth remembering, as in fact we discussed, on Tuesday, safeguarding partners, local authorities, health and police do have a joint and equal responsibilities for safeguarding, in legislation. And what we're trying to do, through multiagency child protection teams, is to ensure that in day-to-day and operational terms, with respect to individual children's cases, there is a practical way for those responsibilities, the information that those agencies may have had to be brought together.

As I say in that full picture about the child. I spoke earlier, about the findings, from the child safeguarding, practice review panel. Into child protection. To tackle the issues that they identify. We do, as I suggest a need multiagency experts, in a room together, sharing information and bringing their different perspectives to decisions that protect children. It is important that we ensure the right people are deployed, to those teams, so the experts a swift and decisive action is taken to protect children and we recognise the importance of safeguarding partners reporting on the impact of the arrangements, to make sure that this is happening.

And of course, we do need to base that, as has been the argument in other parts of this bill, so far, on the best possible evidence, which is both the professional work that constituted both the child safeguarding practice review, panel review and also, as others have mentioned, the independent review by my honourable friend, Josh McCallum, Josh Mac Allister. We also need the evaluation that other nebulas have spoken about. I will say that it will come in at more than one stage.

There will be both the evaluation of the process, some of the practicalities of setting up process, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran reference. And also, later, about the impact of the teams. Turning to speak to amendment 30, in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, which seeks local discretion in multiagency team membership. And organisation. Requiring a safeguarding partners to nominate a minimum team reflects partners collective duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, in their area.

They will also have, as I outlined in the previous group, they will also have flexibility to add other agencies, or individuals reflecting on her needs and to tackle local harms. We know, from families first Pathfinders these teams are already making a real difference in the recent OFSTED inspection, one of the Pathfinders received an outstanding judgement and when children are at risk of significant harm, strategy meetings are well attended by partner agencies. Effective information sharing and analysis of risk lead to children receiving the right intervention and support.

It is right that we celebrate the success and learning from Pathfinders. And of course, learning, as I suggested, previously from where things a bit more challenging. And on the point about resourcing, for this, as I said, also, I think on Tuesday, this transformation journey is being supported, from £500 million families first partnership program, funding. On a couple of specific points, made by the noble Lady, Baroness Barran. A point about whether or not this is doing away whether or not this is doing away with a independent chair.

One of the main purposes of the multiagency child protection teams is to have a fresh pair of eyes come in at the point of the section 47 inquiry. And the new leader child protection practitioner role will work, in fact is working, in Pathfinders, in a very similar way, as the current independent chairs do. I take her point about the need for a fresh view of independence, that is built into the design of the teams. On the point about whether or not this will mean children having more than one social worker, children and families will stay rooted in a family help, throughout.

The multiagency child protection teams will need, the child protection, functions, working with and wrapping support around children, families and the family help need practitioner. The multiagency child protection team brings expertise and a fresher focus on significant harm. The leader child protection practitioner will be an experienced social worker and will not be the case lead. In other words, the importance, ongoing relationship, but I know that children feel so strongly about, with respect to the person that they can understand and work with and gain a relationship, will remain in place here.

There will be additional expertise brought to this, from the multiagency child protection team. On amendment 37, which places a requirement on the face of the bill, for the Secretary of State to report annually on the teams impact and activities. I completely agree with the noble Lady, Baroness Barran and in fact with the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It is essential that we understand how multiagency teams are leading to better outcomes, for children. And that this learning is a shared across the system.

That being said, safeguarding partners already have a statutory responsibility, to publish annual reports on the multiagency, safeguarding arrangements. This will include reporting on multiagency child protection teams, once at the teams come into force. Statutory guidance, working together to safeguard children, already sets out the information that should be included in the yearly reports. And that will include evidence of impact. And guidance will be updated to meet the reporting requirements, for these are new multiagency teams. There will be, A-level which it really matters, a responsibility, both to accounts and report for the specifics of the safeguarding arrangements.

And on that basis, and with those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness Wolf are able to withdraw her remembrance. withdraw her remembrance.
13:59
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank, warmly all those who contributed to this short debates. And, in particular to my noble friend, Baroness O'Neill for her very practical examples of how it works, on the grounds and the very reasonable concerns that she and colleagues have about these reforms. If I'm honest, I am just worried when I listen to the noble Baroness that there is so much confirmation bias in her remarks.

That this is going to work exactly as we all would wish. I would be the first to admit I am a wrong if that turns out to be the case. The most big, gated reforms, like this, do not go exactly as planned. Some things get better and something died. I hope the Government keeps an died. I hope the Government keeps an In terms of some of the remarks that she made, she talked about feedback from the pathfinders and I think she cited Dorset as having just received outstanding.

My understanding, she will correct me if I am wrong, is that pathfinders are all very strong areas. They were chosen because they are strong and they have the capacity. So, leaving aside the much trodden argument about where is the evaluation. Actually, whereas the testing in areas that are not as strong. It -- And maybe she would like to say a word about that because that has not yet happened. And in relation to the point about independent shares, and I am not sure if it is still the same director of children's services, but there was an article on community care at the end of 2023, where, in relation to this, the director of children's services in Dorset said they were testing this out in one of its localities, as a Pathfinder, adding " The authority was not sure it was the greatest idea in the Pathfinder program.

While we were testing it out, we will have one of our quality assurance professionals in the meeting to offer security, independence and to make sure the parent voice is heard in that meeting.", so maybe it is all running as smoothly as the noble Baroness suggests, or maybe it is not. And I would also be grateful she has cited ornate of occasions the figure of 500 million funding, which of course is correct but can she confirm that within that, 290 million is new money.

That is predominantly for the early help function, rather than multiagency child protection, but I may have misunderstood that last balance incorrectly. So, perhaps in a later group, she will have a chance to feedback on that. In relation to amendment 30. I think one can argue in both directions, these agencies already have statutory responsibilities. And they already work together in a multiagency way, as we have heard in multiple different fora around the country. And while a child protection focuses obviously imperative, I don't argue with that at all.

I think it is an artificial argument to suggest, and I am not saying this is what the noble Lady was saying, but just to be clear, I don't think you can just say that support for high risk victim of domestic abuse or work with the perpetrator of domestic abuse doesn't have an impact on the safety of the child. I know the noble Lady understands that it does. But the risk of putting one bit of the system kind of locked down in this way and what the ramifications are for the other parts that are already working, I think, is at the root of our concern.

In relation to having a report, the noble Lady said we have the reports where it matters, I think is what she said. At the individual local authority level. My amendment was not suggesting that those reports should be lost. I am sure they serve a very important purpose. But this is a system level change, and therefore, I am surprised that the noble Lady isn't more open to an opportunity to have system level, dare I say, critical thinking, like we are going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to introduce into the curriculum. But with that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments. Is it your Lordships pleasure the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 31, Baroness O'Neill, not moved. Amendment 32, Baroness
14:05
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
moved. Amendment 32, Baroness Fraser, not moved. In clause three, amendment 33, Baroness O'Neill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to move amendment 33. This amendment aims to leave discretion about the qualifications of those involved in the multiagency child protection the multiagency child protection teams, to the relevant agency teams, to the relevant agency responsible. It also aims for clarity around whether the Secretary of State might lift the requirement qualifications in this work. My Lords, the previous contributions Lords, the previous contributions have seen and sought flexibility for those responsible for the safety of our young people, and this amendment our young people, and this amendment follows that theme.

The Minister has thankfully given us some reassurance earlier, and I hope this will be continued. My Lords, life changes, the areas won't always be the same. the areas won't always be the same. There needs to be some local discretions, and one would hope, that he wouldn't be -- It wouldn't be to perspective. When considering the needs of those, we to consider what already exists and if change needs to happen, from what base, there needs to be the fifth ability for those who are part of the pro--- Flexibility for those as part of the processes.

If it undermines local innovation, which we all know is important, as well as workforce development. Consideration will also need to be given to the relevant qualifications of all members of the teams, those in other agencies, and if it is to be the responsibility of the local area to arrange their child protection services, then they will need to consider who is part of the multiagency child protection team, and the qualifications of those members. I move the amendment.
14:07
Baroness Berridge Portrait Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed, clause three,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 4, leave outlines eight-11. My Lords, I write to support the amendment, particularly the amendment, particularly the amendment regarding clause three and its presence in the bill. I have known the noble Lady to be a listener, and at committee stage, it is entirely the time we have to do is entirely the time we have to do that. The noble Lady, the Minister, mentioned what we need to solve is mentioned what we need to solve is the lack of joint working.

I think nobody would disagree, and nobody would data say, the multidisciplinary team work for child protection is the way to do it. But there is, I believe Guy genuine concerns about whether the functions as outlined in clause three is the way to achieve that. three is the way to achieve that. So, when I first read that the review recommendation and the description of multiagency child protection teams, I have not yet come up with an acronym I can pronounce quickly enough, I thought pronounce quickly enough, I thought that would be an oversight mechanism akin to the independent Chair of the child protection cases.

But it seems to me the understanding out there with certain practitioners is that it could be an investigative$$JOIN /operational mechanism. I thought it was a mechanism, that oversight will you put everybody together, he was involved with that particular case, can ensure everyone in the room has every thing they need to know, there is no gaps in the information. At the understanding that is out there and that has been communicated is that actually, in fact, what could be happening here is the duplication of the investigative function, that when the social worker who has maybe had a very sensitive disclosure made to them, usually after many months of knowing the child, gaining the confidence, when there is this new system, what is understood to the noble Lady, the Minister come out there, is that there can be a transfer at that moment to a different social worker to take over the investigative role.

That is the understanding that is there. That obviously would be adjudication of -- A duplication of resource and a severing of the relationship that that child has brought. Now currently, as I understand it, the multidisciplinary team investigation is basically built around the lead expert social worker who then draws in, at casework level, the health, benefits, housing, the police interview and then there is oversight of that by the independent Chair. Of course, a child that has already disclosed if there is any change of that function may decide, no, I cannot disclose to somebody else.

And then maybe that loss of trust and actually adding to that trauma. So, inadvertently, it could be the arrangements were put in place in clause 3 that everyone is intending to aid joint working of all the different agencies could actually have opened up new cracks in the system. So, while we have seen and we are aware of these tragic failings that have led to the McAllister review, it is important to remember how foundational the Children Act, which has stood the test of time, is, and is understood by practitioners and has obviously been built on particularly in 2004.

Many of our outstanding local authorities aren't just chosen to be Pathfinder places, they are visited by many European countries to see how have you embedded over many decades child protection systems that are, I mean, I know we find it hard to believe, but are the envy of some other countries. So, what how would like to know is where is the adequate evidence to support the change? Yes, there was a recommendation in the McAllister review, but where is the adequate evidence that we have previously used to make changes to our child protection system.

I know the pathfinders will be publishing soon. But are these actually what we would usually understand to be operational pilots. Where is the rigorous academic research which has so often been the evidential basis for previous changes over many decades to support changes to our child protection system. So, whilst clause 3 may seem logical, and it may seem at principle that it will work, could actually open up different problems. Could the noble Lady, the minister, a Greek if she has not already done so, because she said there is evidence out there to support these changes, to meet with the director of children's services, who advise the McAllister review.

With Eileen Munro and other concerned academics, and the DCSs outstanding local authorities who are concerned, these are the practitioners who are going to have to implement this. I feel as if the noble Lady, the Minister, who talked of the nobility, the colleague at the Department of Health, this was precisely the issue of the Mental Health Bill, were there approved mental health professionals behind this change, are the children's services behind this change? While I know the Minister is passionate about adoption and fostering, the review was not shared by somebody who was an expert in deciding protection cases, operationally doing child protection cases, that is why I very much wish the noble Lady, the Minister, could meet with that type of expert, and reassure your Lordships house that these practitioners support this.

Though everyone here intends close three to help, -- Clause three to help, I have, as required here, think what would be the situation? If the expert concerned, it might not be everything an expert, but the experts that have got concerned about ill intended consequences proved to be right. If a child discloses sexual harm and then loses confidence with a switch of social worker, or the multiagency team coming in, and now will not talk, and the mums partner, as it usually often is, senses that something is changing with the child, something that psychologically affects individuals, and then that person harms the child to shut them up, what kind of report will be coming back from the local authority from the child safeguarding panel to the Department of education? It will not Department of education? It will not be DCS.

It is the responsibility of them that their systems weren't working. If their concerns are valid, it very well could be the report that comes back is we advise you not to make this kind of statutory change and you didn't this statutory change and you didn't this is what happened. I would not want anybody to be in that situation that inadvertently, whilst trying to improve the system with experts advising that there could be unintended consequences, that we don't take time to pause and make sure that this recommendation is supported by adequate evidence, before it is implemented.

before it is implemented.
14:14
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to standard to... To explain my notice of my intention to oppose that clause three stand part of the bill and in doing so, I support amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend, Baroness O'Neill. I would like to thank my noble friend, Baroness Berridge, for her support, for her very practical suggestion to the Minister to meet with those practitioners and experts that my noble friend suggested. And I very much hope when the Minister comes to close her remarks that she will be able to say that she will have such able to say that she will have such To be clear, once again I do not oppose clause 3 because I doubt the value of the multiagency response, in child protection.

Nor do I doubt for a second the importance of help for families. But, the government's program guide, for the families first partnership seems to have an first partnership seems to have an Have space, in it to absorb some of the concerns that my noble friend mentioned and which I have mentioned, on several occasions, in your Lordships' House. The guide says, and I quote, "Changes to service structure, practice frameworks, oversight arrangements, will require time to design and implement.

" So much everyone in agreement. It goes on. " The next agreement. It goes on. " The next year April, 2025, forgive me I said March in an earlier remark. April 2025 to March 2026 will feature ongoing business as usual delivery, alongside transformation activities. alongside transformation activities. " The thing that is easy to write down and harder to deliver in real life. It is crucial that reform is multiagency and implemented effectively, with improving the safety and well-being of children at its heart.

There is a clear expectation that the transformational work will be completed, by March 2026. And indeed, the funding that has been given to local areas, 30% of it, I think it says in here is expected to be spent on that transformation work. So, in earlier groups, I referred to 3 main concerns, that are held, by many, who will be responsible for implementing these changes, including, although she is not responsible for implementation, Professor Munro, in her letter on Monday, to the times.

And, indeed, from the LCS and the LGA. If I may, the noble Lady Baroness Scotland in her place, we worked together for many years, 20 years ago, on a summer this multiagency staff and it was a little less popular than it is today. It is very good to see the noble Lady here. So, turning to the evidence from the ADC S and the LGA. In the evidence of the Public Bill Committee and the other place. The LGA wrote, every local authority area will have a duty to establish multiagency child protection units.

Using integrated local authority led teams, staff are multiagency experienced child protection practitioners. This is my emphasis, not theirs. We recognise the potential value in this approach. There are concerns around resourcing, both financial and staff. Across all partners, and urged the Government to enable councils to be flexible, and how they design these units, to ensure they can build on local strengths. Additional funding will be needed to implement this duty, recognising the need to design and adapt, to new ways of working.

There must also be clear accountability for all partners, in relation to their roles in these teams. Ensuring that sole responsibility does not lie with councils, for their creation and success. Similarly, the British Association of Social Workers road, England supports good multiagency collaboration, believes that the mandating multiagency teams risks undermining the social work's role and safeguarding principles. With again, my emphasis there is little or no evidence to support this, as an effective door. We emphasise investment in early help, relationship-based practice and clarity, or professional priorities, to prevent detrimental impacts on children's rights under social work retention.

We also believe that greater clarity is needed on the remit structure, governance of these teams and remain concerned they are being mandated prior to full evaluation. The noble Lady doesn't need to listen to me, that she could comment on those concerns. They go on to say, additionally we note the pilot areas receive a significant funding, to implement the model and see clarity on whether similar levels of funding will be provided to support all local authorities, in implementing this model.

So again, the funding, I looked again, as in Britain, in the program guide appears to do the early part held, rather than child protection teams. It would be good to get clarity on that. The first of the three major concerns is about scale. This is a huge change and as I said, in earlier remarks, I think many of us and certainly I can speak for myself, underestimated this. So much of this sits outside of the bill and the program guide and the other guidance of the noble Lady referred to.

Clause 3 needs to be seen together with the changes to early together with the changes to early help, child help and the response to children under section 17 of the children act, as noble friend, Baroness Berridge said. Which is set out in various bits of guidance, now running, I am told several hundred pages and funding announcements, published this year. By the department. The Government must remember that safeguarding, from early universal help to child protection care proceedings is like a carefully woven or embroidered cloth and if you pull on one thread, you do need to understand how it will affect all of the others.

And as other noble Lords have said, this is happening, at a time of message change in local authorities and in Integrated Care Boards, and I was told the other day and maybe the noble Lord can lady can confirm, the new blueprint for the ICBs that is circulating in draft, includes a reduction in their response, in relation to safeguarding and SEND. Maybe the noble Baroness of the Minister can confirm if that is correct. And if so, how do these reforms, in clause 3 and in the program guide, how do they work? In real life? The second big concern is to C, we have heard that there isn't yet the evidence that the proposed approach will work safely, in practice.

The valuation hasn't been published, implementation problems haven't yet been addressed. And, we have, what feels like a very prescriptive program guides, which have a timeline, budget, scrutiny of the number of social workers, vs family has helped staff that local authorities would employ and I understand the government's own sense of urgency. Absolutely, I think I understand the conflict between wanting to act and wanted to be the head, but I suppose I do not understand what feels like resistance to what I believe are very valid concerns.

So, if I take some of the things that have been said, publicly, at the end of 2023, about the Pathfinder areas, by those, involved. The first is about the role of the lead child protection practitioner. There are worries about staff burnout, if someone is a sole role of those section 47 cases. It is a clear requirement, in the program guide. Second concern that has come out, publicly, as been about the deskilling of colleagues, if all that child protection expertise sits in that team.

And, as I said earlier, the worries about independent case conference share. There are also, ironically, because I know that the honourable member for Whitehaven and Worthington expressly wanting to reduce this, worries about case handovers. The move from the lead family health practitioner, to a new leader child protection practitioner, at a moment of significant stress, as the case meets the section 47 threshold. What was said, publicly, at that time, which is now 18 or so months ago, is that areas addressing those, by keeping the lead family harbour practitioner involved in the case.

That obviously increases cost and again this is unchanged in the program guide. I baked the houses leave and patience with me, in going into this detail. The noble Baroness the Minister has heard of private conversations, I am just trying to articulate them also in public we have had a serious concerns expressed. And those don't seem to have been picked up in the guidance that has come up. Thirdly, this needs funding properly, both of the early help duties and the new child protection teams.

The Pathfinders got significant funding and I and told that certainly, from one direct children's services, they had to pay the multiagency partners to attend. So, to take the words of one DCS I spoke to, changes in child protection and need to be thoughtful and evidenced. The concern that the proposed merging of targeted, non- social work led work with the section 17 will lead to a ballooning in case numbers as my noble friend, Baroness Berridge said, similar to what we have seen with SEND.

Ultimately that risks translating into more children in the care system, not less. Something that none of us want to see. So no one is suggesting that our system is perfect, but in her 2011 report, the then Secretary of State, my noble friend, my very recent noble friend, Lord Gove, Professor Monro warned against too much focus on process over quality and effectiveness of help given and today 14 years later, the DCS is telling me that the DfE's approach to these reforms is all about process and not about practice.

I could add other questions about referral criteria and capacity of membership, special educational needs, unaccompanied asylum seeking children. There are all sorts of questions that are worthy of debate. And for today just want to focus on those three. This is a huge set of changes the government is introducing into our system. We do not have the evidence of, and enough evidence of how it works in practice and there isn't sufficient funding, or indeed any visibility on funding, beyond next year, to pay for this.

So to be crystal clear, we support the aspiration to expand early help and early intervention to stop we support the aspiration. Every child and every family, who needs it should get support. We introduced the Pathfinder approach, for good reason. We needed to test it out in practice, listen to the evidence, follow it, I just cause and identify the necessary long-term funding, before national rollout. We have a system that currently involves a clear boundary between voluntary help and imposed state intervention.

The DfE has been drip feeding guidance on the new early help arrangements. I am told almost on a daily basis, which is at risk of blowing that boundary. That has the potential to create huge confusion, between what parents must do and what they are advised to do. This is just one example of why it is so important for the Government to pause and get this right. Our worry is that the Government was to press ahead before it is ready.

To be clear, directors of children's services tell me they think children will be harmed if these reforms are implemented to early and without sufficient funding. They do not say those things likely. The language they have used is to implement before we are ready, we risk putting children in danger. The Government must listen to them, must meet with them, as my noble friend suggests and with Professor Monro. Surely, surely, the responsible thing is to pause, My Lords, I beg to move move.
14:29
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I just want to make a few observations in this debate. I start by saying this is not my natural area of expertise. I did say, on amendment one that it was important that when we make a change, when we propose to make a change and we run a pilot, that pilot is there, if you like, the lodestone of future development. I am concerned, T- Levels, and the first of all Levels, and the first of all concerned about the comments that, Professor Monro made.

Perhaps Baroness Barran will answer me this. We frequently talk about directors have told you. Is this one director, five director, professional association for stop you cannot influence, important discussions like that, by saying the directors of said. We need to know who they are. The number of them. I could equally quote directors who have spoken to me who have had a different opinion. I just think we have to be careful about that. You

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can talk to me afterwards. For the benefit of the House,. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the benefit of the House,. I have spoken personally to 4 directors, three directors of children's student, one deputy director. I have encouraged some of director. I have encouraged some of my colleagues to talk to their local director of student services. I director of student services. I really would like to stress, I was really would like to stress, I was surprised at the response. I did not ring up and say tell me about all ring up and say tell me about all the problems with the bill.

I rang up and said, I'm responding on up and said, I'm responding on behalf of his Majesty's opposition and I always prefer to talk to someone who is directly affected, someone who is directly affected, before I just give my views, which may not be honest. It was an prompted response. I think it is for them to decide if they wish to speak privately, to Ministers, rather than for me to say at the dispatch box. If the noble Lord has spoken to others who say something different, I am sure it is helpful for the I am sure it is helpful for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have only spoken to one director, I wouldn't want to report what the director said, might give what the director said, might give the wrong impression. Baroness Berridge rightly said that our child Berridge rightly said that our child protection was the envy of the world. And I think she is right to world. And I think she is right to say that. But that doesn't mean we are complacent about the fact that we have really good child protection procedures.

Any policies, any system, you constantly have to look system, you constantly have to look at, you constantly have to change, you concert have to improve and make you concert have to improve and make it better. -- You constantly have to improve and make it better. And I am impressed with children being at the heart of everything we do. When we had the question on media literacy, the Minister rightly said, when I rather cheekily said what is the government's number one priority, she said child protection.

And that is symptomatic of how we as a house react. So, when we want to make react. So, when we want to make detailed changes, we do have to do, and you cannot stand still, but when we make detailed changes, we have to make sure those changes are absolutely right. We pilot them, we learn from that piloting perhaps. Had what we have learned, we perhaps go away and change, we perhaps adapt, and we have to make the resources available.

I am particularly concerned about qualifications, because I think qualifications are the hallmark of, qualifications are the hallmark of, if you like, safety. You wouldn't want a plumber to come to your house who hadn't got any qualifications implement, you wouldn't want an electrician to come along to your house with electrical wiring who hadn't got the qualifications. So, in child safety, you want to make sure that those people who are around that table are absolutely qualified to hear the judgements and opinions to protect the children.

So, I hope that when the Minister replies, for somebody who says they are not an expert in this area of work, she might simply spell out for me why she was to make those changes, and why she is not taking the advice of somebody who clearly is an expert and knows what they're talking about, and is actually then, probably through frustration, how to write a letter to The Times and explained to them.
14:35
Baroness Longfield Portrait Baroness Longfield (Labour)
-
-
If I might add a few thoughts from my experience. As children's Commissioner for six years, the level of responsibility is the greatest around children and care. And I looked in detail at the experience of children in care throughout their time, one of the things that was absolutely clear to me is the ability of local authorities to focus on intervention diminished hugely during that diminished hugely during that period. The amount spent on early intervention halves during that period, while the amount spent on crisis doubles.

And you do not need to be a great mathematician to realise the more you spend on crisis, the less you have an early intervention, and at the heart of Judge McAllister's review and recommendations, which were incredibly and extensively consulted on with people at all levels, from expert practitioners, leaders of children's services, and care experienced people themselves, was that we had to move and reset the system towards early intervention, and do so boldly in a timely manner.

Because it was just unsustainable for the public purse to do anything As important if not more important was that children were being left without support. So, everyone needs to be alert at any time about the consequences of any move towards increasing harm for children, but what we know over time is that more children are coming to harm now because they aren't getting back support early. So, it is absolutely essential, that there is an urgency about that. Those doubts of children's services, as I said, that I speak to, want to see that change urgently.

And are very much in line with the proposals that are being put forward. There will always be things that doubts of children's services will want to amend locally and test out, that is absolutely right. What they want to know is that there is a framework nationally for them to work within and that clear guidance. So, I think that is why it is so important this is here. That is not to say that those individuals would have their own expertise in delivering. I think just the other thing to say is that when we have got experts involved in delivering these expert practitioner roles, actually, we are going to use the judgement all the time for supper here is not going to be about process, it has to be about children and families.

Anyone who wishes following a process because the process is there is not the expert practitioner in that role, that we have got that ambition for, they are going to be looking at children's lives, responding to individuals, but at the heart of it, we have to move boldly forward, sorry about that one! I apologised for that on many levels. We have to move forward at pace, but also with confidence and determination while also checking along the way that we are giving support where it is needed.

I'm just a final one about the -- And a final one about needing the investments there, of course we need that, but we have to get to the point where we are investing money to prevent, rather than, again, to pay those costly bills when things I have gone to acute state -- When things have got to acute status.
14:39
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
So, we are now in group 3, on multiagency child protection teams. As I have already said, these teams seek to address the problems we repeatedly see when children are , including poor information sharing, weak decision-making, based on single service perspectives, and an experienced social workers, without the support, knowledge, and experience needed to make tough decisions, and to ensure Children and Families Act get the support that they need. Dror to ensure children and families get the support they need.

One of the teams this is already being delivered in is Warwickshire, and before that point, I could also respond to the point made in the previous group by the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, about the pathfinders, actually, to out of the pathfinders are not good or outstanding, they are in fact required in improvements, so that was wrong. In Warwickshire, they have reported to the Department the lowest number of children on child protection plans since July 2023, and that reduction is attributed to a more efficient and targeted approach by the multiagency team.

Ensuring the right children are getting the right intervention at the right time, and crucially, as early as possible. In the system. And I do think that my noble friend, Baroness Longfield, made a very important point about the nature of the objectives of the whole of this reform encompassed in this bill. And in the policy paper that I referenced earlier. And the objective here is to shift support for children much earlier into the process. And where it is necessary for there to be interventions, section 47, child protection intervention, that that is carried out, one about the most experienced and senior social workers, and that they are supported by a team that brings together the whole range of different agencies that may well have information about the child.

That is the objective here. With this in mind, I turned to amendment 33, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill of Bexley, which seeks to leave discretion about the qualifications of persons nominated to teams and seeks clarity on the qualifications prescribed through regulations. Setting out clear requirements for the skills, knowledge and qualifications of multiagency child protection team members, ensures a consistent national standard. And expectations of practitioners making decisions that protect our most vulnerable children. These children deserve this level of consistency.

And in fact, qualification, a point I think made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. As I have said, we know from national reviews, those on the frontline of complex child protection do not always have the support and experience that they need. We are determined to change that through regulations that will accompany this legislation. And the point about regulations here is important and I will come back to it again in responding to clause stand part debate. I think we all know as parliamentarians, that while it is important that primary legislation set out the intent at the design and the most important elements of legislative change, operational duties detail is best suited to regulators, where there is more flexibility to accommodate developments in sector standards, for example, if new evidence emerges.

This good practice could be reflected in the regulations. We are working with other government departments and will publicly consult these regulations. Before bringing them one parliament scrutiny. Before the amendments tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, well, in fact, the scepticism expressed concern expressed about the whole of clause three, perhaps I could just start by quoting the Chair of the National Child safeguarding review panel. Annie Hudson. And it was of course a recommendation of this panel has led to the development of this legislation here.

And I would just say, I think there has been an important discussion about the need to enable them to be sufficient time for appropriate implementation. But, when you have very clear recommendations as we have here, as I will demonstrate in a moment, I do think it is beholden of governments to take action on the basis of that for some yes, to ensure the implementation is right, but as this government has done, to set out the ambition of the reform necessary in children's social care, in order to achieve both the strategic change that my noble friend was talking about, and also to overcome some of the shortcomings we have sadly seen evidenced in recent cases.

That is what this legislation is aiming to do. As the Chair of the National do. As the Chair of the National Child safeguarding review panel said " In my time as Chair of the Child safeguarding practice review panel, I have seen reviews about several thousands of serious incidents, where children have died or been seriously harmed as a result of abuse or neglect. It is learning from those incidents and most particularly, the repeated lack of join up between agencies, that led to the panel's recommendation, in our report Child Protection in England, about the tragic deaths of Arthur Labinjo- Hughes and Star Hobson, to introduce multiagency child protection teams.

High-quality social work is critical to effective child protection, but we must also draw on the expertise of practitioners from across the different provisions and agencies, including police, health and education, to meet the complex safeguarding needs of some children and families. The need for multiagency child protection teams was also clearly evidenced in our recent national review about child sexual abuse in the family environment. This review found that once concerns have been raised, too often there was a lack of thorough child protection investigation, and effective action to protect and help children.

This was in part due to silo working across agencies, and inadequate multiagency exploration and sharing of concerns that and sharing of concerns that children may be at risk." We do, in many ways, is a nobody, Baroness Berridge said, have excellent Berridge said, have excellent services in this country, we certainly have excellent and committed staff, working within a children's social care, but when we see recommendations like this coming from investigations of times when the system tragically failed to work properly, I think it is important for us to take notice of that and make progress as quickly as This bill includes several measures which will improve the safeguarding and child protection.

Including strengthening information sharing, through unique identify is, which will come onto in a moment. The establishment of multiagency child protection teams which will provide children with a timely, sensitive, skilled and coherent response. We do have, there has been a challenge, particularly from a Baroness Barran about the extent we are clear about how these fit together. I have here, which I'm more than happy to share. A slide which shows exactly how they fit together.

That is based on the work that we have done, already. I'm very happy to share with other noble Lords. The argument we set out in the policy paper, last autumn. Let me be absolutely clear. Every child deserves to be protected, from harm. Legislative these teams will take a significant step closer to making sure action is coordinated to protect every child from every harm, whether that is inside, or outside the home. To come to the point, the reasonable point that has been made by noble Lords about the detail of the implementation.

Although, not, as I think I have just outlined the principle of the change that is being made. Of course it is important for us to be able to work, alongside practitioners, leaders of children's social care, experts in the field. In order to ensure that the implementation of this recommendation is actually what we would hope it would be for children. That is where, once again it is important to note that clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the day-to-day operations of multiagency, child protection teams.

The requirements of the members and the relevant agencies, which would be required to cooperate as a safeguarding partners. I remind noble Lords that this approach means that the sector, local partners, experts, pathfinder areas, national experts, DCS is, many of those mentioned today can all inform how these teams will work, in reformed systems. What is more the affirmative procedure will bring further scrutiny to these regulations as well. As well. I will respond to the point by noble Lady so Baroness Berridge and I think Baroness Barran as well.

This handover, or this suggestion the there will be two social workers, which are responded to previously. I will just take that a bit further now. There is no duplication of roles in what is being proposed. It is about an integrated system. Keeping children's relationships, family help and practitioners is really important. As I outlined previously. Family practitioners will be qualified social workers, we are completely clear about that. Child protection expertise, through the multiagency teams, around that.

The family help lead practitioner will be a key part of the child protection discussion. It is all about information sharing and joint decision making. So, I hope I can provide some reassurance that we are, not only have we built these proposals and recommendations for people who have looked very carefully at the system and at the most tragic failures of the system. We are also continuing to build the implementation, on the basis of ongoing engagement, with experts and others, throughout the system.

And what is more, that those regulations will come, before this House, under the affirmative procedure. There will be further scrutiny available there. Finally, in the group, I turn to speak to members of 508 and 509, in the name of Lady Barran, to speak about the issue of shared responsibility of the safeguarding partners. I'm not sure if she gave much emphasis to this in her contribution. It is in the amendment. I will also respond to the point about funding and resource.

I have, as has been noted, previously, and will continue, I have no doubt, to talk about the £500 million we have made available in 2025/2026 to support the national rollout. Yes, the family help, child protection and family network reforms. And to confirm, yes, out of that 500 million, of that 270 is a new funding, in the children's social care prevention grant, for this work. And we will of course be making further announcements, about some of this work, after the spending review, expected in June which will confirm funding beyond 2026.

And under the existing duties, safeguarding parties already agreed to dedicate resource, as part of their local multiagency safeguarding arrangements. Clause 3 provides flexibility for safeguarding partners and how they meet this new duty, to establish multiagency child protection teams. It does provide the flexibility that noble Lords have asked for, including through combining teams across local authority boundaries, to align with police or health footprints, creating consistencies and deficiencies. Although it is clear on this point about responsibility safeguarding partners are each responsible for nominating a representative to the multiagency team and they have equal responsibility for safeguarding, as responsibility for safeguarding, as they spelt out, earlier.

I hope, I understand the issues that have been raised about implementation. I hope I have provided some assurance about the continued engagement of our team. Experts and practitioners, as team. Experts and practitioners, as we develop the detail of the implementation and valuations and of the ability of this House to scrutinise those as well. I hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lords will be able to withdraw the amendments. I wonder if I could just clarify

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if I could just clarify a few points, that she said, in her a few points, that she said, in her remarks. Does the noble Lady, she gave the example of Warwickshire reducing the number of children on reducing the number of children on child protection plans. Of course in the number of children on child protection is a nationally found protection is a nationally found last year, by one point seven found last year, by one point 7%. It is last year, by one point 7%.

It is followed by three point 1%, century 2020. That is despite the increase 2020. That is despite the increase in unaccompanied oak asylum seeking in unaccompanied oak asylum seeking children. We welcome the progress in children. We welcome the progress in Warwickshire and anywhere else in the country that is achieving that. The impression that she gave the House was that this was an unusual occurrence. And I think it is just important to acknowledge that that is a national trend.

Secondly, the regulations that she refers to are extremely important in terms of implementation and I remember in other bills, other governments, publishing the draft regulations, during the passage of the bill. So that the House has clarity on the Government's intentions. I wonder whether she would be very kind and take that back to the Department and see if that is an option in this. Potentially other parts of the bill. In relation to the point about duplication. I'm not sure if I followed her comments about the duplication of caseworkers.

Page 13 of the departments guidance does appear to suggest that both the family health lead practitioner and the lead child protection practitioner in section 47 cases would both be involved. I'm sorry to be picky about money, of course she is right on the 500 million. Again, her department's own documentation states 253.5 million of that is a mainstream funding, originally for the supporting families program. This is just to be clear about what is new money, what it is for and, finally, I wondered if she could pick up on my noble friend Baroness Berridge is suggestion about, she talked about the general engagement that the department rightly has.

I wonder whether she could comment on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whether she felt able to accept. The noble Lady, Baroness Barran

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lady, Baroness Barran says she didn't want undermine the work that was happening in Warwickshire, by pointing out that Warwickshire, by pointing out that there was a general downturn in the number of child protection plans. Good, because I do think, as Good, because I do think, as suggested we should celebrate where there has been a good work, which in Warwickshire they certainly attributed to the changes that they had made. Secondly on the point of had made.

Secondly on the point of draft regulations. There is attention here. On the one hand people are asking us to continue to people are asking us to continue to engage in the detail of how this is going to be implemented and yet also to have the regulations alongside the bill. I will reflect on it and come back to her. On the point about duplication. I have explained it twice and clearly I haven't explained it well enough, for people. I will undertake to write to noble Lords about the operational details, particularly this point about the role of the family health lead practitioner and the lead practitioner for child protection.

And the operational detail that the noble Lady, Baroness Berridge is talking about. On the point about new money. I think I have been pretty clear about what is new money. I said it explicitly. On the point about the meeting. My point was that there would be a whole range of meetings. A whole range of engagement. I don't say I have a meeting. My honourable friends, the Minister for children social care I know has met with very many practitioners and experts and DCS is, as of this process is gone on and I suspect, between us we will be able to continue meeting people in a way in which it was suggested.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for that, sorry. I am grateful for that clarification. am grateful for that clarification. Can I assure than ability the Minister that this concern is just born out of, as I hope I explained. We can all pick off one or two We can all pick off one or two experts and a group of people. But there are sector bodies like the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Workers and the Association of directors of children's services and dimension a particular individual, because there was particular engagement in the independent review engagement in the independent review we are relying on.

I can assure than a lady, she comes back with support from those organisations saying we support this. We understand etc.. We support this. We understand etc.. We have engaged. The problems that we have here will, I assure her fall away. It is the support of those representative practitioner bodies that, in a busy diary, the noble Lady, I do not want to suggest how to delegate in time. To come up with that reassurance, the concerns I think will melt away.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not sure that experts is the way the department is engaged in consultation, or engage with so far. consultation, or engage with so far. Nor will come in the future. Look, I Nor will come in the future. Look, I am realistic. I have done, in my am realistic. I have done, in my time, in both houses, I think, at least, this is probably my 12 bill. I have never frankly done a bill in which everybody was content. I'm not going to say that the only way, good going to say that the only way, good except that the only way we can request this legislation is if every single expert representative and single expert representative and professional body supports it.

I have spelt out, very clearly where have spelt out, very clearly where these proposals came from. I have spelt out very clearly, the spelt out very clearly, the engagement that we continue to have. I have a demonstrated how regulations will be subject to scrutiny, both in the sector and also, in this place. I have said I am willing, alongside my honourable, my right honourable, my honourable friends, Janet Daby, to continue meeting with a whole range of people, about this. I think I have to say, I do think that is pretty reasonable, my party.

If other noble reasonable, my party. If other noble reasonable, my party. If other noble
15:01
15:02
Lord Agnew of Oulton Portrait Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure the amendment is by leave withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 34.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 34. My Lords, this is a probing amendment. I'm the first to admit amendment. I'm the first to admit this is not an area where I have the expertise but my questioning really comes from the angle of the impact of schools. And really how much time and cost will be involved. I do understand under clause 3, subsection 4 of this bill and then section 16 J of the children's act 2,000 and for requiring safeguarding partners, that is local authorities, police and health to ensure multiagency child protection are adequately staffed, this includes representation from education.

Schools themselves are not made statutory partners but safeguarding partners must secure the participation and representation of education and childcare agencies at both operational and strategic levels in the local safeguarding arrangements. I also understand legislation does not impose new direct financial obligations on individual schools. The duty to ensure teams are sufficiently staffed falls on the safeguarding partners of the schools themselves. I do presume schools will incur some indirect costs relating to some staff time for participating in safeguarding arrangements, meetings and training.

Really my question is how will this change from the current arrangement? What additional obligations are likely to occur? I listened carefully to the Minister's point on the new money from... 270 million. I understand she cannot give any clarity on long-term funding until the spending review in a few weeks time so I do not have an issue with that. If we took that money the 270 and just assumed even half of it went to schools which of course would be a fraction of that but that is only £600,000 to schools, I will come onto this in a minute.

I understand you are planning to provide guidance to support the implementation and the safeguarding partners are expected to tailor the arrangements to low global need -- to the global needs which may help manage additional burdens on schools. I would like to know when that information is going to be available. That is actually important because of the need for us, for schools to budget. Unforeseen burdens particularly are likely in school of areas of high deprivation. Where we are seeing the backwash of so much of the suffering of these vulnerable children.

The point the Minister I hope will be mindful of is we only have 1265 hours per year of directed time for our teaching cohort. So every hour doing something other than teaching is a salami slicing away our ability to provide good education. And something has to give. The other area I am puzzled by and this again is my ignorance but these pilots you have been running. I have been trying to find some feedback on these pilots and I have not been able to find anything.

In the common Select Committee they raised this issue of the lack of clarity. So if you can provide any I understand I think my noble friend Baroness Barran said some of these pilots had extra money to deuce them up and get more participation. Which is great but will that be available on a wider rollout? I am very worried about this because as you know we are facing something of a financial bloodbath in the schools sector. If we have to start hiring supply teachers to enable ordinary teachers to be released to go to safeguarding meetings, these are costs which will hit us.

So could I ask the Minister to give us a timeline on the implications for schools and ensure us schools will have sufficient time between publishing of the guidance and the setting of their budget. So for example we really need to set our budgets in an April for a September to go live because that tends to be when teacher improvement -- teacher recruitment goes on, people resign under appointed. I hope the Minister will understand where I am coming from. I respect I have a lot less knowledge in the sector but I'm just worried about the backwash into the schools sector.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 3 page 4, line 14, to
15:06
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
insert the words as printed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am delighted to support the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend, Lord the name of my noble friend, Lord Agnew of Alton. The example he gave of teachers and teaching assistants of teachers and teaching assistants as cited in his amendment 34 could obviously be replicated for many obviously be replicated for many other agencies with a valuable contribution to make to multiagency contribution to make to multiagency child protection teams and wilder -- wider safeguarding activities including local drug and alcohol services, mental health services, domestic abuse services, housing domestic abuse services, housing association said more.

The key point here I think is that practitioners here I think is that practitioners need to feel confident in how to engage in the process and how any information they shall be used. And the confidence it will not put anyone at risk. As my noble friend said, confident they have got the time and the working day to be able to participate responsibly. From my own experience, I know we make assumptions at our peril about how confident even statutory agencies are in some of these areas.

Any program that promotes safe and effective partnership work is to be commended. My amendment 38 seeks to understand what capacity the government thinks will be needed on the ground. And what guidance it plans to give for this. Currently the bill talks about and I will duties under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. And clause 3, page 3, lines 27 to 31 multiagency child protection teams to consist of a, at least one of each of the persons mentioned in subsection 4.

And B, such other persons as the local authority considers appropriate after consulting the other safeguarding partners. My question, my track record question is what does this mean in real life? I am sure the answer to this is no but as written it could mean Birmingham has one team and Rutland has one team. I am sure the noble Baroness, the Minister will reassuringly that is not -- will reassure me that is not the plan. Even smaller, local authorities and particularly rural local authorities have multiple child protection teams already.

So adding one more is not going to be that useful to them if they have got multiple existing teams that need that multiagency engagement. When I led the charity save lives and read the rollout of multiagency risk assessment conferences around the country and we had rather less influence than the government does, we did give every area estimates based on evidence of realistic caseloads, evidence of realistic caseloads, resource requirements and so forth sourced -- and so forth.

If a small charity can do that, my challenge to the Minister is surely the government can do something similar or work with the ADCS or the LGA to develop appropriate clarity and guidance. I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain the government's plan. I beg to move my amendment 38.
15:10
15:11
Baroness Bousted Portrait Baroness Bousted (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I was not going to speak in this amendment but I just have to stand up to say, the idea have to stand up to say, the idea schools over the last 20 years have not been at the centre of child protection and safeguarding is ludicrous. During the course of the last government, the central grant of London authorities decreased by 40%. Real terms school funding decreased by nine%. In real terms. In that period schools became the fourth emergency service.

As children social work, child protection, all of the safeguarding systems around the child were absolutely decimated by austerity. Schools have become extremely good at identifying Children In Need of safeguarding, children who need protection. They have become externally good at providing information and support and training to their staff. And they did this very well at a time when the last government was absolutely reducing in real terms support to schools. They have had to become experts in child safe and child protection. Because the other services which should have been there to work with schools simply went.

So the idea that multi- agency professional teams, legally responsible for working with schools in order to support them to protect children is something which will strengthen child safeguarding and child protection. The idea schools need extensive CPD on this, of course CPD is always helpful but the idea they have not been doing this and this would be a new thing to them frankly is ridiculous.
15:13
15:14
15:15
Lord Bellingham Portrait Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I was not going to speak in this group but I wanted to add my support to my fellow northern peer, the noble Lord Agnew. But also to ask the Minister a question. We have talked about local authority resources and pressure local authorities are under. In the case of northern County Council they are a strategic authority -- Norfolk County Council they are a strategic authority and they have special measures for vulnerable children and special needs et cetera.

As the Minister will know their budget is under pressure and Norfolk County Council have said recently they have got to find another 40 million of savings. What I would like to ask the Minister is in this context as we move towards unitary government where there are plans to bring in unitary government across Norfolk which means basically get Reading like getting rid of the district and may be placing those districts with one unitary council. Which would be Norfolk County Council plus all of the other competencies.

If we move to more than one unitary authority in a large county like Norfolk and may be in counties like Suffolk as well and have possibly one or two Unitarians placing the county and the district then what would happen in terms of dissipation of resources? Resources going in to this particular type of work among vulnerable children. Would it be spread between one or more local authorities? And what are going to be the consequences in terms of replication of services? Cost pressures? On those authorities.

At a time when budgets are very tight anyway. The other question I want to ask the Minister which follows on from the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. If resources are going to be made available, what possibilities are they going to be for teachers and TA's to get that extra training outside of the actual local authority? If they want to enhance growing careers, if they want to widen their experience, and their initiative because there is nothing actually available for them in terms of the provision within the authority.

What can they do and who can they turn to to get that extra can they turn to to get that extra
15:17
15:18
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
In a previous groups, I have spoken at some length about the purpose and functions of these multi agency child protection teams and how they will be delivered as part of the existing duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. To speak to the amendments in this group, first of all, amendment 34, and I thank the noble Lord Lord Agnew for his contribution about ensuring that teachers and teaching assistants have the right training to work effectively in child protection.

Statutory guidance is clear that teaching staff should receive safeguarding training at induction and at least annually thereafter. I think my noble friend Baroness Boustead was very clear about that position. And the noble and learned lady Baroness Butler-Sloss, also very passionate about the need for schools to be involved in this, which is precisely why, of course, on Tuesday, we debated the clause about education and childcare settings being key safeguarding partners, and the improved emphasis on that in this legislation.

I, however, despite having this assurance, decided in the spirit of the previous discussion we were having, that I would consult an expert about whether or not this was in fact the case. I consulted a teacher very close to me about the sort of training that he was receiving, and he tells me that every year we receive statutory update on training. This can take most of our insight days and most of our insight days and requires us to read the updates for Keeping Children Safe in Education Keeping Children Safe in Education Guidance.

Then about once 1/2 term -- half term, CPD. He is an excellent teacher, although I am biased as his mother. I think this makes the point about the current position in terms of training for teachers and teaching assistants. Where there is I think a reasonable point is as well about the education partners that will be working, although they already have a responsibility for safeguarding, they are also now, of course, going to have the role in the multiagency child protection teams more specifically.

And that is why I hope I can assure noble Lords statutory guidance is also clear that the statutory safeguarding partners, and that does include the other partners that the noble Lady referred to. In this case, safeguarding partners should support practitioners that work with children, including through creating a learning culture where practitioners stay up to date on best practice. And we are confident that the practitioners in the child protection teams will be able to operate as a crucial link to and from education and childcare settings, ensuring school staff are supported to work with vulnerable children and the teams effectively.

The Pathfinder areas have developed multiagency workforce development plans. They have delivered comprehensive multiagency training. This provided opportunities not just to ensure practitioners have the knowledge and skills they need to deliver effective child protection, but also as an opportunity to align on shared values and build these vital cross agency relationships. Training typically covered the reforms, safeguarding responsibilities, local practice frameworks, and how different roles fit together across the system. I think there is both the opportunity within schools and also the improved opportunity from the role of the education practitioner in the multiagency child protection teams to ensure that expertise is there.

I will now turn to amendment 38 relating to delegated functions. I spoke on this in the previous group. In fact, we spoke on it understandably in several group so understandably in several group so far in this Committee Stage. I will briefly revisit the key points here. These new teams will be delivered as part of the existing joint an equal duty on safeguarding partners. I previously mentioned the flexibility in the new measures, which enables teams to operate along police and health footprints, balanced with sharp focus on multiagency child protection delivery, were agencies are clear about their responsibilities and accountabilities.

I think the noble Lady Baroness Barran sort of answered her own question. Now, of course it would not be the case that you would have the same number of multiagency child protection teams in an authority like Birmingham as you would have in Rutland. That would not be logical. Also, I'm not sure that I would characterise this system as you have current child protection teams and then you are simply adding another one alongside them, as at one point the Noble Baronesses said.

I think in the explanations, particularly in the last group I was talking about, the intention is very much that these teams will be the place within the consideration of a child protection case -- cases and issues were agencies will be able to work together, so they are quite distinct from the child protection teams that might be currently existing. In terms of resources, safeguarding partners agree and government has provided funding for the initial rollout of which child protection teams are apart.

Other noble Lords... I don't want to be churlish about this but I'm not sure I would have rolled up to this committee at this point to focus particularly on how difficult school and local government funding is if I had to spend the last 14 years supporting the government. Nevertheless, it is an important point that we ensure that there is sufficient funding. This is why, of course, this government has already increased in real terms funding going to both schools and to local government.

And in the last group or the group before last, we also responded to the point raised by the noble Lord Lord Bellingham about the consequences and the process of local government reorganisation, and I think I provided some assurance provided to me by my noble friend provided to me by my noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Taylor about that point. It was great to hear from her son and all the training he gets. Is and all the training he gets. Is fantastic. Can we take from that therefore that these new duties therefore that these new duties within this bill will involve no additional training, that everything additional training, that everything is covered within the training already that she sets out so eloquently, or are they going to -- either going to be additional either going to be additional training implications? -- are there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going to be additional training implications? The point I was making was whilst

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The point I was making was whilst there is already good training provided for teachers and teaching provided for teachers and teaching assistants, I then went on to talk about the way in which I thought the about the way in which I thought the role of the education lead practitioner would both enable and need there to be more training provided, and I use the examples of one of the Pathfinders were the training had taken place. I suspect in those Pathfinders, and it would be appropriate if it was some of the additional money that had been made available, but I also made the point that it is already the case that statutory partners in safeguarding our providing resources for their safeguarding responsibilities -- are.

In the point about these teams is that they will enable that resource to be spent more effectively at the point at which is going to impact children's lives.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just again deter to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just again deter to the view that all of this training is done online. It is still a done online. It is still a requirement of Ofsted that every teacher when question should have a teacher when question should have a working knowledge of keeping working knowledge of keeping I'd like to ask the Minister, and avast previous ministers about this, that when keeping children safe in that when keeping children safe in education is updated, could it be done before the beginning of September so that the days can be September so that the days can be planned with the new guidance rather than the old?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than the old? I'm glad that... I think the noble Lord was reinforcing the point that I made. I will be in big trouble with my son for having outed him in this debate. I'm glad to hear that other excellent teachers have experienced this training. I think he makes a very fair point. I will certainly go back to my colleagues in the department and set, in reality, if you want people to be being trained and dated in keeping children safe in education guidance and you expect that had -- that to happen on inset day, it would be good for the guidance to be there in time for them to be able to do that.

time for them to be able to do that.
15:29
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page