Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Oral questions: Risk of legal challenges when relying on the provision in Article 21 of the Cluster Munitions Convention allowing the UK to fight alongside states that are not party to that Convention

extension of the Security Council is in sight. We are working on it very strongly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order

14:58

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since ratifying the Convention on cluster munitions, the UK has cluster munitions, the UK has regularly cooperated nonstate regularly cooperated nonstate parties including in combat. The cluster munitions prohibitions act 2010 sets out a clear UK legal framework for all UK military personnel and nationals engaging in personnel and nationals engaging in military cooperation and operations with nonstate parties to the with nonstate parties to the convention. The act enshrines the conventions prohibitions in domestic conventions prohibitions in domestic criminal law, while providing a defence in the context of international military cooperation

14:59

Lord Godson (Conservative)

- -

international military cooperation and operations with nonstate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

parties. I thank the Minister for his response. I wonder whether his response in light of the rapidly changing international situation and changing international situation and Russian lawfare is perhaps a little bit optimistic. The government is bit optimistic. The government is trusting in the strength of article 21, in the face of legal challenge. 21, in the face of legal challenge. Can I refer the Minister to the Human Rights Watch and the Harvard Law School study of 2010, which made Law School study of 2010, which made it quite clear that article 21's interoperability carveout which the previous Labour government obtained does not in fact exempt signatory does not in fact exempt signatory states from their article 1 obligation not to assist, encourage or induce the use of cluster munitions.

It concludes that the munitions. It concludes that the prohibition on assistance must apply at all times. Can the Minister assure this house that the assure this house that the government is certain that so eminent an interpretation of the convention is incorrect, so does not provide grounds for a subsequent successful legal challenge to our Armed Forces.

15:00

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

The straight answer to the question is, yes I am satisfied. And I will give a reason for that. I don't think we should forget the role of the CCM, which remains vital in protecting humanitarian norms. To this day, cluster munitions continue to pose threat to civilians with the 2024 cluster munitions monitor reporting that civilians made up 93% of cluster munitions casualties in of cluster munitions casualties in To be absolutely clear to the noble Lord, I have read his report by the way, that the term interoperability, that the members and nonmembers are clearly set out and enshrined in UK law and have functioned effectively since CMM came into force.

And since the convention's entry into force in 2010, UK forces have operated effectively, including in combat with all allies, regardless of their membership of CCM, in line with the CCM provisions on interoperability, in article 21.

15:01

Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)

- -

I thank my noble friend for the comprehensive answer he gave the noble Lord, but does he not agree with me there is a much simpler response to this question? And it is to be found in the 45 words of article 21, paragraph 3, of the convention itself, which reads as follows. " Notwithstanding the provisions of article 1 of this convention and in accordance with international law, States Parties, which includes the native kingdom, military personnel and nationals engaged in military operations with states not party to this Convention that might engage in activities prohibited to a state party." Is that not the answer?

15:02

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Maybe my noble friend has saved me some time, but I would repeat the simple fact is, since the CMM came into operation in 2010, we have done exactly that. We have done exactly that. Cooperative non-states members who are not party to the agreement, so I make my noble friend absolutely right.

15:02

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

Highlights an important point, a number of fellow NATO states have either withdrawn or never joined the convention in the first place. Obviously, Russia never signed up to it initially. There is an obligation under the convention that Gordon Brown signed us up to, to make recommendations to nonmember states. Can I ask the noble Lord whether the government has actually done that in government has actually done that in a formal way to some of our closest allies?

15:03

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Well, absolutely. We are committed to it, and I repeat, I have seen during my time as a minister, firsthand the positive impact of the United Kingdom's involvement in this. And certainly, I would pay tribute to the fantastic work of the Halo trust. And when I was in Angola, I visited those areas that were severely contaminated with such weapons. It impacted hugely not only on the safety of civilians, but on their ability to re-establish their economy after such a long war.

Period of war. I do accept, it comes back to the fundamental point about article 21, I am not making a judgement, we work with our allies, and particularly with Ukraine which is facing Russian aggression, and the use of such outrageous... I mean, Russia is also bombing civilian cities and attacking civilians and civilian buses, and we absolutely committed to defend Ukraine and its right to defend itself. I think we have to be clear, the important point about the convention is how it tries to stop this huge impact, the remnants of war, when war is over, 10 years of peace in Angola, yet people are peace in Angola, yet people are still dying from these munitions.

15:04

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

... And the very long legacy that exists due to the existence of these missions, the UK had been at the world leader in the mining, and also for the stabilisation programs and communities affected by it. But unfortunately, the number and the scale of the ODA cuts is biting very hard. Especially on initiatives such as the humanitarian action and also the stabilisation programs. In the last question, the Minister suggested I was incorrect with reductions for this, can you prove reductions for this, can you prove his case by saying these programs will now be protected?

15:05

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I did not say the noble Lord was incorrect, I said he may have more information than I have, because we are in the middle of very detailed spending reviews. While the outline figures are out, the Department has to go through a program by program process, determining how we meet the commitment of ODA. So, I was not saying he was misleading. One of the things I am very determined to do is we use all levers available to us, and is not limited to ODA.

It is not limited to only our diplomatic efforts and working with allies. We should be more innovative in how we develop and deliver these programs. Including, I might say, with the private sector.

15:06

Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)

- -

The government has made it clear, quite rightly, that we should be prepared for conflict if necessary. Unfortunately, this government, and indeed the previous government, got the reputation of the so-called legal freeloading. In other words, being restrained by an interpolation of international law, which often make it difficult for other trips to performing the way they want. Can the Minister assure me there has been a thorough analysis of Abbey legal obligations? And in the face of the possibility of war.

And the troops, as well as facing difficulties they are bound to face also find themselves walking into a legal minefield.

15:06

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Well, let me be absolutely clear to the noble Lord, ratification of the CCM and subsequent removal of cluster munitions from our inventory, does not constrain UK military capability. Nor prevent interoperability with allies. The UK has successfully developed alternative systems and policies that has allowed for effective operation with our allies since ratification with 2008 with combat. Can I also say that shortage of defence review was clearly United Kingdom Armed Forces will be a more lethal integrated force, equipped and ready for all future challenges.

15:07

Lord Dobbs (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I should declare an interest as I was actively involved in the campaign to get these horrible weapons, and indeed, I was present in Dublin when word came through that Gordon Brown had agreed that Britain should agree to the ban. Which opens the door to other countries following suit. Milos, countries following suit. Milos, given we have dealt with -- My Lords, given we have dealt with article 21, isn't the main onus on us that we ensure other countries do not withdraw from the convention and that we should use our phones as for because possible to urge them not to do so.

15:08

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Is committed member to the CCM, the United Kingdom continues to promote the norms of the convention and discourage the acquisition and use of cluster munitions by all states, irrespective of their status in the convention. So, we are absolutely undertaking what the noble friend suggests.

15:08

Oral questions: Assessment of the impact of changes to employer National Insurance contributions on charities working in the social care and special education sectors

Third oral question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to leave the question sending my name on the order paper

15:09

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

and declare my interest as vice president of the Shastri Society, and also, my involvement in many other similar charities. -- Shaftesbury Society for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the government has had to take difficult decisions to repair the public finances and repair the public finances and rebuild the public services, giving careful consideration to and properly assessing the impact of these decisions is a priority. The tax information impact note was published alongside the introduction of the bill containing the changes

15:09

Lord McColl of Dulwich (Conservative)

- -

of the bill containing the changes to employer national insurance contributions which set out the impact of the policy on individuals, businesses and civil society organisations. As I committed to your Lordships house during passage of the bill, we will continue to monitor and assess the impact and effects of these policies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government's national insurance increase to 15% plus insurance increase to 15% plus lowering the threshold to £5000 will cost charities an additional £1.4 billion annually. One in four employers are implemented in redundancies as a result. This will redundancies as a result. This will drastically cut charitable services, drastically cut charitable services, which is akin to kicking in the teeth the most vulnerable in our teeth the most vulnerable in our society. Can I ask the Minister has any assessment been made of the impact on charities serving

15:10

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

vulnerable young adult people?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I grateful to the noble Lord for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I grateful to the noble Lord for his question to the government, will cause recognise the important role charities play in our societies as a trusted and independent partner to trusted and independent partner to the public sector and deliver vital public services and also recognises public services and also recognises By unpaid carers, and this week is an opportunity to pay tribute to the valued work unpaid carers play valued work unpaid carers play throughout the UK. As I said in my opening answer, we have had to take a number of very difficult decisions but necessary decisions, including but necessary decisions, including on employer national insurance, to fix the public finances and restore economic stability for stopping doing so, we do recognise the --.

In doing so, we do recognise the --. In doing so, we recognise the doing so, we recognise the charities, which is what we have doubled the allowance to £10,500, meaning more than half the businesses including charities either gain or see no change in the amount they will pay. As I also said, we will continue to monitor and assess the impact and effect of those policies. those policies.

15:11

Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the government has already published several Comprehensive Spending Review announcements over the past week? Does he further accept that social care funding is inextricably linked to the recovery of the NHS? Will he therefore use this opportunity to reassure the House that social care will not be cut from the Comprehensive Spending Review?

15:12

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

While I do agree with the noble Ladies first statement of fact and we have already made several spending review announcements, she will know the government is making available so far 31 £7 -- £3.7 billion, including £880 million increase in the social care grant, this is part of an overall increase in local governance spending increase power, 6.8% in cash terms, in terms of future years, so the noble Lady will have to wait for Wednesday, to find out the details spending review.

15:12

Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour)

- -

In addition to their own in providing many care services, charities also perform a very important function, in speaking up for patients, users and carers. Enabling them to find their voice and claim their rights. Would my noble friend agreed that this advocacy function is extremely important, and should be supported and encouraged? I draw attention to my register of interests and thank my register of interests and thank the Minister for his acknowledgement of Carers Week.

15:13

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

I am grateful to my noble friend for her question and wholeheartedly agree with what she says. Civil society organisations do play a vital role in speaking out and advocating on behalf of their beneficiaries. This role is a fundamental part of a thriving democracy for we have a rich history of charities campaigning for change in this country. Examples span the huge breadth of the voluntary sector, from the SBC see on child protection, to the RSPCA promoting animal welfare, charities tackling global poverty and inequality, environmental charities, raising awareness of global warming and many other examples.

Civil society campaigning and advocacy roles, should have coarsely recognised and celebrated, which is why the civil society covenant framework, launched in October 2024, aims to establish a new partnership between the government and civil society organisations. It outlines four foundational pin suppose, recognition, partnership, participation, and transparency. Following extensive engagement across the sector, we are aiming to launch the civil society covenant later this year.

15:14

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

- -

Given the worrying data that has come from a national careful and, that 73% of providers reckon they will have to refuse new care packages from local authorities, or the NHS, and 22% are planning to close their businesses entirely, what consideration is the government giving to renegotiate completely the National Insurance contributions, to ensure those who are providing direct care are not actually burdened with an expenditure that risks then putting up the node and demand on the NHS itself? Under local authorities.

So that we get circle downward spiralling when excess expenditure.

15:14

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

I don't think I can give a positive answer to the main thrust of the noble Lady's question. She will know the government is making available an additional £3.7 billion of additional funding for social care authorities in 2025-26, we will set out future years allocations in the Spending Review on Wednesday. And, she notes, the government will provide support for departments and other public sector employers for the additional employer national the additional employer national The national insurance bill, we put an amendment down to assess hospices additionally, from national additionally, from national insurance increase rises, the CEO of Thames Hospice, to which I declare I am a donor, said as a result of the changes, more people will die in changes, more people will die in pain and agony than would otherwise need to be the case.

What assessment need to be the case. What assessment has the government made in terms of the actual cost of these national increases on hospices specifically? increases on hospices specifically? And what advice would you give to the Chief Executive of Thames Hospice? As the noble Lord notes, the government recognises the vital role hospices play in supporting people at the end of their life and their families, the government is determined to shift the healthcare into the community and ensure patients and their families get high quality personalised care in the most appropriate setting on hospices most appropriate setting on hospices will have a very big role to play in that shift.

The government is supporting the hospices sector, to ensure £100 million for adult and children's hospices, to ensure they have the best physical environment for care, £26 million revenue to support children and young people's hospices.

15:16

The Lord Bishop of Southwark (Bishops)

- -

The noble Lord, the Minister, will recall from the amendment I tabled, at what was then the bill at committee stage, that my twin brother was an early beneficiary of SEND transport. Will the government monitor the impact of national insurance increases for the effectiveness and continuity provision in this area? And inform the House of such findings in due the House of such findings in due

15:16

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

The answer is yes, I did commit to doing so during the legislative process for that bill. As I said then, the government do not expect changes to National Insurance to have significant impact on children with send. We've increased funding for the schools budget by £2.3 million, increasing funds. 1 billion will go towards special educational needs, as part of the spending review on Wednesday.

15:17

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

The fact is these increases have devastated the charitable sector. For example, Noah's Ark Hospice in North London said recently the rise in National Insurance represented basically £100,000 tax on that we hadn't budgeted for. Yet the need for these services has never been greater, as the Minister just acknowledged. Will he assure the house the government will not increase National Insurance contributions again? And that his review will look sector orally in detail at the effect on charities, and on hospices and social care, before the next budget?

15:18

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

In terms of the first half of the question, as the noble Lady knows as part of the changes to National Insurance the government recognises the need to protect smallest businesses and charities, which is why we did more than double the employment allowance meaning more than half of businesses with National Insurance liabilities will either gain or see no change. The government does provide a great deal of support to charities through our tax regime, one of the most generous of anywhere in the world, with over just £6 billion for the tax year from April 2024.

from April 2024.

15:18

Lord Sikka (Labour)

- -

Partners of big accountancy firms derive most of their income from one source, but despite that they are not deemed to be employed by the firm. Therefore, the firms do not pay the insurance -- the employers National Insurance as part of the profits. The big law firms are avoiding about £4 billion per year in employers National Insurance Contributions. Can I urge the Minister to look into this and bring forward reforms so that we can have much more revenue for the things we need.

15:19

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

I am grateful for his suggestions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which I will always take very seriously. That concludes Oral Questions for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That concludes Oral Questions for today. We now come to two instruments previously debated in

15:19

Business of the House

Grand Committee. Pension fund clearing obligation exemption Amendment regulations 2025, and one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other motion, Lord Wilson. With leave of the house I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With leave of the house I beg to move the motion standing in my name

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Order Paper en bloc. As many as are of that opinion,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Any members who wish to leave the

15:21

Statement: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Questions Questions on Questions on a Questions on a statement Questions on a statement made Questions on a statement made in Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 4 June, on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

15:21

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, the events we are seeing in Gaza and that we witnessed in recent weeks is truly harrowing. It's evident that dramatic change is needed from the current situation, and the level of suffering ongoing on the region on all sides is intolerable. We are clear that the deaths and casualties near distribution centres for aid should never have happened, I note public threats were issued by Hamas towards any civilians trying to access those eight points. Will the noble Lord Minister informed the House what discussions have taken place with Israel about those events and the status of any investigations.

I'm sure the whole House is agreed the government should do all it can to try and stop and alleviate this humanitarian crisis, which is escalating in the region. Written must leverage its influence to get more aid in, see the hostages released, and end the terminal situation with Hamas to achieve a proper sustainable end to the conflict. It's only after this work has been done we can begin to progress towards a better long-term future for the Palestinian and Israeli people.

We must never forget those who remain in Hamas captivity, some 58 hostages remain in the hands of this murderous terrorist organisation. They have now been in captivity for well over 600 days. We have always been clear that they must be released. We are aware of initiatives put forward by the United States, they have been rejected by Hamas. What pressure are the government exerting on Hamas, perhaps working through sympathetic Arab governments to get them to reverse their opposition to those plans. And what steps does the government intend to make next to secure the release of those hostages, which I'm sure the Minister is well aware of that it is the only true way to end this conflict.

Turning to the West Bank, the government recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority. Can the noble Lord the Minister provide an update on progress with reform and governance since that time. Strengthening credible covenants will be essential to long-term peace, we need assurance from the government they are confident these vital steps are being taken. It is after all essential, if we are ever to ensure Hamas do not maintain a grip over the region that the Palestinian Authority is strengthened and reformed.

That is also the only way we will ever reach a viable two state solution. Can I take a moment to speak about last week's Gaza demonstration outside this House. Of course, I am proud this is a free country. Everyone is entitled to protest and make their point. However, there were numerous reports of peers from all sides of this house being jostled, harassed, videoed and shouted at, including disabled members of this house. A letter has been sent to the Lord Speaker regarding some of the security failings.

That demonstration was attended and supported by about a dozen Labour members from the other place. I would be interested in the Minister's comments on whether he considers that behaviour acceptable. The gravity of the situation escalating in Gaza means the government must leverage all the influence they have in the region to try and end the suffering we are seeing. The UK has both a diplomatic tools and moral responsibility to press for meaningful change. That means doing all it can to ensure aid reaches those who need it, that hostages are returned to their families and Hamas is prevented from continuing its campaign of terror.

It also means supporting the reform and stabilisation of Palestinian governance as an essential foundation for a viable two state solution. I hope the noble Lord will be able to respond to these points in his reply.

15:25

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We are witnessing both the systematic collective punishment and brutalisation of the civilian population, combined with the weaponisation of food and medicine. The government has made a decision to annex land that is not theirs, to put in a position where women and children whose only sin is seeking aid will now literally be at risk of starving to death. These are war crimes. Civilians are dying daily from gunshot wounds inflicted as they queue for food. And yesterday the head of Save the Children US said it is reported that four children who require surgery they are waking up during surgery because there is insufficient anaesthetic.

All of the catalogue of horror in recent days, we know it three incontrovertible facts. First, Prime Minister Netanyahu's approach has not ended Hamas activities and the trauma of hostages continues, with too many turning to despair. Second, we see unabated the approach of extremist Ministers to forcibly and illegally occupy new territory. And third, the sincerely meant and genuine concern of Ministers in the UK and elsewhere is having next to no effect preventing it. The time for timid behaviour is over.

These benches have consistently called for the government to take further action, and they must do so now. We called for the sanction of extremist men -- Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich months ago because we knew we needed clear preventative action. Given the legal text of what we called for is on Ministers desks, why is the government not implementing those sanctions? Demonstrating that the UK will no longer tolerate calls for Palestinian D possession. We must cease all trade in all areas affected by these, because Netanyahu's Ministers claim illegal outpost settlements are Israeli land, which they are not.

Why has the UK not expanded action to those Ministers and members of the Knesset who supported continuation of the blockade of aid, and called for annexation. Why has the UK not ceased all arms trading with the Netanyahu government until they adhere to international humanitarian law. The Minister in the House of Commons was asked last week of our government's view of the ICJ advisory opinion on the Netanyahu government that "Policies and practices are contrary to the prohibition of forcible transfer of the protected population under article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention".

He replied, "We continue to consider the ICJ advisory opinion with the seriousness it deserves. I remind a house the opinion was in July last year, surely the government cannot any longer simply consider it but should act on the opinion. When Ministers tell me the government acts on the advisory opinion of the Chagos Islands but not on Gaza I say to the government we must not have double standards. As I said at the start of the questions, we are a witness to history.

One where we look at the continuing unconscionable horror and torture of children. We must now, with urgency and clarity, provide action which is not too late to seek to prevent the annexation of Gaza and West Bank with the UK leading others in recognising the state of Palestine. Showing beyond doubt the UK's commitment to Palestinians right to self-determination and a two state solution. With this and the other actions, these benches have outlined, might we at least try and restore process which a ceasefire could start and be honoured, and there could be some respite for those being so terribly brutalised.

15:29

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and their questions. Can I say to the noble Lord opposite, the UK has been a close and long-standing friend of Israel. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, Israel suffered a heinous attack on October 7, the government has always defended Israel's -- backed Israel's right to defend itself. We have stood with the families and demanded that their loved ones are released. However, we also have a duty to condemn Israel's latest action in Gaza.

As the Foreign Secretary has said, the Israeli government is isolating Israel from its friends and partners around the world. Undermining the interests of the Israeli people and damaging the state of Israel. Can I just say that we have been very clear in terms of condemning the comments of a number of the government Ministers, in fact Ben- Gvir and Smotrich, we have been clear in terms of condemning that outrageous language. As the noble Earl knows, I will not be tempted into foreseeing or predicting future sanctions.

We do not do that and I'm we have been absolutely clear, we were not specular, but we have been clear in our joint statement with France and Canada, if Israel does not cease the military offensive and lift restrictions on humanitarian aid, then we will take further concrete actions. We have been very strong with our partners, in opposing the expansion of Israel's military operation in Gaza and reaffirmed our cause for Israeli government to stop its military operations in Gaza and immediately allow humanitarian aid into.

On 20 May, the Foreign Secretary did announce the sanctions, to target those supporting violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank, especially surges in this type of violence. We have announced a formal proposal free trade agreement negotiations with Israel effective immediately. This is because it is not possible to advance discussions on deepening trade relationships with the Netanyahu government that is pursuing policies which are damaging to the UK, the wider region, and its own citizens. The Minister for Middle East and North Africa also summoned Israeli ambassador to discuss our severe concerns at the situation.

And we are clear that if Israel doesn't are clear that if Israel doesn't cease, the military offensive and restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take actions in response. Of course, noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also raised the ICJ, and can I just say, we are fully committed to international, and respect the independence of the ICJ. We continue, despite what the noble Lord says, we continue to consider the course advisory company in carefully. With the seriousness and rigour it deserves.

The UK commitment to a two state solution is of course unwavering. Under Become that point. But can I just say, -- Can I come back to that point, but can I just ate in all -- Can I say to all noble lords, policies have been killed when trying to access a site in Gaza. Desperate civilians who have ensured 20 months of war should never face the risk of death or injury, simply to feed themselves and their to feed themselves and their families.

We have called for the immediate and independent investigation into these events, and for the perpetrators to be held to account, including chairing a meeting of the UN Security Council on 4 June. We do not support any aid mechanism that seeks to deliver political or military objectives or puts vulnerable civilians at risk. We call on Israel to urgently engage with the UN, to ensure a return to delivery of aid in line with delivery of aid in line with humanitarian principles.

Israel's proposals to deliver aid to Gaza via private companies is dangerous for civilians and aid workers and cannot possibly deliver aid to all who need it. And we endorsed the plan for delivery put forward by the UN on 16 May, which is based on humanitarian principles, as built in litigations against a diversion, and uses established mechanisms to deliver aid at scale, which is required. Hamas must allow humanitarian assistance to be distributed without interference. I think all noble Lords understand and appreciate the seriousness of the situation and certainly, we are very focused on trying to see what leverage we can, with working with our allies, to find a solution as soon as possible.

In terms of the demonstration, I think the noble Lord is absolutely right, we can be proud of our country that does allow the right to association and freedom to demonstrate. And I think all of us in this House also respect opinions that don't necessarily agree with our own. Particularly on the subject. But I do accept that it is wrong for people to interfere with others who are going about their business, and certainly, our join him in condemning such action.

It's not acceptable at all.

15:35

Baroness Blackstone (Labour)

- -

My Lords, the statements make reference to the importance of a two state solution, if we want to get security for both Palestinians and Israelis. In light of that, could the Minister say what action, it means more than condemnation, it really does mean action, the government is taking? Given the decision by the Israeli government to build 22 new settlements on the West Bank. Settlements which are illegal and will make it more and more difficult to have a two state solution.

If you could give us some hope that we are going to take action that go beyond simple condemnation on this matter, I would be grateful. be grateful.

15:36

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I hear what my noble friend says, but since we came to office, this government has taken action. And of course, we stop the Expo forms that can be used in Gaza. And we are can be used in Gaza. And we are In discussions for the free trade agreement. We have taken action but it isn't just about punitive action, this is about working with allies to achieve that goal of a two state solution, that is why we are very committed to ensuring that the conference cohosted by France and conference cohosted by France and Saudi Arabia is a success because if we can focus all international allies, including those in the Middle East, on the importance of delivering a two state solution, then I think it won't just be punitive action this government will be taken, but it is that positive action towards a peaceful solution.

The only, I would say to my noble friend opposite, the only real secure future, both Palestinians and for Israel as a two state solution peace.

15:37

Lord Pickles (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, if there is to be a recognition of a Palestinian state, Would the Minister tell us what the boundaries are going to be of that state? And will he give an assurance that any recognition would ensure that all parties recognise the right of the Jewish people to have a state?

15:38

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Well, I think the noble Lord knows the answer, because those that have advocated a two state solution and support parties towards it obviously a precondition is the security of the state of Israel. We are absolutely committed to that. I think the progress towards a two state solution, we have been working with the Palestinian Authority let us recognise that, and we have a progress in the past, but we want to ensure that we support those in the Palestinian Authority, that can deliver the two state solution the noble Lord referred to.

I don't disagree with him, I just think that he implies I would strongly say we see recognition as part of the process towards the establishment of a two state solution. We don't see it as the end in itself. When the time is right to do that, it will be when we can deliver a more secure basis for that solution.

15:39

Lord Walney (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, the situation in Gaza is horrendous. And any new settlement building is completely wrong. It can I just press for a greater understanding of the government's position on aid delivery? Follow the logic of what the noble Lord the Minister says. That aid should not be delivered on any critical military objective. But then what does the government think of the age that has got in until now? When the noble Lord, the Minister, sees Hamas gunmen on top of a trucks, and sees the Hamas operatives threatening death to anyone who takes age not through that route, surely the government does understand that that route is also fundamentally compromised.

also fundamentally compromised.

15:40

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Well, the only word I disagree with, from my noble friend, is the way fundamental. Because we have been working with all UN agencies and other NGOs, to ensure that Hamas does -- Does not interfere. At that interference is something we strongly condemn. But something we know is the delivery of aid by private companies is dangerous for civilians and aid workers and cannot possibly deliver aid to all but needed and that is why we continue to press the government of Israel to permit the full unhindered resumption of aid flows through Gaza, that should take place immediately.

By far the most effective way to meet the desperate needs of the Gazan people at the speed and scale needed is via overland routes, that is through the UN agencies and other NGOs we have supported to deliver that aid.

15:41

Lord Grocott (Labour)

- -

For as long as most of us can remember, ministers like my noble friend have been talking about the two state solution is being the holy Grail that gets us all out of their difficulties. It is time now that we recognise the simple truth, which I asked him to confirm, that the present government in Israel, and indeed almost any reconfiguration of it we could imagine, is implacably composed in principle to any suggestion of a Palestinian state, and indeed, as Lord Pickles helpfully reminded us, there is a boundary that could be seen to provide one at the moment.

Now, what we need to be doing is to try and unlock that hopeless position of the Israelis vetoing any independence whatsoever to the people of the West Bank or East Jerusalem, and take the opportunity of the Saudi Arabia and French initiative and take some movement towards breaking the logjam to say that yes, we will, the UK government, with allies, will recognise a Palestinian state. Because until everyone, including the Israelis, recognise the imperative requirement for that, there will be no peace.

This there will be no peace. This

15:43

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Well, if only it was a question of the United Kingdom recognising a Palestinian state. Either course mallow selling position is that we will do so, we will recognise a Palestinian state, at a time that is most conducive to the peace process and the realisation of a Palestinian state, it is one thing to say yes will recognise, it's another thing to see a secure situation established whether Palestinian people can live securely in a neighbourly way with the state of Israel, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, says.

So, we will recognise when it will be conducive to delivering that objective. And I understand, I mean, everyone in this chamber has had its hopes raised for peace in the Middle East, certainly peace in the Middle East, certainly since 1948. And I think we have got to be more renewed in our efforts to deliver that because the humanitarian situation, those extremists in the Israeli government have shown what they can do, the situation in Gaza is absolutely evidence of that and we must not tolerate it.

15:44

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry on the register of interest. And hearing and listening very carefully to my noble friend, Lord Pickles, I would say there are plans, there are people in Israel, there are people within the Palestinian Authority, there are people amongst all communities, who want peace and peace now. We all agree, as one, irrespective of the need to get aid in, I have sent to the Minister before, use the air routes, unblock them, work with the United States, Egypt, and Jordan, and get aid delivered, and work with all sides to ensure that aid gets in.

But my question is quite a specific one. There is a peace plan from a former premise of Israel, and a former Foreign Minister of the Palestinian Authority, it works on the two state solution, including in the definition of boundaries, but importantly recognise the sacred nature of these Jerusalem. And indeed, as a place, which is sacred to the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the Christian community. There are plans and people who are wishing to engage. Will the Minister if you are me that he will run back ensure me that he will ensure His Majesty is engage with all these parties, because ultimately peace is inevitable.

inevitable.

15:45

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Well, I think at the noble Lord is absolutely right in terms of the people of Israel, and I am very careful to draw a clear distinction between people of Israel and the current government of Israel. It is the current government of Israel that is pursuing this awful policy He is right to draw attention to a range of options in terms of the peaceful discussions. That is why I think the initiative by France and Saudi Arabia is really important, because it can convene people and we talked about before, in the earlier question about the convening power of the United Nations, which is absolutely vital.

I don't think we can take an exclusive approach to the peace process, it has to be as inclusive as possible. But one thing we are determined to do is to support the reforms within the Palestinian Authority, to strengthen its work, and strengthen its credibility, amongst the Palestinian people and we are determined to do that. Can I just say in relation to his question on aid, he knows, if we his question on aid, he knows, if we could have a lift into it, we would explore every mechanism to get aid in, but as he has repeatedly reassured me, when I was in opposition, and he was a minister, there is only one and he was a minister, there is only 1 Real Successful Way to get the amount of aid in that is needed into Gaza.

That is true the road routes. We are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have plenty of time, the

15:47

The Lord Bishop of Southwark (Bishops)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bishop first then LibDem. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Minister and His Majesty's Minister and His Majesty's Government for the statement on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. May I press the noble Territories. May I press the noble Lord Minister on two things. Firstly, the attack by Israeli forces on the compound of the Anglican al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza, killing five. Including three journalists and a father is courting his son to the surgical unit for treatment from prior injuries.

This is the latest in a number of attacks by the IDF on church hospitals and churches in defiance of international law. Will the Minister accept specific actions are now required, since reasonable pleas have been ignored. Secondly, in light of what the Minister has said about the UN conference from the 17th to 20 June, and talking about conducive time to recognise Palestine, will he recognise that a bold and clear statement will be made at that conference on the firm intention of government to recognise the state of Palestine.

15:48

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I would say to be right Reverend Prelate that I have been clear in relation to when we will recognise the state of Palestine, that is when it is most conducive to the two state solution. We will work with allies to ensure that we can create those conditions. I think the conference is part of that, but it isn't the sole part. I also think he is right in condemning the actions in Gaza and the occupied territories in terms of the use of violence.

I think we can all be very concerned. I would point out, it is frustrating to sort of appear to think we are not doing anything. We are absolutely determined to work with our allies so that the government of Israel understands fully our concerns. And of course, we voted on June 4 in favour of the resolution in the UN security, which was focused on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We highlighted that the Israeli government's decision to expand its military operations in Gaza severely restrict aid, they are totally unjustifiable, disproportionate and counter- productive.

And with our allies we have called for its end to the restriction on aid. We believe that UN and other humanitarian partners must be allowed to operate. And we must be able to get back to the situation where we can get aid where it is most needed. Of course, on 19 May we released a joint statement with Canada and France calling for Israel to cease its renewed military offensive and lift restrictions. So we are using what mechanisms we can.

We are also using specific actions bilaterally against the government of Israel, and of course the initial one was the restrictions on arms sales, and also the trade agreement. We are absolutely committed to ensuring we work with our allies to ensure that the government of Israel knows our deep concern on this situation.

15:51

Baroness Janke (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, what is the government's response to reports claiming that thousands of items listed under the category bombs grenades torpedoes missiles mines and similar munitions of war were exported from the UK to Israel, as well as for shipments described under customs codes as tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles. All reportedly delivered after the government suspended licence for equipment that could be used offensively in Gaza in September. Will the government take firm action to ensure weapons from the UK are not being used to commit war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank and occupied territories?

15:52

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Can I absolutely reassure the noble Lady that the UK is not arming Israel's war in Gaza. We can categorically, we do not export any bombs or ammunition for use in military operations in Gaza. As I have repeatedly said, one of the first acts of this government was to review and suspend export licences that could be used by the Israeli defence forces in Gaza. We have successfully implemented that suspension, and continue to refuse all relevant licence applications.

I have also seen press reports, we do not recognise the suggestion that arms exports from the UK to Israel increased following 7 October 2023, which covers a period under the last government. The government took decisive action upon taking action initiating a review of international humanitarian law on that day. I can categorically say we are not exporting bombs or ammunition for use in military operations.

15:53

Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Crossbench)

- -

Everyday in prayers in this house we pledge to put aside personal interest, prejudices and partial affections, that is so called friendships. And yet we look in a benevolent way to the Israeli government, accused of genocide, war crimes and the weapon icing of hunger against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. And unbelievably, yes, continue to supply arms and intelligence to Israel. Will the noble Lord the Minister agree that in the 21st-century it is imperative that we look beyond political or friendships or economic gain, and base our foreign policy on the Christian and seek teaching of looking to the wider well-being of all, including Palestinians.

15:54

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I think I gave in response to an earlier question and absolutely categorical assurance that we are not arming Israel with bombs and ammunition that could be used in Gaza. I categorically say that. Can I just say that I think we are faced with a situation here, Israel has the right to defend itself. What the government of Israel doesn't have the right to do is to deny humanitarian aid into Gaza. We have made that position absolutely clear.

And of course, we are absolutely focused on ensuring that aid gets in. I think as we have debated on many times, the real solution comes when we can create the situation which I believe the majority of Israeli citizens want. They want peace, they want to live with their neighbour, and they want a secure state. But so do the Palestinians. And that two state solution is something we should absolutely be aimed towards. That is the condition for peace.

Living side-by-side with neighbours in a peaceful way. neighbours in a peaceful way.

15:55

Baroness Berger (Labour)

- -

I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is desperate, with many thousands of civilians needing food and medical supplies. Access to aid must be safe and rapidly expanded. I was in Israel discussing these issues with opposition leaders the week before last. They are clear that this war must stop and that the hostages need to come home as a top priority. An election will take place in Israel next year, and every poll since October 7 points to Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition being ejected from office.

What steps is this government taking to strengthen those Israelis and Palestinians serious about the compromises necessary for progress towards peace and the two state solution we all want to see.

15:56

Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Of course, the government of Israel is a matter for the people of Israel. It is for them to decide. But I am confident the majority of people in Israel do want peace and want the things my noble friend has said. But I think what the most important thing this government can do is to work with our allies, particularly in the Middle East, to ensure that the agenda for the conference on the two state solution is absolutely focused on the means to deliver it.

And to ensure that we can create those conditions my noble friend has said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the timer has now elapsed for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the timer has now elapsed for this part of the business, I propose this part of the business, I propose a short pause so that the next

15:58

Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - committee stage (day 3)

15:58

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

I beg to move the house do now again resolve itself into a committee on the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the house do now resolve itself into a committee now resolve itself into a committee on the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The After clause 4, Amendment 66,

15:59

Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Grey-Thompson. I speak to Amendment 66 in my name and that of Lady Walmsley and name and that of Lady Walmsley and Lord Moynihan. This is a probing amendment, and the core aim is to amendment, and the core aim is to further protect children. In January this year the house debated my Private Member's Bills on the Private Member's Bills on the mandatory reporting on child sex abuse. It ties in very well with Amendment 107B in this group of Lord Watson, which I think we are all Watson, which I think we are all very keen to see the recommendations implemented in full.

I'm not to implemented in full. I'm not to prejudge what the noble Lady the prejudge what the noble Lady the Minister may say, but I'm possibly to be told there's another vehicle for this amendment. I think this is for this amendment. I think this is where the off debate. From Rotherham to Rochdale there have been far too many children abused. And too few perpetrators to justice. We must continue to learn from our past mistakes. And this amendment is a step towards ensuring the positive changes are being made.

This amendment seeks to ensure adults in position of authority over children in regulated activities would have a legal requirement to report any suspicion of or knowledge of child sexual abuse. Regulated activities include those in education, healthcare, sports and others, which are fully listed in the schedule. I recognise this is a children's schools and health and well-being bill, but I am keen that the protection goes much wider than just schools. I am keen to hear what Lord Moynihan might say around duty of Moynihan might say around duty of care.

This amendment doesn't seek to criminalise the general public, rather it seeks to ensure those in positions of authority have a duty to speak up and protect children. This is often teachers, also coaches and support workers. They are able to put the safety and needs of children first because they spent a lot of time with children. We have heard that upward reporting in an institution is sufficient, sadly we have seen it's not. Whether it's because of possible damage to reputation, concerns over implications or something more sinister, it's clear we need stricter guidance on how to report child sex abuse.

In March 2020 the Office for National Statistics estimated at 3.1 million adults in England and Wales have experienced sexual abuse before the age of 16. In October 2022, XR estimated more than one in six girls and one in 20 boys are being sexually abused in on average, it expects 26 years to report abuse. It is estimated one in three children abused by an adult told someone. Our system is failing the victims of child sexual abuse and changes need to be made, too frequently there is a lack of understanding surrounding child sex abuse across professions and organisations working with children.

Raising public awareness and providing training and support for all is essential. My Lords, a significant number of people support some version of mandatory reporting. What we need to do as legislators is ensure the right protections are put in place. I beg to move.

16:02

Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)

- -

After clause 4, insert the new clauses suspended on the Marshalled list. -- As printed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lady for putting this on the Order Paper putting this on the Order Paper today. I would like to quote from a speech that I made on 26 June 2014. speech that I made on 26 June 2014. Tune after the terrible crimes of Jimmy Savile had been analysed in the Lampard report. Of course, our the Lampard report. Of course, our campaign for mandatory reporting of child abuse went back at least a child abuse went back at least a decade before that.

But the case showed clearly what happens when people who know do not tell. I realise, as the noble Baroness does as well, that the Minister might tell us that this is the wrong bill tell us that this is the wrong bill to explore this issue. But I have always taken every opportunity to always taken every opportunity to raise the issue and that is why I am doing it again today. I said on that occasion that I have always felt that a child is his or her own best protected.

We can do our best to protect the child but we cannot sit on my shoulder the whole time. This is why it is important children are taught in school how to protect their own personal integrity. They are also needing to be told what a healthy non-abusive relationship looks and feels like. And who to turn to in case of fear of actual abuse. And I still believe that this is every child's right. I went on to say that we must minimise the opportunity for perpetrators to reach vulnerable children and I talked about the shortcoming of the DBS checks, which are not enough, as they only identify those who have offended before.

And our no use against first-time offenders or those who are clever enough to avoid detection. This is still the case. Now, in that situation, the knowledge or suspicion of abuse by adults around the child is a vital ingredient of protection. We need to ensure that those who know all suspect what is going on report what they know to an appropriate and responsible person. I mentioned that lawyers who acted for dozens of Jimmy Savile's victims have told me that the most shocking revelation of all was the number of victims who had reported what had happened at the time in to someone in their institution.

Only for them to be ignored and their claims covered up. One girl in Stoke Mandeville told a nurse what the Jimmy Savile had done, only to be told you are making a mountain, you silly girl, do you know what he does for our hospital? How shocking. That is why I believed then and I still believe 11 years later, that we need a clear and comprehensive mandatory reporting of child abuse system. Which would make it an offence, with clear penalties for those in a position of trust, in a regulatory activity, to fail to report, or acknowledge, reasonable suspicion of abuse.

The person making the report need not know for sure abuse was taking place. That is for the competent authorities to decide, after investigation. Reasonable suspicion is all that is needed. The amendment we have before us refers to regulated activity. As defined in the Children Act 2004, and the safeguarding vulnerable groups act of 2006. Both of which I well remember. Although, the definitions would need amending to exclude such confidential health lines such as Childline. These measures have been successfully in operation in Australia for years, so I do not believe it would be a problem here.

I am grateful for the advice of Professor Ben Matthews about the Australian system. He also advised IICSA, the idea that there would be a lot of mendacious reporting did not occur in Australia. In any case, one cannot fail to lift a stone, for fear of the slime one might find underneath. Often, Childline advisers would encourage children to report abuse themselves to a trusted adult. In that situation, the child must be able to have the confidence that, if they do so, the disclosure will be properly dealt with and no concerns about reputational damage should get in the way of that adult doing the right thing by the child.

The only way children can have that confidence is to make failure to report abuse on offence. When a child gets up the courage to confide in a trusted adult about abuse, they do so, because they want it to stop. Imagine how that child feels when nothing is done. The intention of the amendment is not to put people in prison, except in the most egregious cases. But to change the culture. I believe that it would help workers to report abuse, if they saw it as a public duty, not as telling tales.

There is also considerable public support for this. Even in an independent poll, in the public in 2014 for 76% of people supported it. I'm not sure what the figure would be now, but in the years since then, given the revelations of mass grooming gangs abusing young girls for years, and nobody believing the children, I would think the figure might be even higher now. I do urge noble Lords to support the amendment.

16:08

Lord Moynihan (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, this amendment is both necessary and important and is a credit to the noble Baronesses Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Walmsley, who most eloquently moved it. And for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse to be firmly placed on the statutory book. My Lords, child abuse, whether in the form of Is a testable, and I welcome the recognition that the amendment should capture the importance of child sexual abuse, also in schools, and sports clubs, as covered in schedule 1A, S1, in each case of sexual abuse of children, it is one case too many.

In sport, it is compounded because it takes place in a relationship of trust, responsibility, and abuse of power and breach of that trust. The influence, my Lords, that a sports coach of physical education teacher has over children is disproportionately compounded by the physical nature of proximity in sport. The near total control which can be exercised over an ambitious child seeking success in the world of sport. We have seen how prevalent this is in the world of gymnastics, football, athletics, to name just three spots which have witnessed the ugliness of child sexual abuse.

Taking each in turn, for decades, this was a problem festering at the heart of gymnastics. For far too long, coaches and teachers have been able to act with total impunity, forcing young children to experience extreme training programs, whilst bullying and humiliating dissenting voices into silence. Some coaches have abused their power and authority to commit terrible crimes against the children they should have been caring for. Living lives destroyed in their wake. And in the wake of the Me Too Movement, numerous prominent gymnasts spoke out about the bullying and discrimination and abuse they experienced in sport in schools and in clubs.

As a result, the review was commissioned an independent report examined the allegations of mistreatment in the sport of gymnastics. My Lords, predatory coaches and teachers were allowed to move from school to school and gym to gym, undetected by a system of oversight. Predatory coaches and teachers work to conceal abuses. A child abuse scandal involving the abuse of young players in football clubs began in November 2016 and by the end of 2021, 16 men have been charged with the historical sexual abuse offences, 15 of whom were tried.

My Lord, one was head of PE at a school in Birmingham, another, a secondary school teacher. In athletics, a documentary Nowhere to Run in the UK concerned the sexual abuse of athletes by a coach and how athletes try to deal with the impact of the abuse. Of the current situation, as noble Lords no in this committee, is that while child safeguarding our mandatory, thereof some very statutory and is that I welcome it. However, we need to go further.

Those measures did not deter many of the cases that have come to light. And there is no law that compels everyone to report child sexual abuse. Despite the promises for action within the Crime and Policing Bill, there is no criminal sanction for failing to report child sexual abuse under the mandatory reporting plan. We need to go further in a duty to report, which may be referred to a professional brigade, where applicable, or the disclosure and barring services would consider their suitability to continue working in regulated activity with children.

I joined the noble Baronesses in their view that there should be professional criminal sanctions to fail to report or cover up child sexual abuse, which they have placed on the face of the amendment they have tabled. My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey Thompson, has worked on a duty of care and safeguarding and has led at work, I have been privileged to support on it for over 20 years. We have sought to create a sports ombudsman or sports duty of Care Quality Commission, who would also have duty of care with all schools.

We have sought to develop an independent benchmark survey to measure duty of care, to monitor whether duty of care policies are working and to inform future policy and investment decisions. And we have sought to ensure there is a duty of care Guardian. One, my Lords, I hope in every school, with the responsible 84 engaging with participants in school sports as well as those young people across the talent pathways, and in communities of sport. Today, we can go on step further, my Lords, we can rectify the position of the absence of a well-designed mandatory reporting law at the heart of the safeguarding shortcomings in a no settings, like sport and recreational schools.

My Lords, let the lessons of the past protect the children of tomorrow. And let those of us who I hope one day will vote for this amendment, if it is not accepted by the Minister today, take the lead for future generations. the lead for future generations.

16:13

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I think this is an extremely important amendment and I have a slight concern that the Minister, in replying, may say that the Crime and Policing Bill is the place for such an amendment. But the problem with the proposals in that is based on age. Whereas this amendment is much more subtle, in terms of responding to the emotional entrapment that goes on in grooming, the activity that goes on in grooming, and the difficulty of sexual abuse being perpetrated at all ages.

There are five areas which I think would have to go along with this. Which is a public health awareness over the dangers of the early stages of emotional entrapment, leading to grooming, that lead onto sexual abuse. And the pressures that children are under. Therefore, an awareness overall across society that none of this is acceptable, with training and support for all those who have any responsibility for children. And clear pathways, when there is suspicion for people who can really deal with this sensibly.

Because one of the situations that comes to mind is the child who goes into see their GP, perhaps as a teenager, and is seeking contraceptive advice. I may actually in a sexual -- They may actually be in a sexual relationship where they have been coerced and pressured and groomed and are really trapped with the person abusing them, even if that is somebody who was also very young, and there may be an imbalance in a relationship, particularly if it is a child who is desperate for love and affection and closeness altogether in their lives.

So, when legislation is introduced, which it must be, it will also need good scientific proper evaluation, not just a sort of tick box review, but really a proper study to see how it is working. I was glad to hear that the noble Lady, Baroness Grey- Thompson, introducing this probing amendment, simply because there was a change I would like to see on it. a change I would like to see on it. And that is in the amendment, refers to healthcare, including GP services, I would like that they be extended to primary care services, given a lot of primary care services occur out in the community's.

District nurses and community nurses are coming into people's homes, and they will be places that pickup where something a fight, particularly if there is one parent or sometimes even to parents who are real, and needing input. -- Are ill The slight concern I have a riverbed that says the period of seven days before it comes to the knowledge of the provider, I would say that simply from experience of having been a GP that sometimes you can have some suspicions but you can't put a finger right.

And you need more than seven days to begin to ask questions and explore it. But that's not to criticise this amendment, I think it's extremely well drafted and brought together. And I do hope the Minister will actually take the contents of this forwards, even the it was proposed as a probing amendment.

16:17

Lord Meston (Crossbench)

- -

I would like to support amendment 66 and the proposed introduction of a mandatory reporting requirement for sexual abuse, in accordance not just with the speeches we have heard but also the carefully reasoned recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. In simple terms, failure to report known or reasonably suspected abuse puts the child concerned at future risk. And it can make a person failing to report complicit in what has happened and in what may later happen to the victim of that abuse, and indeed to others.

Moreover, a failure to report prevents a proper and prompt investigation of the abuse, and can deprive the victim of appropriate treatment and support. A failure to report is a failure to protect. All that is obvious. But it is a complex area. There are only few cases when it can be truly known that abuse has occurred, because it is largely an un-witnessed crime. Accordingly, under the terms of this amendment, the person expected to report must have reasonable grounds for suspicion.

If the child is young that suspicion could well depend on the adults understanding of what the child has said or tried to say, or on an interpretation of the child's behaviour. That may not be easy, particularly if the person concerned does not know the child well or the structure or dynamics of the child's family. These difficulties should not be made worse for victims of child sexual abuse by failures to report, and by deflection of evidence of abuse for the sort of reasons and excuses so clearly described by the report of the independent inquiry.

In particular, from a misguided desire to protect the alleged perpetrators or institutions. In the sort of cases dealt within the family court, schools can often be the first to realise there may have been some type of abuse. And some school staff understandably can be nervous of the reaction of angry family members if allegations are made. I recall a case in which the teacher admitted not acting when he saw obvious injuries to a child, simply because he was reluctant to get involved in making the statements and reports that might be required.

If there is to be a duty in law underpinned by criminal sanctions, as the amendment proposes, it will be particularly important that it is made known to all who will be subject to that duty, and that where possible they have guidance on how to record and manage disclosure and evidence of possible sexual abuse. It can be crucial to avoid inappropriate questioning of a child and repeated questioning of that child. May I just change the focus slightly towards cases arising in the family context.

The child safeguarding practice review panel's cogent and disturbing report in November 2024, entitled "I want them all to notice", stated that over the past 20 years or so the light on the sexual abuse of children within families has gradually deemed. We have witnessed a worrying evaporation of the skills and knowledge that professions, leaders and practitioners must have to work confidently and sensitively in this complex area. This dilution of focus and expertise may be partly explained by the greater public and professional attention on the sexual abuse of children in institutions, by famous people, and on the sexual exploitation of children outside their home.

This was undoubtedly urgently required, but it may also have drawn our eyes away from the more common experience for children, sexual abuse in their families. It goes on to suggest that moral outrage that can accompany media attention on extra familial sexual abuse has perhaps distracted attention from the more commonplace nature of familial abuse. And that in turning our attention away from the latter we have undermined the confidence and capability of professionals to identify and respond to sexual abuse in families.

The panel called for a national strategic response, and I would suggest that approval of this amendment would be an important step in that response. There should be a mandatory duty to which all professionals should adhere. professionals should adhere.

16:22

Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)

- -

I very strongly support this amendment, and agree with everything that has been said so far. Particularly the very important and valuable contribution by the noble valuable contribution by the noble Lord best. He like I tried many child sexual abuse cases, it's a sad part of the work family judges do that there are so many sexual abuse cases, from babies to 17. And they are all absolutely terrible. And it is important to remember that there are two sorts of sexual abuse, those within the family and those without.

As the noble Lord has just said, there has been less of a mirror looking at that than there has been on other aspects of strangers abusing children. It is extraordinary in some ways that we don't already have mandatory reporting. Because it's so obvious, and it's so important. There are so many people out there, certainly members of families who know what is going on, and don't what to do. If in fact they know that they have an obligation to tell, I'm talking about siblings, I'm talking about aunts, uncles, grandparents, because this is a very serious part.

I don't know whether the noble Lords realise that the majority of sexual abuse is within the family, although there is far to much for outsiders. If it's within the family it becomes increasingly important that those around the child who do know -- don't know what to do have an obligation to do something effective. I do hope the noble Lady the Minister will recognise that this is long overdue. It either has to come into this bill or into the crime and policing Bill, preferably into both.

Because one group of people who have not so far been referred to are of course the police. If it's a pretty obvious case of sexual abuse to a local authority employee, the absolutely crucial thing that employee has to do is go immediately to the police. Don't let us forget it, any sexual abuse of any child or young person is a crime.

16:25

Lord Bichard (Crossbench)

- -

I thought it necessary to add my voice to support this amendment. It may be that we want to talk about the vehicle, it may be that we want to talk about the drafting. But I think it's really important that this House makes absolutely clear that on the principle there is agreement around mandatory reporting, because that hasn't always been the case. And that's the first massive step to dealing with first massive step to dealing with this issue.

I only otherwise wanted to say how pleased I was to hear Lord Moynihan's contribution. I have to say that in 2012 when I spoke in this chamber against the watering down of vetting and barring I was told roundly that we should have an exemption for all sports clubs and all societies, because they were exempt last. I think the last 12 years has shown us how wrong that would have been, the last 12 years have also shown us how important this amendment is.

16:26

Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)

- -

I rise to speak to amendment 107B in this group in my name. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the same legal rights apply to a child in care as those which apply to children living with their families. In that sense it's linked to amendment 69 AB, which I shall move later today. The final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, henceforth referred to as IICSA, in 2022 high like the fact that the family court can limit the parents responsibility but is unable to intervene in the same way with corporate.

The report recommended a new " Route by which children in care can apply to the family courts for orders to mandate or limit a local authority's exercise of its parental responsibility". Which is what this new clause 6 to achieve. There are many recognisable flaws in the system, among them children being moved from settled homes, children being sent many miles from their home area, siblings being split up, children forced to move areas ahead of critical exams, children desperately unhappy with where they are living and being told there's nowhere else for them to go, and children approaching their 18th birthday woefully unprepared for life ahead of them.

Incredible as it sounds, it's still common for children in care to be told they must register as homeless once they reach their 18th birthday. It's not difficult to understand why that often causes unbearable stress and anxiety affecting all areas of the child's life. The family court is able to intervene in how parents exercise their parental responsibility, yet it has no equivalent power in respect of corporate parents, when looked after children are the most vulnerable in our society. As the report claimed, courts can make decisions about children not care but only local authorities can make decisions about children who are in care.

That's an inconsistency I believe needs to be confronted and brought to an end. IICSA considers the role of the Independent reviewing Officer, the ability of children in care to discharge care orders, to bring claims under the Human Rights Act 1998, and judicial reviews. It found each of these systems of protection to be insufficient. Exam acts once children can't have a legal mechanism whereby the exercise of a local authority's parental responsibility could be put under the spotlight and subject to restriction and obstruction where necessary.

This new clause will implement the recommendation six, by giving children who are the subject of a care order the legal means of challenging the corporate parents actions, and perhaps equally importantly in actions. When a child is at risk of suffering harm this new clause will enable the family court to make an order to prohibit the family taking action that could be harmful to the child. The family court will also have an order to make the local authority take particular action to safeguard or protect the child's welfare.

On 16 January in another place Home Secretary made a clear statement that the government would set out a plan for implementing all 20 of the final recommendations. They are tackling child -- the update set out in April set out how children's access to services will be strengthened through advised -- revised standards and guidance. This is a long way from incrementing exam acts recommendation six, the purpose of which is to give children in care a new legal mechanism to challenge the actions of their corporate parent when they are likely to cause the child significant harm.

Such a measure will go hand-in-hand with effective independent advocacy services, because it's likely to be independent advocates to assist children in care to access this new legal safeguard. We all know IICSA was a seven-year inquiry with devastating evidence on the way our whole host of institutions consistently failed vulnerable children. This recommendations must be taken seriously, and as I said earlier the government is on record as committing to all 20 As the noble Baroness said Baroness Finlay in introducing her amendment, it may well be the case my noble friend will suggest the bill is a more appropriate vehicle for this amendment.

I would say to that, if so why does it not appear in the Crime and Policing Bill? Because it is I believe a very important step. I do hope my honourable friend will be a bit more positive about that and able to offer a commitment where she will return a report to the government amendment to make children in care legally equal to children in the community.

16:31

Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I rise very briefly to illustrate the importance of the noble Baronesses amendment, 66. I was making a speech in whole in 2017 and Hull was the city of Culture. As I was talking about and comes in and when she sees me she almost faints and buckles. I thought that is very strange. Anyway I finished my speech and when everybody had asked for a selfie and an autograph. This woman came towards me and says, I am sorry I react that way but when I was eight I was fostered.

And my foster parents had two sons. And every day they used to come home and sexually abuse me. The only thing that got me through it flow well was to see yours :-). I so wanted to scream out and tell you but I knew someone out there loved me. I am now 48-year-old woman and every time I am going through a dark period of my life I think of you and so I wish I could have told you back then.

My Lords, that is why it is important children should know there should be somebody and there is somebody they can speak to about the kinds of abuse this 48 old women is now reliving because as I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime.

16:33

Lord Lucas (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment six nine Eight in this group. It speaks to itself, I look forward to the Minister's response.

16:33

Baroness Berridge (Conservative)

- -

I rise briefly to speak to amendment 66 having spoken in the Private Members Bill. And also gave evidence to the independent in and I believe at that time in my -- if I am the remembering correctly the government's position was that this was under consideration. I am really grateful to see this recommendation from IICSA has been taken forward endorse the recommendation for a char protection agency which the subject of a later amendment. I wish to make just two very brief points.

Firstly I think it is important to remember is the noble Lord Moylan handset -- has said there are some settings where there are large institutions with disciplinary processes already in place but many of the organisations outlined in schedule one a what is probably more appropriately called out out-of- school settings. Those can be even not incorporated charities often. And if they are the result of propagation and duty they have are there from the trust. Not part of any wider network. I believe it is really important to put this mandatory reporting obligation on those who are involved in an increasing number of charities, who do excellent work that they are standing sometimes in a very vulnerable government situation.

A second point connected to that is there have been previous discussions in your Lordships house. I think with the noble Lord Lord Flynn in relation to some suggestion that has been floated around over the years of some kind of confessional exemption in the context of religious institutions of. I think the days when we could nail down who those religious institutions were, maybe some synagogues, if you nonconformist churches in the Catholic Church are long gone. And so I really do not see and I hope this can be hit on the head, how can we practically have any confessional type exemption if we have such a wide variety of institutions nowadays? In fact increasingly within the Christian community although the Catholic Church is seeing a resurgence, increasingly young people are going to these independent churches that may not be a member of any network.

I do hope that can just be... I do not see how practically nowadays that works and I would hate for any confusion around that hold what is an incredibly important amendment and is way overdue.

16:35

Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, when I was a vicar in the early '80s five young women came to see me. And for had been abused by their fathers. And the youngest was eight at the time it happened. Working with them, listening to them, finding help that will restore really who they truly were was a very long journey. I am glad to say that all of them have now taken on professional jobs that you did not think possible.

One of them has had the courage to report her father and is now doing a sentence, he is now doing a sentence, albeit a very long one. And working with those young women I come originally from Uganda. I never imagined that a father could abuse and nature old girl. -- An eight-year-old girl. I just thought this was outrageous but I have listened and we had to find a way of helping them. Families, friends, most of the abuse of young children happens in the homes.

We need to work very hard so the message is clear. Reminded again those wonderful word by The Lord Bishop. I heard him speak in the inquiry into the murders. One of the wonderful phrases he had in that report which has sustained me and my work for people being abused, he said we will never succeed in preventing child sexual abuse but we can make it very difficult for the abusers to do it. And therefore mandatory reporting for me is quite unimportant like an important reality.

When I appeared before IICSA I was asked the question and I said, mandatory reporting must actually happen because that is the only way we are going to make it difficult for those who want to carry out their heinous crimes. They will know that it will not remain hidden. But because it is in the homes, most of it, at least in my experience, we have got to find a message that actually can remind that it may be behind closed doors in an apparently loving home where people's lives have actually been blighted.

So I want to support amendment 66. Maybe all really in the noble Baroness, the Minister at least say something that can capture the imagination of this nation. Don't just look out in the big organisations but what actually happens in the home. happens in the home.

16:39

Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I give my thanks to Baroness Grey-Thompson for putting this amendment down. We can talk in Parliamentary language but it is when you hear an example that Baroness Benjamin told us, you suddenly realise or you don't suddenly realise but you know the appalling effects child abuse has on children. And young people. And they often carried out for the rest of their lives and they carry it in their lives and they carry it in silence. -- They often carry it for the rest of their lives and they carry it in silence.

This is about changing the culture where the responsibility is not to pretend you are telling tales or all this is a friend of mine and I should not say this, if you suspect child abuse is happening you have to do some thing about it. I just wonder, recently of course we have heard all of the sort of problems of the Church of England that they have faced. We have heard various clergy say well I did not think it was that important, already do so and so.

If we had this in law than those prominent clergy would have had a responsibility in law to speak out. And those abuses over many decades to young people not at school but in various holiday camps I understand would not have taken place. We think by saying we have ticked the box, we have CBR checks and -- CRB checks on the data barring service that is all sorted in schools. It is not. When we come to the school's part of this particular bill and we look at own regulated schools, particularly I have to say religious unregistered schools there are examples which have come to light of children who have been abused in unregistered settings.

Again I do not think that has really happened and I better not blow the whistle on this, that is the case. Various members in this House know that. I think this is really important as an amendment. I do not care which bill it comes in but we really need to make sure it passes into law.

16:41

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, the noble Baroness Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley made a predictably powerful case for the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse and in particular highlighted the terrible scale, impact and extent of it. I do not disagree with them and they say the system is currently failing the victims and my noble friend, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea gave very powerful examples from the world of sport. In my experience this is one of the most difficult areas both to legislate on and to implement that legislation.

And implement that legislation effectively. We know from a range of terrible cases in this area including of course the rape gangs scandals of recent years, even when a disclosure is made whether by a child or even when a professional makes a disclosure directly with the police or the local authority, those disclosures are not always listened to. We also know from the international research that mandatory reporting has led to enormous increases in recorded incidents and perhaps that is a very important contributor to the culture change which the noble Lord, Lord Storey rightly identifies is so badly needed.

There is Phil -- there is still of course an enormous gap between recorded incidents and the prosecution of the offenders concerned. If I have concerns about the amendment it would be in a couple of areas. One is on the impact of weather are volunteers who play -- where there are volunteers who play an important role and how that might affect their willingness to take on voluntary and unpaid activity. But perhaps the most important one really is to think through the issues where there are suspicions rather than disclosures.

As we have heard the majority of child sexual abuse happens within families. Handling that in practice with the implication of children being taken into care while allegations are made against a parent or a stepparent or a sibling or step sibling, I am not saying in the case that abuse is happened that is not important to do but I think we need to think through and the government needs to think through very carefully the implications of that and the disruption and fracturing of important fracturing of important relationships in children's lives.

I note the government plans to introduce mandatory reporting where there is a disclosure. In the crime -- in the Crime and Policing Bill. Where abuse has been observed. And I have some sympathy with that as a starting point. I hope very much we can keep a lens on this terrible issue and have the greatest respect for my noble friend, Lord Moynihan who says he has been working with Baroness Grey-Thompson for over 20 years. I have the greatest respect for the tenacity and patience on such a difficult subject.

I was planning to say a little more about amendment 69 A but my noble friend decided to do. The amendment understandably focuses on cases where there has been a conviction but we do know this is a very complicated area and there are various things about my noble friend's amendment which make me uneasy. Firstly there are vastly more cases, perhaps particularly in the area of child sexual abuse but certainly in the area of domestic abuse which I know personally the most about.

Where there will be no conviction. I would worry such an amendment could bring a focus on a subset of cases which ironically might not be the most worrying in Secondly, it will not always be clear whether the conviction is related. So in the case of domestic abuse, stalking related offences might be handled under the misuse of communications legislation and therefore not nice to is a domestic abuse offence. And thirdly we know in cases where there is bidirectional violence, there is a risk of the primary carer receiving a conviction, but the secondary carer does not.

So I have a great deal of sympathy of this particularly in relation to direct child abuse and child sexual abuse, but maybe the noble Baroness the Minister can clarify how many cases where there is a child sexual abuse case that parental contact is needed. I would argue, but there are greater experts in The Chamber than I stop we need our judges and others to be able to balance the considerations that affect the safety of the child.

I worry that if we start managing specific situations via primary legislation, we may constrain their discretion, which we need to be working so well. The focus on the welfare of the child being paramount is crystal- clear and the family court is and needs to stay focused on that. Finally, in relation to amendment 107B, and grateful to the noble Lord. I confess I didn't completely understand his amendment from the marshalled list. I think he is right that we must set high expectations for local authorities and have consistency in terms of the legal rights of children in care.

rights of children in care.

16:48

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, this group of amendments has enabled us to, I think, here a consensus in this House about both the enormously difficult, tragic and appalling instances that they have been of child sexual abuse over the years, and also a consensus that it is no longer good enough for us to not take important action in order to protect children in the most appalling circumstances. That is why this government is committed to protecting children from harm, including from the horrors of sexual abuse, trafficking and exploitation.

Measures included in this bill and the significant programme of reform already under way will help protect children at risk of abuse and stop vulnerable children falling the cracks in services. And in rising to speak to the detail of the amendments, turning first to amendments, turning first to amendment 66, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Grey-Thompson, as we have heard, seeks to insert a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse into the Children Act 2004. I can wholly understand why noble Lord is have taken the opportunity today to raise this issue.

As the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley said, we should take every opportunity to raise this issue, and to emphasise the determination of this House and in fact this government to take action. We have also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan about specific issues Moynihan about specific issues relating to sport, and alongside the noble lady Baroness Lady Grey- Thompson, we've heard from Baroness Finlay, Lord Meston, the noble and learned lady Baroness Butler-Sloss and the noble Lord Lord shard about their experience.

And rightful pressure on the government to make progress. But noble Lords also new part of what I was going to say in response to this. The government is already taking forward a new mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse for individuals in England and undertaking regulated activity with children and crucially, a new criminal offence of obstructing an individual from making a report under that duty. This duty is included in the crime and policing Bill, which is currently in the other place.

I think therefore that that is the most appropriate route to dictate the detail of mandatory reporting duty, but I have no doubt that colleagues in the other place and in fact those of my noble friend who will be responsible for taking this piece of legislation through this House will have listened carefully to the specific points and challenges raised by noble Lords during the foot of the debate on during the foot of the debate on this group of amendments in this amendment 66 in particular.

I will draw this debate to their attention as well because whilst we might disagree over the details, we can agree that any new duty must ensure that the words of children seeking help must be heard and apply the strongest possible measures to anyone who seeks to cover up abuse of this kind. I will just respond to a couple of points however that were made about the mandatory duty. On the point about criminal sanctions, I think there may well be differences on this particular point.

That is partly because of the sensitive and careful balance, which I think the noble Lady Baroness Barran identified. The government has not attached criminal sanctions in the crime and policing Bill to a failure to report. There will be criminal sanctions for anyone who obstructs an individual for -- making a report. Millions of people in England take part in regulated activity with children and people. Many are teachers and others, but many are volunteers. Those volunteers are the life of opportunities on offer to our young people.

They should comply with the duty, but we don't think it will be proportionate to create a criminal sanction for failure to comply with the duty. That could create a chilling effect where people are reluctant to volunteer or enter certain professions because they fear being criminalised for making a mistake. I know this is a delicate and difficult area and I am sure it will be subject to further debate on the crime and policing Bill comes to this House, but the purpose of mandatory reporting has to be to improve the protection of.

The aim is to create, as the noble Lord Lord Storey said, supporting knowledge and openness when dealing with child sexual abuse. We must be careful in working through the details of how this mandatory duty works that we do not do the opposite to that. So mandatory reporting then will create a culture of openness and honesty, empower professionals and in tears to take prompt, decisive action to report sexual abuse and demonstrate to young people that if they come forward they will be heard.

Turning to amendment 60 9A, tabled by Lord Lucas, and I thank him given the amount of work we have to get through on this bill for his brief but effective introduction of his amendments. I do recognise the importance of safeguarding children from the risk posed by parents convicted of serious offences, including those of child sexual abuse and domestic abuse. Ensuring their well-being must remain at the heart of our family justice system. This amendment seeks to allow the High Court to curtail or remove parental contact where a parent has been convicted of child sexual abuse, sexual abuse or domestic abuse, sexual abuse or domestic abuse.

Statistics will also need to be published on how many times they have had parental contact curtailed. The new provision we don't believe is required because existing legislation serves to protect children from the harms associated with abusive parents. This is undoubtedly an issue where the courts should consider the potential courts should consider the potential damage that could happen to a child through contact with people in the sorts of circumstances that this amendment references. Section 1 of the children's act 1989 already states that the child's welfare must states that the child's welfare must be the courts paramount concern.

The welfare checklist must be taken into account when the court continues its -- when the court considers the contact with a parent. It follows that when determining whether parental contact with the child as appropriate, legislation already gives the court the powers set out in the first subsection of this amendment. The court must already consider any potential risk or harm to the child. This includes the very serious risks associated with domestic abuse, child abuse and sexual abuse.

The noble Lord's amendment would also require the High Court to publish data on the number of times parental contact is curtailed or removed. I have two SATA noble Lord is whilst I can understand the call for accountability, in fact it would not be possible for the Ministry of just to collect this information without consulting each individual judgement. Many of these judgements also will be made in the family court. It will be very difficult therefore to go through each individual judgement order to collect the information that the amendment asks for.

This is not to undermine the significance of the point being made by the amendment, but I hope the noble Lord will see that there is already within the law and in fact within the practice of the Lords to ensure that this protection is available for protection is available for children. Turning to amendment 107B where the amendment seeks to enable courts to prohibit or enforce specific local authority action where children in their care are experiencing or at risk of significant harm.

I wholly share my noble friend's objective here. We recognise the necessity for children and young people to be protected from harm, to have their voices heard, to challenge aspects of their care, especially when they have care, especially when they have concerns about their safety. But if a child is at risk of harm, they need swift responsive action from the professionals around them, not a court process to navigate. The system of children's social is purposefully designed to protect and safeguard children and there are numerous existing mechanisms through which any concerns can be escalated.

That does not mean that there is not room for improvement here, as I will outline, but for example, there are many professionals that surround children in care, each with a specific duty to promote the child's best interest. People such as social workers and advocates. In children's homes they are required to report serious allegations to Ofsted who will investigate and where necessary have power to take the appropriate action. Also legal routes to challenge local authority actions where there are serious concerns of misconduct.

We are of course aware of cases where children have been harmed in care which is completely unacceptable and we know that strong trusted relationship surrounding the child are key to keeping children safe, which is why we are already as I say taking further action. Firstly to improve advocacy for children in care by publishing new national standards and statutory guidance for advocacy later this year. Secondly, introducing new post-qualifying standards for social workers that clearly set up and need to be agile and timely in adapting plans and intervening to keep children safe.

We are creating a new local authority designated Officer handbook to improve consistency and information sharing across local authority boundaries. We are improving qualifications, standards and access to training. In children's homes to ensure children are receiving the high quality of care they need. And we are in dialogue with the sector including children and young people to consider how effectively professionals around the child work My noble friend reference this in the note of the IICSA recommendation and he will note the government published an updated April 2025 on its work to tackle child sexual abuse and within that data -- within that update it confirms the government will introduce the new advocacy standards for children and young people and provide standards for advocacy for children and in 2025.

Including new standards on the provision in specialist noninstructional advocacy for children with complex needs and learning disabilities and we also as I have already reiterated, we also remain committed to reviewing the roles and professions surrounding the child to ensure they are creating that seamless network to protect the child. The introduction of new Court powers proposed by this amendment risks actually creating uncertainty around the role of the local authority. When what we should be ensuring is the systems and processes in place immediately around the child, available on a day-to-day basis are as robust and effective as intended.

Yes. effective as intended. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for the point she has made. She reference the update that came out in April. That does not go came out in April. That does not go far enough with recommendation six of IICSA because that talks about of IICSA because that talks about access to courts. It seems to me there is an inconsistency in what there is an inconsistency in what the Home Secretary said in January the Home Secretary said in January about involving the full 20 recommendations if the update is as I understand my noble friend correctly, as far as the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

correctly, as far as the government is prepared to go in this aspect of it at this stage? In relation to recommendation six, a very big consultation with six, a very big consultation with the sector and the objective of the government is to deliver actually on the intention of the recommendation. But recognising and this is something I think that professionals have also raised, for the reasons I have also raised, for the reasons I have outlined a new Court, a new legal route here not only is not necessary but risks making children's ability to be able to have their voice heard and the professionals around them to be supporting them less likely to happen.

So it is the government's view this is a more effective way of delivering the intentions behind recommendations. And the recommendation six. Because between existing Safeguarding mechanisms and planned improvements this government sets clear expectation children are safe, their voices are heard and professionals are working together to take immediate action in response to issues or concerns. I thank noble Lords for the range of issues that have been raised during the course of this group of amendments. I hope I have been able to provide some assurances and noble Lords will feel content to withdraw their amendments will stop

17:04

Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I thank the noble lady, the Minister for her response. It was perhaps not unexpected. I would also like to thank all of those who spoke in the debate this afternoon. I am really pleased there is consensus on mandatory reporting and perhaps the wording requires a little bit more work. I do understand why His Majesty government thinks another vehicle might be more appropriate. Perhaps this is a useful rehearsal for that future debate. My Lords, I do not think what the government is currently proposing goes far enough.

She is absolute right in terms of we need to use every opportunity we can to discuss protection of children. I would like to thank the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley for the decades of work she has spent in this area. She has had a couple of times a Private Members Bill and I am following in her footsteps. She raised the absolutely abhorrent case of Jimmy Savile. He was given complete unfettered access to vulnerable people. Based on fundraising he did.

As a child I spent a lot of time in Stoke Mandeville and other sports events and in places where he turned up at. I remember one event I was probably about 12 years old and he arrived to a great fanfare. A lot of people said Jimmy is here, Jimmy is here. You have to go and see him. I was not particularly keen to do that. And there was one adult who said to me very quietly, no you do not need to go.

So I asked why is everyone saying we have to go and see Jimmy? And she said no you can just hear you do not need to go. I did not think anything of it, I did not tell anyone, I was chatting with my friends and I thought she probably thought chatting with my friends was more important than going to see him. But that was one adult who had a suspicion he was uncomfortable about behaviour but there was nothing I could raise, nobody I could complain to.

Even now I was just told you do not need to go. It just sort of reminds me of how easy it is for adults in positions of power and positions of trust to groom and coax and lead to abuse. And how adults have an amazing position where they can get into really comfortable situations. But also adults have incredibly positive relationships with children. And I note words of the noble Lady, Baroness Barran and recognise her extensive work in volunteering.

I absolutely do not want this amendment in any way to stop people from volunteering or stop people from volunteering or feeling unable to feel there is a -- there is undue pressure on them. I wonder if there is a form of words or whether it is the right training or the right regulations around it, that would enable people to feel more comfort because again a lot of these youth organisations and other organisations have very positive relationships. Relationships with young people. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.

We have worked together for a long time and duty of care. I would like to say my idea for an ombudsman that was in my 2017 government report and duty of care was actually borrowed from him. And the noble Lady Baroness Hoey from the early '90s. I think we both agree sport at its best is absolutely amazing. It can give people a very positive life. I have a huge benefit from my time in sport. But whether it is teachers or coaches, those who want to access children, live on their reputation.

I have heard a number of times but they are a good coach, they are good at their job. And they are able to slip through the net sort of. I would also like to pay tribute to the survivors of the football abuse who I met with several times over the years. A number of them came into Parliament about 18 months ago. To talk about their experience and how it had just been ignored by so many people around them. Because there was not any legislation in place.

And again they fell behind, but they -- they fell behind while they are a good coach. They hindered their dreams of wanting to play professional. Which leads me onto the words of the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley, and my noble friend Baroness Finlay. We have to be better of defining what a healthy relationship is. And educate children of an appropriate age about that. I think in a sporting context there is far more that we can do in terms of doing that on that pathway.

And as they graduate through to performance levels. My noble friends, Lord Meston, Baroness Butler-Sloss and Lord Bichard very sadly have extensive experience of these issues. I think we should listen to them. Like my noble friend, Lord Bushra die argued against watering down of DBS checks. Because it would just allow those who wanted access to children to be who wanted access to children to be able to have that too easily. I am very reassured by some of the statements made about sharing information between LED owes but again I do not think it goes far enough.

Very briefly my Lords, the noble Lord Lucas, I would like to support his amendment if he comes back to another time with it. And the same for Lord Watson of Invergowrie. This report, the IICSA report took seven years and I believe strongly all recommendations need to be implemented. It is not just about the intention of the recommendations but they should be implemented in full. With that in mind and recognising there is promise more work I need to do on drafting and have further discussions on this amendment, at this time I beggarly to withdraw.

--

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Beg leave to withdraw. Amendment by leave withdrawn.

17:10

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment by leave withdrawn. Return to amendment 67. Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Finlay. My Lords, the Long title of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the Long title of a bill starts by stating it is to make provision about the safeguarding and welfare of children. The bills focus welfare of children. The bills focus on well-being will be undermined if we allowed it to generate cycles of violence toward children, to remain perpetuated. This amendment 67 at perpetuated. This amendment 67 at its consequential -- and its consequential 505 closes a loophole in the safeguarding provision for children. A loophole that has been closed in Scotland since 2019 and in Wales in 2020.

But not yet in England or Northern Ireland. Children need the same protection from all -- from assault as adults but lack protection. Because the Lords Amendment 20 years ago left loophole. When children are hit the assaulting adult can claim it is reasonable chastisement. There is no legal definition of what is reasonable, it depends on the circumstance. The line between lawful punishment and unlawful abuse is open to interpretation. Professor Andrew Roland, child protection Officer of the Royal College of Paediatrics and child pointed out he is regularly faced with difficult situations where it is alleged physical punishment has been used against a child.

Last year's practice review in Worcestershire into nine-year-old Alfie's death flagged up the difficulty in and I quote, " Distinguishing between what is lawful and proportional and what is harmful and abusive". Preceding year the review into the death of the child AK concluded current law is confusing. These risks are reiterated in safeguarding practice reviews, particularly as bruisers are more difficult to see in skin of colour. Or when the child is extensively covered by clothing of extensively covered by clothing of course.

The 2018 report on safeguarding children in black and ethnic minority communities in London and Manchester found the complexity and ambiguity in England leaves many families unclear on the law, particularly those who have recently arrived in the UK. The UN can on the rights of the child to which the UK has signed up commits and states to protect children from all forms of physical violence including Corporal punishment within the family. The UN committee has expressly stated physical punishment is a violation of a child's right to is a violation of a child's right to protection.

And should be banned. 68 countries around the world now prohibit physical punishment and have shown a drastic reduction in the number of children being subjected to severe Corporal punishment. There is clear evidence physical punishment has no positive outcomes for children. As reported in the Lancet 2021. The review of 69 studies found that physical punishment consistently predicts increases in child behaviour problems, mental health issues and in escalating physical abuse over time. Increasing the need for child protection for more severe violence.

The behaviour of control by hitting becomes externalised with ever worsening behaviour. These associations between physical punishment and detrimental outcomes are robust across child and parent characteristics. The more children are hit, the worse the child behaviour over time hitting children hurts on the outside and on the inside. It damages an emotional inside. It damages an emotional element. Eight in 10 child runaways site family violence as a cause as one child said I was sick of my dad and his girlfriend hitting me.

The recent report last year from the Royal College of Paediatrics and child health shows those who experience physical assaults in the name of punishment are 2.5 times more likely to experience mental health problems and twice as likely to go on to experience significant injury and damage through more serious forms of physical abuse. Children subject to being hit in the name of discipline are more likely to bully others and to repeat the cycle of violence over and over again once they become adults.

The Welsh Children's Commissioner with all four Children's Commissioner supports the extending people protection for all children in the UK for this amendment does not seek to prosecute parents. In Wales and Scotland there has been no evidence of a significant increase in prosecutions following this change. It is a bout behaviour and culture It is a bout behaviour and culture My Lords, if I hit one of you, would rightly accuse me of assault. Yet England allows adults to hit children who are much smaller than them with much more vulnerable bodies and much more vulnerable emotional make-up.

It is a way of venting their anger when they the adult cannot coat. In Wales removing the common law offence is reasonable punishment of battery to a child was implemented with a public education plan. The police can decide whether it is in the public interest to take a case forward and decide the most appropriate disposal. They can refer for a rehabilitative alternative, allowing preventing support to encourage positive parenting. The monitoring report will be published later this year, but to quote the cheap with in the Senate when it was the third anniversary she said, it is the third anniversary of this landmark legislation and is part of life.

It is accepted, it is embedded. Similarly five years experience in New Zealand is that such laws serve an educational rather than a punitive function, shifting attitudes to more beneficial behaviour change. My Lords, this proposal has the support of over 25 sector organisations, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, NSPCC, a dose, the children commissioner for and the British Association for social. It is time to protect children from assault and battery. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. After clause 4 insert the following new clause in

17:17

Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)

- -

4 insert the following new clause in the words as printed in the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to speak to amendment 173 in my name and thank my noble friend Baroness Walmsley my noble friend Baroness Walmsley for adding her name. Before I talk to my amendment I just want to say that I am extremely supportive of amendment 67 and 505 which has bin amendment 67 and 505 which has bin Musaid powerfully by Baroness Musaid powerfully by Baroness Finlay. My amendment seeks to publish a national neglect strategy for a sustained focus on neglect. In for a sustained focus on neglect.

In my view for far too long neglect has been absent or underplayed from our conversations about supporting children and families. I think it is children and families. I think it is critical that it can play a role in reducing the number of children in care, which is going to be so central to many of our discussions in this part of the bill. Yet the scale of neglect is significant and it impact on children far-reaching. Neglect is the most common form of mulch reported as the initial category of abuse on child protection plans and was also the top main reason for adults reaching out last year to the NSPCC helpline, and indeed I know this week new research from the NSPCC underlining this point is going to be published.

Neglect has some of the most profound, negative long-term effects on child behaviour, educational achievement, emotional well-being and physical development. It impacts every area of a child life and unaddressed prevents children developing their full potential and puts them at serious risk of harm. My Lords that in my view is the very antithesis of well-being, which is what part one of this bill is all about. Yet unlike other forms of maltreatment there is no national strategy for neglect and existing practice guidance really refers to neglect specific approaches and models.

The NSPCC has reported that professionals have concerns about the lack of a national focus on neglect and how it has left many children without the right support at a time when family pressures are at an all-time high. So requiring the government to prepare and publish a national neglect strategy, as my amendment would, would make sure that we provide greater protections to children and families, better understand common drivers for neglect such as poverty and housing, identify certain tools and improve information sharing across agencies.

Taken together that package I think could be very powerful. While neglect is prevalent in child referrals and assessments, a lack of action being taken to address it has become the norm. It's so commonplace that it can be easy for professionals to either stop noticing it all to become desensitised to its potential severity. Neglect is a complex harm I think which requires a great deal of professional skill to actually understand and assess its impact, but I know that many professionals feel they are simply underprepared and under resourced to do so.

There are limited specialised professionals or interventions for them to draw on. Research last year found that 83% of professionals in healthcare, the police, children social and education believe there was not enough service available to provide support for children experiencing neglect. So enabling parents to reach out for support in a non-stigmatising way and for professionals to identify neglect early and ensuring there are sufficient resources are all vital to reducing the devastating impact it can have on children. And this is critical, reducing the number of children going into care, which is currently at an all-time high.

So with neglecting such a prominent category of abuse and often the earliest sign of mistreatment, surely it should form the cornerstone of any intervention, which I think we are all agreed is so important. So if we ask was about supporting families and helping children as early as possible as I know we are, preventing and tackling neglect must become a central plank of our policy response and the need for a national neglect strategy I think needs to be given very careful consideration.

I hope it is possible to do so during the passage of this bill and I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's response. hearing the Minister's response.

17:22

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

- -

I rise to add my name to amendment 67, and so ably introduced by the noble Baroness. For me it's very much a question of children's right. As Lady Finlay said, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 19 makes clear that children must be free from violence and governments must do all they can to protect them from violence, using all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures. This amendment would ensure that the whole of the UK and not just Scotland and Wales is complying with the UN can.

Moreover, if we are taking children's well-being seriously, we cannot continue to allow them to be subjected to physical assault. The only group, as the noble Baroness said, who are not legally protected from it. Ministers say they are open-minded, they want to see the review of evidence from Wales from a range of voices, but as already noted, we have ample evidence from numerous countries. Both of the negative impact on children's well- being of physical punishment and the positive impact of its prohibition in terms of it having a desired effect of reducing the use of physical punishment.

If she has not seen it, I refer my noble friend the Minister to a recent article in children in new services review which brings together much of that As already noted the evidence is sufficient for all the Children's Commissioner's, including from Wales, to be calling for reform. Indeed they call the current law outdated and morally repugnant. They reject the argument that it would lead to the criminalisation of parents. Polling shows consistent support amongst the general public for reform and new polling a majority among safeguarding professionals in support of change.

Over half of social workers and teachers said the current law makes their work of safeguarding children more difficult. My Lords, I fear the waiting for Wales argument is becoming a legislative form of waiting for Godot. How long will we have to wait for another bill which will provide such a perfect opportunity for reform? The Children's Commissioner's and a range of Health and Social Care organisations are calling for urgent action now. Surely we should be listening to them and stop prevaricating.

17:25

Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)

- -

17:36

Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)

- -

lot. I will never use that word myself because I think it very much trivialises what we mean. We are talking about a hit. We are talking about physical assault on a child. The reasonable chastisement defence is only ever likely to be used in a Court of law and it has been. As we I think now -- as we I think no, every battery of a child starts with a hit but not every hit of a child leads to battery.

Now one recent case illustrates the point. On the first day of the trial of the killers of Sara Sharif in 2024 the killers of Sara Sharif in 2024 the prosecutor told juries Sharif called police having fled from Pakistan after Sara's death. He used what may be classed as a peculiar expression. He said I legally punished her and she died. I wonder where he got that phrase? I can tell you. It appears in section 58 of the Children Act 2004.

And for the last 20 years I and others have tried to delete it. The presence of those words in the law send the message it can be lawful to beat a little child. Back in 2002 the Adoption and Children Act acknowledged the damage done to Act acknowledged the damage done to children were -- was from witnessing violence in the home. As long as reasonable chastisement remains, babies and children who witness violence have greater legal protection than those who are directly assaulted.

Emlyn Jones said Sharif also told the police I beat her up, it was not my intention to kill her but I beat her up too much. An intention to kill is not necessary. An intention to cause serious harm is sufficient for a serious harm is sufficient for a murder conviction if death in shoes. -- Ensues. The prosecutor said a note in Sharif's handwriting was found next to his daughters body which said, I swear to God my intention was not to kill her.

But I lost it. Sara Sharif had more than 70 injuries to her ribs. To her shoulders, fingers, spine and brain. And a burn from a domestic iron to her buttock. She had numerous bruises, scold marks from hot water, restrained injuries and human bite marks. These injuries did not occur on one occasion when her father lost it. These sorts of cases are not new. When Mariah Caldwell died in 1973 she had black eyes, fractured ribs and brain damage.

This was inflicted by her mother and stepfather William cattle. Cattle was convicted of Mariah's murder in April 1973 the charge was later reduced to manslaughter. Officials repeated the mantra, it must never happen again. But it has. And it does. Victoria Climbie who died on 25 February 2,000 was rushed to hospital suffering from hypothermia, weighing just three stone and £10. And suffering 128 injuries. Arguably one of the most notorious child deaths, Peter Connelly known in the media as Baby P died in London on 3 August 2007.

Aged just 17 months. After suffering more than 50 injuries. He had been seen six times by healthcare professionals and social workers. On 3 March 2012 four-year-old Daniel Parker died after being severely battered. By his mother and her partner. Daniel had suffered 22 injuries including 10 to his head. Arthur Hughes was murdered after months of abuse in 2020. Arthur H6 was tortured to death by his father Thomas Hughes. And stepmother. After months of horrific abuse he was starved and poisoned with large quantities of salt.

When he died his skeletal body was covered with 130 bruises. He suffered 93 different areas of injury. On 22 September 2020 Savannah Brockville caused baby star Hobson catastrophic injuries after inflicting months of brutal abuse alongside her mother. Medics said her injuries were usually only seen in car crash victims. Boris Johnson vowed action would be taken to stop such shocking and heartbreaking tragedies in future but it has not been done. There have been many other fatal cases that hit the headlines and hundreds of beaten children who did not die but who were marked for life by their experience.

Briefings we have received by the Royal College of Paediatrics and child health have made it clear hitting children is not harmless. It is harmful. Yes there were serious shortcomings in the actions or inactions of various public services in the cases I have just outlined. But the social workers and police did not kill these children. Their parents and carers did. And they did it because they thought they could get away with it. And every terrible beating started with a single hit.

A single physical assault. The sort of thing that recently lost a former MP his seat and his liberty. The reason why these children died was because they did not have the voice or the ability to stop it. And because they were not sufficiently protected by the law. If the early stages of anyone of these cases like any one of these cases had been perpetrated on an adult the attacker would have been imprisoned long before the pattern of assault became fatal.

The fact is children do not have equal protection against assault. Under the law. Because of the excuse expressed in those chilling words, reasonable punishment. These assaults are not reasonable by any measure. And they are not punishment either. No child was ever naughty enough to deserve such abuse. It is not punishment, it is an expression of the anger and hatred and frustration of the perpetrator. Leading to actions which should be classed as criminal without mitigation. These children are calling from the grave to make them so.

Let us do it at last by carrying this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 67 and 505 in the name of my noble friend Baroness Finlay. I have added my name and which she spoke so elegantly. My Lords, I am spoke so elegantly. My Lords, I am afraid I am unable to comment on the speech of Lord Jackson of Peterborough because my cerebral Peterborough because my cerebral cortex received so many messages of complaints that it shut down quite complaints that it shut down quite early on.

My Lords, I have lived on this planet for 60 years, I have this planet for 60 years, I have been a parent for 20 years, a cricket coach for 15 years, kinship cricket coach for 15 years, kinship carer and teacher for 10 years. I kinship carer for over one year and I have never hit, slapped or smacked I have never hit, slapped or smacked anybody except one unfortunate time anybody except one unfortunate time in a game when the opposition scrum-half started. It has been mentioned this is the Children's Wellbeing Bill.

The bill is quietly going on its way without mentioning the fundamental problem of well- being. Legalised violence against children. For that is what we are talking about. Not a quick clip round the ear, not a short sharp shock that teaches them right or wrong. Not something that was done to us and we are no worse for it. My Lords, we are talking about grooming our children to believe violence is acceptable by the powerful against the week. For their own good. That is not an exceptional -- that is not an acceptable message.

I believe the results from Wales and Scotland are showing no major increase in any prosecutions and I suspect most people it will not be a surprise that hitting a child is a bad idea. So a change in the law would only remove the defence for those who really aim to harm children. The rule of thumb is an urban myth. It has never been acceptable to hit women. Why do we still allow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am disappointed to be speaking again. The first time was 21 years

17:45

Lord Hampton (Crossbench)

- -

again. The first time was 21 years ago in support of Amendment 67, this time in the names of Baroness Walmsley, Baroness Lister and the noble Lord. I will simply emphasise

17:46

Baroness Whitaker (Labour)

- -

again that since 2004 when I first spoke, very many more countries have spoke, very many more countries have come to the conclusion that children are of equal worth two adults. View are of equal worth two adults. View it seems not shared by the noble it seems not shared by the noble Lord Lord Jackson of Peterborough. And it is even clearer that the legacy of physical punishment of children is more violence in society children is more violence in society and worse mental health.

As the noble Baroness Lady Finlay said, noble Baroness Lady Finlay said, there is no definition of this type there is no definition of this type of punishment. Surely it is time to agree that physical punishment is agree that physical punishment is the reverse of reasonable punishment the reverse of reasonable punishment and get it out of our understanding.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendment and thank my noble friend for putting this forward. This is not a new debate and I call for this change in law many years ago. Including when I was Children's Commissioner for England. And I have Commissioner for England. And I have not changed my view. As we have

17:47

Baroness Longfield (Labour)

- -

heard Sweden outlawed smacking in 1979. The move in Scotland, in Wales and in Ireland over very recent years has all been about closing the loophole because they all recognise the defence of reasonable chastisement is outdated and wrong. I do believe it is time for England to follow suit. Making sure that children have equal protection from adults. I do think that we have moved on considerably in this country over recent years on the issue and that views have changed.

It is no longer a particularly contentious issue I don't think. Most parents no longer believe that hitting children is the right way to improve behaviour, or to discipline children. Much better to support and help parents to support their children with positive behaviour. So we should not see this as either a complex or controversial issue or debate. It is not the nanny state. Or the government interfering in how parents discipline their children. Children should be provided with the same rights as adults, not to be victims of assault.

victims of assault.

17:48

Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I rise to support amendment 173. The passionate speech on child neglect by my noble friend Baroness Tyler. My Lords, neglect can affect a child right through into adult hood and we need to address this by giving support and protection to protect our children. My Lords, I also rise to speak in support of Amendment 67 in the name of Baroness Finlay, who spoke so powerfully. And in the name of other noble Lord's, and in doing so I declare my interests as Vice President of Barnardos.

As we have heard, Nardo's, NSPCC and the Royal college paediatrics and Child health, together with over 20 organisations, including UNICEF, have called for a including UNICEF, have called for a complete ban on smacking. Almost 70 countries have banned smacking, leaving no ambiguity in the law that it is never OK to reasonably punish a child. It is time to join those countries and end physical punishment against children. My Lords, there is no evidence that smacking is effective or prevents bad behaviour, or teaches positive behaviour.

But it can lead to mental health issues in later life and also develop a pattern of behaviour of a child who may use violence to solve problems or get what they want, or even become bullies. My Lords, smacking can damage parent-child relationships and can lead to resentment and fear rather than respect. In fact, I have spoken to so many adults who tell me how much they hate their father because of the physical violence they suffered as a child.

And it is not only fathers who they hate, but mothers, too, you have in did violence on their children. I believe it is much better to talk a problem through with a child. Reason with a child through role-play and set good behavioural examples. The earlier the starts, the better it is long- term for a happy childhood experience. So I heartedly support this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendments moved by my noble friend Baroness

17:51

Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)

- -

moved by my noble friend Baroness Fitly in Germany. When a lobbyist made relating to something that affects children, for example, they sometimes insert something in their constitution. I note that in 2,000 when the parental right to smack was rescinded in Germany and new phrase was introduced into the German constitution which reads as follows. Children have a right to an upbringing free of violence. Corporal punishment, emotional harm and other humiliating measures are not permissible. Well, similar steps have been taken in I think actually 75 countries to date smacking is not permitted.

Many of those countries are in Europe, almost the whole of Europe forbid smacking. We stand out as an exception in the map of Europe where it is illustrated. I believe that just as Germany and Spain and Norway and Sweden and Finland and Denmark are not worst places in anyway whatsoever as a result of running smacking, the same will be -- it will be the same in England when it follows Wales and Scotland. Section 58 of the children's act 2004 is predicated by opposition to smacking, not by encouragement of smacking.

As it has already been said, it was banned in schools, but it has been allowed to continue in certain restricted circumstances in homes. As early as 2007 the Crown Prosecution Service issued a report in which are the time it was supposed to banning smacking altogether, but observed that the defence was being used in inappropriate situations and in the wrong kinds of cases. There is absolutely no evidence that the running of smacking would have any running of smacking would have any dramatic effect on parents, who like the parents and the countries I have named, have simply been told you cannot smack your children any more.

And I believe that people are ready for that in this country. The noble Lady Baroness Walmsley in an extremely powerful speech gave several examples of cases, real cases in which the terrible violence that eventually was used against children probably started with the first smack and it is quite wrong that we should allow that sort of situation to develop. I listened with great care, my synapses were operating in overdrive whilst Lord Jackson was speaking, but I have to say to Lord Jackson I think he is now a bit historical in this argument.

I would again these points, which I treat with respect of course, prefer those to be made by other noble Lord in this House and between the noble Lord and the Royal, I think I prefer the Royal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

college. The case for Amendment 67 and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The case for Amendment 67 and the associated amendment 505 has been powerfully made. I will add a couple powerfully made. I will add a couple of additional points that perhaps my infant House and be useful. I note that more than 30 MPs in the other place supported a similar amendment and that it was driven there by the honourable member for Lowestoft in

17:55

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

honourable member for Lowestoft in the Labour Party and the Member for North Herefordshire. It is not that we are suddenly bringing this up in your Lordships House, there is strong support in the other place as well for government action here. I moved an amendment along similar lines to the defence of reasonable chastisement in the domestic abuse Bill, now act. It was when I was quite to your Lordships House and found out that many people have been working on it for decades longer than I had.

I heard from the then Conservative government that it was not the time and that we needed to wait to see what happened in Scotland and Wales. I hope we will not hear the same thing this evening, although I am not terribly optimistic. I listen closely to the noble Lord Lord Jackson and I have a couple of things to say in direct response to the noble Lord. He cited a professor. He would be best described as a controversial academic. I point noble Lord to an article this bonding to some of the work of the profession.

This was in the journal family and marriage review in 2017. There was research for a better critique. It was said the Professor misunderstood positive parenting and was misinformed about the whole academic field. I would also respond to the noble Lord Lord Jackson, I think you could feel the visible sense of shock around the House when the noble Lord suggested that smacking was harmless. That is really a think a disturbing label to use when we know from the rock that children who have experienced physical punishment are 2.6 times more likely to experience mental health issues.

And we know what a mental health crisis we have in our society. They are twice as likely to experience further forms of abuse, sometimes leading to the cases that the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley told us about so powerfully. Also the college makes an important point that children who experience physical assault are more likely to believe that violence is accepted and encouraged in society. I think this also addresses, of course we want to protect vulnerable children, but we are also addressing the question of what sort of society we are.

In that light I will point to the fact that we had a number of international comparisons, but I believe that Thailand is the most recent state to have banned physical abuse of children. I know quite a bit about Thailand. I was once technically a tie civil servant when I was there as volunteer from Australia board. I do know quite a lot about the society in Thailand. It's a great step for them to take. When you look at the context were Thailand has a rate deal offended difficulties in recent years, but it has regarded protecting its children is so important, that it has ensure there is legal protection.

It's really interesting when you look at the government announcements around this. They focus on the need this is a need to support parents as well as to ensure the protection of children. I have one final point to make, and a question to put to the noble Lady the Minister. The article NGO sets out the historical background for reasonable chastisement which arises from a criminal case in 1860, about the head teacher found guilty of the manslaughter of a 13-year-old child with learning difficulties.

The head teacher had beaten the child with a stick for more than two hours. We look at the judge's was on which this whole reasonable chastisement is based. The judge said that a parent or schoolmaster made for the purpose of correcting what is evil in the child inflict moderate and in the child inflict moderate and reasonable corporate punishment. That is the origins of what has got us to where we are today and what we are trying to change with this amendment.

I think that is a reflection on how out of date this whole current legal situation is. And finally my question to the noble Lady the Minister, this article 39 briefing. It's focused on parents, but it says the defence has not been removed from part-time educational settings, including those operated by religious organisations, children's health settings, or supported accommodation for looked after children aged 16 or 17. I wonder if the noble Lady the Minister can even now or I will understand if she wishes to write to me, set out if that briefing is correct, and there is indeed that allowance still against -- regarding violence against children in that violence against children in that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise slightly nervously to respond to this debate. nervously to respond to this debate. Which follows and covers a number of Which follows and covers a number of very important and very thorny issues. But one of the reasons I am issues. But one of the reasons I am anxious and I double checked, hence looking at my telephone, is I felt looking at my telephone, is I felt at point the House was talking about slightly different things and I slightly different things and I accept absolutely very valid point made by the noble lady, Baroness

18:01

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

Walmsley. Every terrible serious case of a child death at the hands

18:02

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

of their parents starts with a single hit. She would also accept

18:02

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

single hit. She would also accept thank goodness those are very much the exception, rather than the rule. And the overwhelming majority of And the overwhelming majority of parents who may or may not smack or use physical discipline towards the use physical discipline towards the child do not end up anywhere near those kinds of tragedies. The reason those kinds of tragedies. The reason I called out I pulled out my phone was to make sure I understood was to make sure I understood correctly.

The reasonable chastisement defence applies only in cases of common assault and battery. Since the review of section 58 and implementation of that with the Children Act 2004 in October in October 2007. At the leave of the House I will just read a couple of sentences from the advice produced by department in October 2007. Therefore any injury sustained by a child which is serious enough to warrant a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm cannot be considered to be as a result of reasonable punishment.

Section 58 and the amended charging standard mean for any injury to a child caused by a parent or person acting in low of the apprentice which amounts to more than a temporary reddening of the skin and where the injury is more than transient and trifling, the defence of reasonable punishment is not available. I am sorry, whatever it is down to Lord Hampton's brain -- it has done to Lord Hampton's brain to listen to Lord Jackson of Peterborough.

He makes a very fair point. This is clear and noble Lords and parents around the country may or may not agree. But this is absolutely clear that where chastisement amounts to more than a temporary reddening of the skin or whether injury is more than transient or trifling -- where the injury is more than transient or trifling, the defence is not available. I think it is fair and it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say and also the noble Lady, Baroness Finlay who I know has thought about this long and hard.

To understand really what difference this is going to make to the kinds of cases that have been cited in the House this afternoon. My other concern is about nonphysical chastisement. So I spent the first six years of my time and your Lordships' House never mentioning the words domestic abuse. I think I have never stopped talking about it since we started in this bill. We know that actually many abusive relationships and that applies to children as well as adults, you do not need to use physical violence.

And coercion and fear and control are incredibly harmful. Figures were cited about the harm of physical violence. I do not question those for a second. But I do wonder where the logos and if -- where the law goes and if we were to adopt the noble Ladies amendment which honestly has significant support in both houses, where do we then go? And perhaps what I would argue would be much much more toxic and damaging for a child's mental health and their physical health given what we know about the links between the two in terms of emotional abuse and psychological harm to children.

I look forward to noble Lords comments on that. And then I think we also need to address, again as ever I am surrounded by people who know much more about this than I do. But the reality is a parent is accused of smacking, hitting or slapping a child, not the kind of severe physical violence that has been cited but the violence that would fit under the defence of reasonable chastisement they may enter a slow and stressful and ultimately quite harmful criminal justice process.

During which time they may be prevented from having contact with their child, during which time the child might be removed into care. I think we need to balance the impact of the kind of chastisement as set out in section 58 with the kind of harm that process would bring. To children. In no way do I endorse violence...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope the noble Lady, Baroness Barran will excuse me for just picking up one point she has just picking up one point she has just picking up one point she has just made. I think the law as it stands is extremely confusing and unhelpful to parents. For example she talked about reddening of the skin. I do about reddening of the skin. I do not know about the noble Lady but I would not know if I was going to hit a child, what level of pressure was a child, what level of pressure was going to raise a red mark on the child's skin.

And which was not. How child's skin. And which was not. How can a parent possibly know. So the can a parent possibly know. So the law is confusing and unhelpful. It certainly is disco and a jury, as has been mentioned. -- Discriminatory as has been mentioned. You cannot tell when a bruise is arising as easily on a bruise is arising as easily on a skin of colour as on a paler skin. Those are just a couple of examples. Where the law is confusing and it needs clarifying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am not sure I entirely agree with the noble Lady because I think the spirit of the law which talks the spirit of the law which talks about trifling, where the chastisement is of a trivial nature, different parents might interpret it different parents might interpret it in a different way. But the kinds of abuse that were cited in the debate abuse that were cited in the debate we have just listened to were not trifling. There was no question they trifling.

There was no question they were trifling. So I will turn now if were trifling. So I will turn now if I may to amendment 173 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. To introduce a national strategy to address neglect of children. As we heard, the noble Lady explained and from her own professional experience she brings great expertise. On this matter. This is too common a feature into many children's lives.

-- In too many children's lives. I commend her for bringing this to the attention of the House. I would support her assertion many practitioners lack confidence in how to respond to neglect. I think the approach set out set out in the amendment is practical in terms of sharing best practice and supporting both professionals and parents to understand and address neglect. My question to the noble Lady and potentially to the Minister is whether it really is wise to try and separate neglect from abuse since we know in most cases they will coexist.

And therefore I imagine one would want practitioners to go in with their eyes open to both.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this government is putting children at the heart of putting children at the heart of everything we do. This is evident in the far-reaching child protection and safeguarding measures of this and safeguarding measures of this bill. I rise to speak to amendments bill. I rise to speak to amendments in Group 2. Tabled by the noble Lords, Baroness Finlay and Baroness Lords, Baroness Finlay and Baroness Walmsley. These are amendments which relate to the defence of reasonable punishment and what government is punishment and what government is doing about neglect.

I turn first to doing about neglect. I turn first to speak to amendment 67 and 60 -- 67 and 505 in the name of an ability and 505 in the name of an ability Baroness Finlay full on removing the defence of reasonable punishment in legislation which has been the basis of most of the contributions in this group of amendments. Let me be completely clear, this government does not condone violence or abuse of children. And there are laws in place to protect children against this.

Violence against children is not only unacceptable but it is also illegal. The Crown Prosecution Service guidance referenced during the course of this debate is in fact very clear. Only the mildest form of physical punishment can be used to justify discipline. Child protection agencies and the police treat allegations of abuse very seriously. They will investigate and take appropriate action including prosecution where there is evidence of an offence having been committed. Local authorities, police and healthcare professionals having a

18:12

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

clear duty to act immediately to protect children if they are concerned a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley The noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley identified terrible cases that we should all take note of. Much of the should all take note of. Much of the first part of this bill is aimed at addressing precisely these types of addressing precisely these types of cases. But it must be important to cases. But it must be important to emphasise children who have been abused or murdered by their parents, children in fact you have experienced abuse -- who have experienced abuse -- who have experienced abuse far short of the terrible cases the noble Lady identified, even in cases where they identified, even in cases where they claim to have been legally disciplining them would have not been covered the reasonable punishment defence.

To suggest otherwise is simply wrong. I am not convinced in those cases it really was simply a reasonable punishment that led to the terrible outcomes. I think there was something far more profound and dangerous and worthy and in fact legally required of attention than that. We have heard there are other countries who have made these changes. We are looking closely at changes in Scotland and Wales. And continue to build our evidence base. We do not want to take this important decision yet.

Wales will be publishing the report at the end of the year which looks at the impact the change in legislation has had. It is important as well that we consider all voices, including those of the child, the trusted stakeholders as well as those who might be disproportionately affected by removing the defence in making any decisions. I certainly accept some of the examples that have been used by noble Lords this afternoon. About the support there is for removing this defence.

I do not think it is quite as straightforward and completely categorically clear as some noble Lords have suggested. Most parents want what is best for their children and they should be supported. It is right we are protecting all children at risk of harm. But it is also right we do not intervene in family life when children are safe, loved and well supported. This is why I do agree with noble Lords who have identified the need to find more positive ways to parent.

I think, -- I do not think any parent or I do not think most parents who have resulted at most parents who have resulted at some point or another to smack feel that is the most positive way in which they can be parenting their children. And that is why we are rolling out national reforms to multiagency family help and child protection backed as we have said previously over £500 million of funding and importantly providing parenting support in 75 local authorities through family hubs.

Parenting is difficult. Any of us who have done it understand the challenges of choosing the right ways to promote positive development of our children. And the publication recently of our practice guide for parenting services, for parents of zero to 10-year-olds, supporting parents in doing that very difficult job I think is a positive way to help to identify for all parents facing that really difficult job how to do that in the most effective way. Turning now to the amendments 173, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley.

On neglect. I agree with her that neglect is a, both enormously difficult and important area of work for children's social care and also probably an area where professionals and others need even more support to be able to identify and take mitigating actions against it. It is vital children suffering neglect are identified and receive the support and protection they need. Protection from all forms of abuse including neglect is a key priority for this government. And underpinning this is our commitment to an enduring reduction in the number of children living in poverty in this Parliament living in poverty in this Parliament Our statutory guidance working together to safeguard children, I think Baroness Walmsley identified that perhaps they has not been sufficient guidance and support for professionals in this area.

The statutory guidance does identify the utmost importance of practitioners identifying and responding to neglect. Neglect also features in our recently published families first partnership guide for local areas, which focuses on our reforms to family help and child protection. This is the cornerstone of early into. These reforms will produce a fundamental shift in the way we respond to children and families who need support and protection, including when neglect is happening. For example, one of the family's first pathfinders has established a new family help team that is focused on welfare, benefits and debt advice to help support families where circumstances could lead to cases of neglect.

We know that other pathfinders are rolling out specific training to their family help lead practitioners and multidisciplinary teams on neglect. Additional measures in this field will help to improve child protection and safeguarding. Measures such as improving information sharing between agencies, setting up multiagency protection teams and strengthening the role of education in safeguarding will help to make children safer and will help to ensure that the clues about neglect in a child's life are more clearly brought together so that action can be taken.

We are supporting teachers, social workers and all safeguarding professionals to spot the signs of abuse or neglect more quickly, including with our national children social framework for safeguarding children and strengthening statutory guidance. We are investing in the recruitment, training and development of child and family social workers to ensure that the workforce has the capacity, skills and knowledge to identify support and protect vulnerable children, including those who are subjected to neglect. The protection of children is critical and this bill takes important steps to improve safeguarding.

We have, I hope I have assured the noble Lady Baroness Tyler about the measures that we are taking in the enormously important area of identifying and rectifying for those children who are the subject of neglect and the situations they find themselves in. I note the noble Lord to have contributed to this debate in support of Baroness Finlay's amendment will be dissatisfied with my response, but I hope they also recognise the enormous range of work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being included within this bill. I warmly welcome the remarks of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I warmly welcome the remarks of the noble Lady the Minister because it seems to me that at the heart of the debate is mischaracterisation

18:19

Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)

- -

the debate is mischaracterisation and misunderstanding of section 8 of the children's act 2004 and eight conflation of assault by beating, which should be subject to the full. The Lord. Would she agreed with me just to sum up the words of our noble colleague the Minister for State Cathy McKinnell. For the avoidance of doubt, as the law stands, any suggestion that reasonable punishment could be used as a defence to serious harm to a child or indeed as has been asserted is completely wrong and frankly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absurd. I hope I did make that clear

18:20

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope I did make that clear earlier on, but I'm very happy to reiterate. It will be wholly wrong. It would not be in line with the law It would not be in line with the law for the types of cases, and in fact those very short of those types of cases as we have heard today to be subject to the defence of reasonable punishment. That would, as the Crown Prosecution Service has been clear and as professionals have been clear, that get nowhere near to this defence.

I know that noble lords will be disappointed with the exception of the noble Lord Lord Jackson, with the response of the government, but I think he is a reasonable recognition, both of the very strong action taken when children are subject to violence with the need to learn from those who have recently changed the law. He is a sensible and appropriate way to go forward in this particular case. -- This is a sensible way to go forward.

18:21

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

- -

I am in support of those who have spoken. I'm disappointed it has led into the court end of things and I did not recognise being categorised, as was said, that I wasn't activist parent. I am not an activist parent. I am grateful to the Baronesses who have been with me on this journey have been with me on this journey for such a long time. Starting out violence and assault against children happens insidiously and children learn that this is the way to get control over other people and it escalates.

And as the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley said, parents lose it. When they have lost it is often associated with alcohol, drugs or other stresses in the home. So they do not deliberately set out to eat up the child, but it just escalates and it becomes more and more common. I am grateful to Lord Carlile for pointing out the change in the constitution in Germany towards children and certainly to the noble Lord Lord Hampton for his extensive experience with children.

His experience may remind. When I was doing paediatrics and admitting children and was told, I just smack them and they fell over stop then we investigated further we found multiple fractures, old friend shows, new fractures, all kinds of injuries that nobody had noticed before because they thought it had just been a smack, a gentle smack. I have yet to find a family who declares that they are wilfully not a loving family, but loads of families declare they are loving families and they clearly are not and they have many problems.

The emphasis on positive parenting is certainly being this government. It has been a team from the government in Wales and it is terribly important. The last thing that I would just say is having seen this first hand with one family where a father certainly smacked his children remarkably often and when he had had a drink even more often. When he was told by the others in the family you cannot do that anymore, you have got to stop, his behaviour changed, but interestingly the children's behaviour improved dramatically.

They went from being quite disturbed and disruptive to being quite well-behaved because of the positive parenting that went in place of being told why what they were doing was not good rather than just receiving a clout. That is what we are trying to do. The defence is used at the end of the road, but for somebody seeing a child who is told, oh, that was just reasonable punishment, it is very forgot to unscramble it, in the school, the GP surgery you cannot do a bone scan.

You have to take things at face value and to justify my comment on skin of colour, you do not see bruises as easily in a highly pigmented skin. That is fact. I advise you to look at a book on dermatology. In pigmented skin all kinds of things look different, and that includes injury and so-called superficial injury. So to say that you must not leave a mark does not hold water in a country where we have people from all over and a wonderful rich make-up.

At the moment I will withdraw the amendment, but I'm tempted to come back to it later on because I am not convinced really by what I have heard today from the government and I do feel much more convinced by my home country of Wales and my other home country of Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 68, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. I rise to meet amendment 68 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to meet amendment 68 and to speak to amendment 171 in my name

18:26

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

to speak to amendment 171 in my name and 169, to which I have attached my name. In the interest of time I will constrain myself to those three amendments. The first of these amendments, 68, introduces a new clause to have a requirement on local authorities to provide family support services for all children and parents in the area. This follows on from what the noble Lady the Minister were saying about their desire to provide support for parents in the last group, but that is not what has been happening.

What we have seen is a massive increase in spending on crisis intervention services. In the last decade that is up 67% and four pounds in every five pounds spent is going into late intervention. At the same time the number of children in residential care has increased by 79% and spending is up in that decade by 61%. But there is a 46% decline in early intervention services and that is what this amendment seeks to address. We know that if we have investment in early interventions that will reduce the demand for higher cost later interventions.

More families can stay together in healthy ways, families in stable and loving homes where they can grow up peacefully and fewer young children expressing, experiencing the collect, abuse and harm. Again, this amendment I am pleased to say is following on from the work of my honourable friend member for North Herefordshire. She and others who made the case in other place, this is something that what lots of people are saying about this bill would lots of amendments and attempts, there is a huge amount in this bill to deal with improving care for children who need to live with a foster family or in a residential home.

Of course that is terribly important, but to significantly improve the condition of children in this country, we need to start earlier and that is what is lacking from this bill. I'm not particularly attached to the detailed drafting here, but I like to see some movement from the government and the intention to make sure the bill covers this early into. The governing party has a proud record in this area. The Sure Start 's sector, and there has been Start 's sector, and there has been more than 300 500 -- 3,500 centres that have been started.

They have welcomed families. You don't have to be a problem or have a problem to visit, it is just something there to support you. But the reality is, and I declare my position as Vice I declare my position as Vice President of the Local Government Association, we know how cash strapped local authorities are and the services are seen as nice to have, we want to keep it, but we can't find the money type of service so they have disappeared.

So I stress that this clause introduces a requirement for local authorities to provide sufficient family support services. I acknowledge the only way local authorities will be able to do this is if there was support funding from the centre, but if we take the children's charity Barnardo's, it's welcome to parenthood programme, benefits return to pounds 44 for every one pound spent which means we could be saving significant amounts of money. I moved to amendment 171 which is in my name and again was originally placed by my honourable friend in the other place.

This is about ensuring every school has a bereavement policy. I declare a personal interest here because I was 23 years old when I was in a car crash in which my mother was killed. I was not a child, but I was a young adult and I know how utterly wrenching and destroying that experience was. And also in my group at University we had a small group of students, about 20 odd, and one was killed in a car crash and I know what a shock it was to that group of students.

We don't actually have annual statistics on the number of children and young people who are bereaved but the total bereavement network estimates that more than 46,000 children and people are bereaved of a parent each year in the UK stop that is about 127 each And if you take an example, in any And if you take an example, in any school today, about one in 29 children will have been bereaved of a parent or sibling at some point in their childhood, some 70% of primary schools have at least one recently bereaved people on the role.

There are all sorts of stats which I won't come in the interest of time, go through, but this obviously is a huge shock both to the child, to the whole school community but it also has long-term effects on GCSE scores, it has impact on what happens to people further in life, death of a parent by the age of 16 is associated with women failing to gain any sort of qualification and both men and women being unemployed by the age of 30.

I have no doubt there are some schools that manage this very well, that have really good policies in place. But very often, schools are going to find themselves suddenly experiencing this situation, then thinking, gosh, what do we do? What is amendment aims to achieve is that that is not the case, this is set in standard. I am just going to finally, very briefly, addressed the amendment in the name of the nobility, Baroness Barran, number 169. I really want to thank the noble Lady for tabling this amendment because it addresses such a relatively small number of people but such an awful situation.

When mothers are pregnant, and there is a risk, having had children taken into care before, that their baby, at birth, is going to be taken into care. And what is awful, and I'm sure the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, will set this out in more detail, so I will only be brief, but the stats from Pores, which if anyone wants to look this up, is the NGO doing tremendous work in this area, a large proportion of children entering care are from families that have previously had a child removed from care, almost half, 47%, of the newborns who are subject to care proceedings are born to mothers who had previously had a proceeding also subject to care proceedings.

This makes it very clear that it is possible to intervene, to make sure this doesn't have to happen. To improve lives, both of mothers and babies. And I note that, the figures from Worcestershire for example, they had 29 mothers who were involved in their program, and high risk for recurrent pregnancy, eight of them had met with the adopters of their children, 11 had better attendance and family time, 12 agreed to meet with their children's social worker. They were supported to address housing needs, manage finances, get skills for life.

Learning to use public transport, absolute basics that can equip people to be parents. So, my lords, I'm sure the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, and I know the noble Lord has also signed this amendment, and will say further on this, but really, this is something that is just so obvious and important, to address the needs of some of those vulnerable in our society. I beg to move.

18:34

Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Amendment proposed, after clause four, a following new clause, the words as printed in the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, any parent would tell you, that raising children is a you, that raising children is a difficult job. It is important that all families have access to the all families have access to the support they need. They need to help them to be the best parents they them to be the best parents they can, that is why early intervention matters. Yet, too often, family support services, such as family support services, such as family hubs or centres are the first thing to be closed when funding is tight.

to be closed when funding is tight. to be closed when funding is tight. Recent analysis, on behalf of Barnado's, and the other leading children's charities, show that children's charities, show that spending on centres has been reduced by £1.4 billion since 2010. Resulting in any closure of over 1,000 centres. My lords, this is why I support the mobile Baroness Bennett's amendment 68, which I have put my name to. It would place a duty on local authorities to provide sufficient family support services, including family hubs.

For all children and families. This has been recommended by Barnado's in action for children. But my Lords, these charities believe that such a change must of course be backed by sufficient funding. Otherwise, we will be letting down a whole generation of children and families, generation of children and families, and any hope for their well-being.

18:36

Lord Farmer (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I will speak to amendment 68, 60 8A, 60 8B, 169 and 171 in this group. I added my name to amendment 68, in the name of the noble Baroness Bennett. It has been my long-standing position that every community in this country needs preventive family support for social flourishing. In the same way they need GP surgeries and schools. When the welfare state was founded in the late 1940s, there was recognition that health and education would not be able to defeat disadvantage without it.

80% of children's educational attainment is determined by people level factors, like family and community and only 20% by school level factors. Healthwise, in 2015, Citizens Advice published a report called A Very General Practice, which found 90% of GPs say that patients raised personal, often family or relationship problems, during consultations. This was the top nonhealth issue they deal with, and only 31% of GPs felt able to advise adequately in this area. In 1949, one of the architects of the welfare state call for child welfare The preservation of parental responsibility and to deal with the emotional cost to children, of high post-war levels of family breakdown.

These costs persist today. Compared to those who do not experience family breakdown, children who do are at least twice as likely to be homeless as adults, in trouble with the police, or spend time in prison. And underachieve at school. Young's Child Welfare Centres, began to emerge as family welfare centres in the 1980s, which helped parents of all age children, mainly in disadvantaged areas, to prevent the need for social services. Or they worked collaboratively with those services, many works with services like Children's Home, Action for Children, and many had social service department involvement.

Promising beginnings led to the 1989 children act requirement, that local authorities should provide family centres. This would have been a base for local authorities to work from and delivering family support. Buildings on their own are not enough, but even in this digital age, there does need to be a focal point in a community, where people can find out about the full range of services, and support available. Family centres pave the way for the Family centres pave the way for the national program of short start and children's centres, which began in the late 1990s, and focused on the preschool years.

Whilst children's centres were immensely helpful to many parents of this life stage, the cut-off at aged five became increasingly contested, with greater emphasis on early intervention. emphasis on early intervention. Throughout childhood. Finally, in 2020, family hubs became official government policy, and after 70 years, the family support infrastructure envisaged by Michael Young as being so important for families of all age children seems to be emerging. I declare here my interest as a guarantor of HFA and holding, the not-for-profit owner of the family hubs network Limited.

Given this potted history, it shows the intervention several decades ago have been frequently revisited, but family supports still seems to be on a precarious footing. As we basically had already. We await the granularity of the Spending Review, later this week. Moreover, a proper family support system, in a local authority are so much bigger than the family home, a network of buildings, people and services around it. The hub has to sit in a bigger way of relational practice, that guides how all support for families, including children social care, is one.

-- Is run. The government has made promising progress and implemented the independent review of children's social care. The families first partnership program of preventive family support. This aims to transform the whole system of help and protection for families. So, the right help is therefore every family were needed. It has a strong emphasis on early intervention, to prevent crisis. The families first program guide gives family hubs a good profile, as a place where universal services and community- based early help are delivered, and where emerging problems can be identified at an early stage.

My aim in supporting this amendment is to get more information from the government about how they will ensure the rebalancing away from crisis spending towards early intervention across the age range zero-19, and zero-25, with special needs. Prevention, A, it becomes embedded, B, it cannot be unravelled, and C, that it is further developed. Turning to my amendment, 68, A, 68, B, in my name, in family hub networks, working with local authorities, we talked to many people, who are locally leading the family hubs and start for life program, who say they have been somewhat held up by having to implement Start for Life instead of being able to present by integrating services across the age range zero to 19 and zero to 25.

The quote one counsel, the family hub part of the program gets overlooked, as the focus has been on start for life, and delivering its tight specifications. Some told us that prior to this program, they were doing well in the early years as a legacy of their children centres, many of which are still running. Albeit Start for Life funding has enabled them to strengthen this further. Due to how the funding is structured, some LAs have been in danger of only assuring up provision in the early years, family hubs, the greater goal have been the provision of family support from pregnancy, to 18, 19, 25, as I have said, if SEND or care leavers.

Boosting family support beyond the early years, vital though these are, must be a key goal, and delivered through a range of settings, organisations, public sector, and VCS, with some private sector as well, and professionals, backed by well- trained volunteers. Amendment 68, A and are -- 68, B, it would mean wanted more effects ability in how they use government funding to be delivered in their family hubs come implemented well, family hubs involve transformation and family support, through system change.

Yet, the requirements of the current program do not adequately prompt local authorities receiving funding, to implemented system change. They put the focus on funding a minimum offer, rather than on the system changed, to embed new ways of working, using an integrated approach. Cole OK to services, whilst beneficial, is not the same -- Code locating. Also, without system change, what happens when the system stops? Mainstreaming any of the funding programs require system change. Another key aspect of family hubs is using funding more effectively.

Particularly by combining funding pots. Westminster Council, a pioneer of the first family hubs, prior to central government funding was able to deploy troubled families program money, to develop family hubs. Because it had earned autonomy from the tight scriptures of that program's payment by results model. If the government extends funding for family support, to the rest of the country, beyond the 75 and the family hubs Start for Life how program, which I very much hope it will, learning from the original program suggests an earned autonomy approach would greatly help facilitate the desire for information.

I'm also supporting amendment 169 and 171 already mentioned, as post removal support for parents to prevent future removals, and bereavement support services for children. They need to be key elements of family support, but they are either vanishingly rare, hard to find, or both.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Farmer is moving 60 8A, amendment proposed, subsection 6, insert the word suspended in the

18:46

Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert the word suspended in the I rise to speak to amendment 167,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 167, in my name in this group. It's very in my name in this group. It's very much about an earlier intervention which I think has been a key theme of this group, a very important theme. I very much support the amendment, Amendment 68 put forward by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett. I also wanted to say how important I think amendment 169 put forward by the noble Lady Baroness Barran and others is.

In a previous life when I was chair of Cafcass I can remember visiting various pause projects, I was so impressed with the work they were doing and how that was preventing young mothers who had already had one or more children taken away from them into care, for that to keep repeating. I can remember hearing a story of a mother who had eight children. They had all been taken into care. It was only when they were part of a pause project that this terrible cycle stop repeating itself.

So I'm enormously supportive of that amendment. My amendment probably is a fairly sort of, I think it's important if not as exciting as some of the other amendments. It basically would require local authorities to report annually on the early intervention services for children and families in their area, and report back to the Secretary of State. In terms of the context, frankly we've already heard it. We know early intervention services are crucial for the healthy development of babies, children and young people.

Singularly giving them and their families access to the help they need before problems escalate and families reach crisis point. We also know, and we've heard so not going to repeat all the figures, that local authorities have had severe financial challenges and haven't been able to provide nearly as many as those early intervention services as I'm sure they would like. Because their money has frankly been taken up with crisis and child protection services, but they are under a statutory duty to provide.

We've heard about what's happened over the last decade, the reducing numbers of children centres, hubs, youth services et cetera. So not hearing to repeat that. I will just say the impact I felt was very starkly and clearly set out in Josh MacAlister's independent review of children's social care back in 2022. I think that review makes a powerful case for a strong focus on earlier intervention, and giving families the help they need. I was lucky enough to hear Josh MacAlister talk about his review last week, in the context of additional help for children in care.

Who knows, we may even hear something about additional money for early intervention in the spending review. So let's wait and see. I think both the economic and moral case for investment in early intervention is incredibly clear, so I'm not going to set it out. I would say from all of the discussions I've been part of in this chamber over the years on children's social care, ensuring that children and young people get the right support at the right time is widely supported across the political divide.

I don't think it's a contentious issue actually, I really hope we hear some welcoming news in the review. I contend that there is too little known about the services that are currently available in the field of early intervention. So this amendment is really designed to promote data collection on these services, to create greater awareness of what is available. I think it would help the Secretary of State to respond to the needs of local authorities, ensuring sufficient services are being provided.

Across England. And also just better information on the numbers of families accessing it, demographic information about the children receiving support, and how effective they are. Are these services actually working? I think, put simply, to understand how we can better support children and target funding to help the most vulnerable we just need to know more about what the current picture really looks like. I think this amendment is simply a first step to help us ensure children and young people don't fall through the gaps of ineffective service provision, and that they do get the right support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at the right time. I'm grateful for this bill, it's

18:51

The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for this bill, it's an opportunity to address a number of what we call adverse childhood of what we call adverse childhood experiences. I suspect given the lateness of the hour we won't reach some of the amendments of mine about levers, but this is about children who have suffered serious bereavement. I will say a few short words. I was in that position, my dad died when I was 14. That left me and my younger brother and my mum, it it made my mum the only wage earner in the house, at the same time as coping with the huge grief of losing her husband at the age of 43.

She had two children, boys of 14 and 11, not the easiest to cope with. I still don't quite know how we coped, I think I did it by burying it for the next 10 years, my little brother coped by having stomach pains for the next few years. It damaged his education. I sometimes widened whether it led to me feeling that I had to be a pass -- that I had to be a pastor. As the eldest son of the family I felt I was trying to hold the family together where everyone else was falling apart.

I would have appreciated their being somewhere I could have turned to, some signposting where I could have looked for something outside of the family. People who were not grieving as I my brother and mother and father's parents and all were grieving, somewhere I could have done to for support. If this amendment 171 can help us create better bereavement services for children, so children in the position I was in all those years ago, they are not left in position. That would be a great thing for us to do.

18:52

Lord Meston (Crossbench)

- -

I wish to strongly support amendment 172, and I do so with reference to amendment 169 although I can see those are directed to the same Richard problem of successive removals of children and babies from others. Quite simply, much more needs to be done to support parents. Particularly mothers, after a child has been removed into care. To reduce the risk of a further child being removed from the same mother. The sad statistics of already been mentioned by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett, but the fact is at least one in four women will return to court already having had a child removed.

Too often they have reacted to the removal of their child with an ill considered or unconsidered decision to have another baby. With all too often the same consequences. These are truly wretched cases for the courts to deal with, particularly if it's impossible for the court to find any real improvement since the previous removal. And particularly if they are mothers who have become mistrustful and find it difficult to see and accept help. -- Seek and accept help. Once the previous proceedings finish as things stand the mother may receive no further support or attention from the local authority until the next pregnancy is made known, which by then may be too late.

The evidence collated and presented by the Nuffield family Justice Observatory on the frequency and impact of recurrent care proceedings and removals is compelling, if depressing. The Nuffield Observatory points out that services are available in some areas, but are described as few in number and mostly small in scale. The work done by the specialist charity, Pause, already mentioned by Baroness Bennett, shows that with the right work and support the cycle of recurrent removals can be finished.

The financial costs to local authorities of successive care proceedings leading to fostering and adoption is enormous, I would suggest avoidable. When Sir James Mandy was President of the family division he encouraged judges to persuade local authorities in their area to adopt the work done by Pause. Many of us tried to do so, but it was not easy because local authorities were nervous of the cost. Thinking only in terms of the current years expenditure rather than the potential budgetary benefits in years to come.

Accordingly, post removal support remains unavailable. In more than half local authority areas. That is why primary legislation is needed. I note that previous attempts in November 2016 similarly presented by Baroness Armstrong were not accepted, for reasons which I have to say were frankly inadequate. I hope this government will do better

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and accept amendment 172. Just a brief intervention here in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just a brief intervention here in and around amendment 167 and 168. and around amendment 167 and 168. Both of them are about early intervention, I know the situations are often different in Northern are often different in Northern Ireland where the local health trusts look after young people, and trusts look after young people, and young people services. In England it is the local authorities. However, the principles of the issues are the same. Dealing with the young people

18:57

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

same. Dealing with the young people in the early intervention is hugely important. My issue is it shouldn't be just about the early intervention, it should be an ongoing process. One aspect I think is not looked at in this bill, and I wonder if it could be included at some stage, that is around the rights of parents. I have worked with looking after children for many years, I'm an adoptive parent. The really significant issues with young people can sometimes manifest into wider family difficulties, particularly when a younger person is a refusal, maybe refusing to take on counselling or go to school.

Then the pressure returns to the parents. The pressure of maybe facing a court hearing, a legal proceeding, because that child or young person will not attend either counselling or school. Quite often there is huge pressure because the law is on the side of taking the family and the parents to court. And that often isn't a good prospect for the family proceedings, and the family support. What I'm trying to say in this brief moment, I know there are other amendments coming up at a later stage that I will also hopefully speak on with the same issue, but my concern is that early intervention is vital.

Very important, but that also needs to be ongoing intervention as well.

18:58

Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)

- -

I very much support the intervention, not only early intervention but intervention at all levels when the family absolutely needs it. As Lord Maxton has said, there's a financial advantage to local authorities. Not of course short-term, but long-term. Because the more a local authority intervenes with a troubled family, the less, with any luck, those children will go into care. It's particularly important when one child has gone and has already been sent to make sure the next child, then nearly always is a next child, will actually have to not go into care.

It's a sad situation for judges, when you really can't help the mother and the second, third or fourth child, sometimes more, because she's never had any help from the moment each time she has lost the child. So there is a genuine financial advantage to stopping children going into care, which of course is obviously far more long-term expensive. Could I also add a short word following on from the sad story of the right Reverend Prelate. My son aged 50 died of cancer, five years ago.

With teenage children. And their mother, my daughter-in-law, was brilliant. But the loss of their father for the early teenagers was devastating. I'm glad to say they have succeeded extremely well and they have coped, but it is a moment when I have no doubt at all my daughter-in-law would have gained enormously if she actually -- she actually lives in Los Angeles so the wider family couldn't help, they would have gained enormously if there had been someone there in a similar situation in this country.

I do think this bereavement amendment is a

19:01

Lord Hampton (Crossbench)

- -

I rise very briefly to speak to amendment 172 which I add my name to. I noble friends, Lord Meston and Lady Butler-Sloss has said it far better than I could have possibly said, I know the amazing work of Holes and I commend their work to the House, and I have faith the Baroness Warsi anything missing. -- The baroness and she will say anything that is missing for

19:01

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

I rise for amendments 169 and 172 in my name and comments on other members amendments in this group and I would like to thank the noble Baroness, and amendment 69, the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Meston, for their support, 172. As has been noted, they seek to do similar things. Amendment 169 is a narrower version, focusing on support for mothers who have had a baby removed into care at birth. And like Lord Meston, I prefer amendment 172, which is broader, and would create an obligation for local authorities to offer an evidence- based program, to mothers who have had a child removed from their care.

And who, as we have heard, very often, immediately, then get pregnant again from a human point of view, I think one absolutely understand why, after all the attention that they may have received from children's services, prior to the child being removed, and the deafening silence that surrounds them once the child has gone. And very often, that void is filled by another pregnancy. I say I prefer amendment one-72 because I think it is a real issue and is broader.

But I think the evidence is crystal-clear from amendment 169, almost half of newborns, subject to care proceedings, are born to mothers who have previously had an older sibling removed through those proceedings. So, the kind of near inevitability of that seems very powerful. I am not sure if it is on my register interest but I did do a period of volunteering, before I joined your Lordships house, so I have seen the quality of their work. First hand. And since 2013, over First hand.

And since 2013, over 2,000 women have completed the, who prior to working with them, have collectively had over 6,200 children removed from their care. That is just over three children per woman. And this is not a competition for how many children a woman has had that are removed, but it was founded by social worker, social Humphreys -- Sophie Humphreys, after they worked together on a case, when the 14th child was removed from the same woman, so it is grounded very much in the experience of women, and Abbott suggested the noble Baroness, the minister, that this amendment -- I would suggest to the noble Baroness that this amendment is Baroness that this amendment is Baroness that this amendment is , in the sense that we have some that offer these programs, some that do not, but delivery is inconsistent and patchy as the noble Lord, Lord Meston said, the funding for it is not always available.

We know, also, in the spirit of this bill, which seeks to support those in the care system that 40% of women who have taken part in the programs were in care themselves. And the noble Baroness, the Minister, will know that the DfE's own evaluation of this work so significantly improved outcomes for mothers, reduce rates of infant care entry and very significant savings to children's social care, with the Department valuation suggesting that 1 pound spent on of the program, resulted in a saving in social care of £4.50 over four years, £7.61, it seems remarkably accurate, over 18 years.

I'm not sure whether that is the net present value of £7.61, but anyway. A 71 return, so from the point of view of the mother, from the point of view of the children, and from the financial perspective, I think these amendments deserve the ministers and serious attention. -- the Minister's serious attention. More broadly, this group has been focused on the important subject of support for families, both at a relatively early stage, and at crisis point, such as when a child crisis point, such as when a child was removed into care of course, the purpose behind amendment 68, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend, Lord Farmer, is to ensure that there is a universal provision of family support services and there is no question that such services are valued by the families that use them and can make a great difference in the lives of children and their parents.

And the spirit of the amendment, which keeps universal services separate from those that are voluntary, but targeted to more vulnerable families is one, as the noble Baroness notes from our earlier debates, on clause three of the bill, is one that we support. Amendment 68, A, and B can introduce a concept of earned autonomy for family support services, which, again, is something that we are very sympathetic to. And I have the greatest respect for my noble friend, Lord Farmer, for his extensive work in this area.

Particularly in relation to family hubs. I look forward to hearing what the Minister might say about the expansion of family hubs, which the government has described itself as a non-stigmatising gateway to targeting whole family support, which in normal speak I think is a good thing. Amendment 167, in the name of Baroness Tyler of Enfield, which would require local authorities to report annually one earlier intervention services, for children and family, in their area, and as the noble Lady acknowledge, I think local authorities have annual reporting requirements, including in relation to the multiagency safeguarding work but as I understand it, this amendment would make that more explicit in relation to early help.

And I just wondered whether this wouldn't naturally fit in a way to the safeguarding children statutory guidance, as opposed to being on the face of the bill. Again, it is hard to argue with the spirit of amendment 171, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I was sad, both to hear of her loss, and that of The Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester, and I'm sure across the House, we are very grateful to those charities that offer great support to children, their families, who have been bereaved.

When I was in the department, I remember meeting the team at the Ruth Strauss foundation, and indeed, went on to recommend them to extended family members who benefited from their support. And of course, in some cases, when perhaps a parent has cancer, the death can be anticipated and support can actually happen pre- bereavement, as well as post bereavement, if the family wishes. But in other cases, such as in cases of domestic homicide, the child effectively loses both parents, one parent has been killed, and one parent is in prison.

Effective support in all of these cases is to be encouraged, and if accepted, this amendment would make the task of finding the right support so much easier for bereaved or soon-to-be bereaved children. And I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. the amendment standing in my name.

19:10

Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in group 3, I want to thank the baroness during the course of this debate, for highlighting important issues that aiming to ensure children's and families can get the support they need at the right time. That is an enormously important theme of the government's reforms of children's social care. And in doing that, we are already taking forward recommendations from the independent review of children's social care, mentioned by several people today.

Particularly, the aim to rebalance the children's social care system, towards earlier intervention, and supporting more children to stay safely with their families. Turning to the detail of the amendments, and firstly, to amendment 68, in the names of the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett, Ravi noble Lord, Lord Farmer. -- And the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Which raises the important issue of family support services. I appreciate the noble Lords intention of this amendment and confirm the government is already investing in the provision of family support, nationally.

And I also except the point made by the noble Lady, Baroness Benjamin. That there is a need to ensure that that investment is there. The noble Lady outlined the fall in investment, since 2010, for example, in the sugar start program. It took -- The sure start program for the particular back to one of my interventions I made in the other place, before I came starkly up against the electorate in 2010. When I expressed concern that a different government might not continue to support the development of family support services, and sure start, in a way that that government had.

There was heckling, there was cheering, as tends to be more the case at the other end of this Houston here, but nevertheless, there was. But what we saw in the intervening years was a reduction in support, for precisely the sort of services that noble Lords are quite rightly, today, pushing the government, to ensure that we both develop, and fun. And that is why, as we have frequently reference, but I will reference again, this government has provided over £500 million to local authorities, to rollout the national families first partnership program.

Which aims to prioritise earlier intervention and ensure families can access the right support sooner. Turning to some of the more detailed points. I note the noble Lord, Lord Farmer's amendment, regarding earned autonomy status for local authorities, do not follow prescriptive criteria in determining the services to be delivered. This is a challenge, isn't it? How do we enable local authorities to have that autonomy to be able to build the services, telling the services, in a way that makes sense to them, given their particular circumstances, whilst also, of course, ensuring that additional investment has been placed into preventative services is actually spent on that.

But I have considerable sympathy with the idea that there needs to be that flexibility. That is why the government is not mandating the delivery of specific family support services by any local authorities through the program. They all have fixed ability, to respond to the needs and areas, with available resources, they are supported in thinking about what might be appropriate and what would work best by, for example, the program guide the government has issued, and by the work of foundations in developing information about what is most effective, and working well.

It is of course though, important, as I say, that it is clear that additional money allocated for this work is spent on it. And grant funding, therefore, is ring fenced to ensure it is spent on a range of preventative services. But within that ring fence, I think there is flexibility for all local authorities, to think about the nature and combination of the services they are providing. Through the family hubs and start for life program, 75 of the...

Sorry, before I move on from that, I also wanted to respond to the point that the noble Lord made, both about flexibility, as we talked about, but also about combining funding pots, which I think it's an important point. Most local authorities funded through the family hubs and Start for Life Program have the ability, to tailor services to meet program expectations and address local needs, this idea of combining funding I think is an important, also an important bit of flexibility, and many local authorities are actually combining funding with other funding sources, to enhance support for families and I think it's important they are unable to do that, notwithstanding that accountability point I have made.

So, through the family hubs and Start for Life Program, 75 of the most deprived local authorities in England have received funding to set up family hubs, with integrated start for life services. Additionally, 30 local authorities have received funding to embed family have models, and by joining up and enhancing services, the family hubs provide a welcoming front door to support families. There are now more than 500 family hubs funded, 25-26, local authorities are receiving a further authorities are receiving a further The noble Lord farmer and the noble Baroness Lady Bennett also raised the question of how we can ensure not only that we are developing services, but we are achieving sustainable system change through the rollout.

I think just to say a few words about how we believe that the approach we are taking will enable those changes to be fully embedded, for earlier intervention to become the mainstream part of provision that it needs to. In the families first partnership program guide we have encouraged local authorities to take a whole system approach to reforms, working closely with children and families to redesign services from universal settings such as family hubs through to social care intervention. Some of the families first for children pathfinders have integrated family hubs and family help to support delivery, for example using family hubs as the primary co-location space for multidisciplinary family help teams.

One such area is Wolverhampton, who have integrated their targeted family help offer with an existing family hubs to provide the non-stigmatised place funded through the Start for Life program and the families first partnership program. I think the noble Lord said at one point in his contribution it's not sufficient to co-locate, and I agree. But it can be an important start. If you bring together the ability to pull sources of funding, if you work to ensure that the changed way of working is embedded not just within children's social care but across the services that support families, it becomes far more difficult for it to be unrolled and it becomes much more likely it becomes embedded in the way the noble Lord is rightly looking for it to become.

Turning now to amendment 167 in the name of Baroness Tyler, this seeks to place a duty on local authorities to report to the Secretary of State on the delivery of early intervention services. I very much agree with her contention that we need to be able to monitor and evaluate the extent to which early intervention is being delivered, and what the successful methods of doing that are. I'm not sure that requires what I suspect would be quite a burdensome annual report to the Secretary of State, but I wholly agree with her that we need to be clear about monitoring need to be clear about monitoring and evaluation.

And we need to know more about what is working. Funding conditions of the program require conditions of the program require local authorities to deliver a range of preventative services such as parenting classes, housing support and welfare and benefits advice, along with the other elements of the families first partnership program which has been rolling out nationally since April. We are collecting monitoring data and information from local areas as these reforms embed, to ensure the reforms are effectively supporting children and families.

It is possible under section 83 of the children's act for the Secretary of State to collect information on these services from local authorities. We have of course OFSTED, reviewing the success of what is happening. So I think we have a range of ways in which we can bring together information about the delivery of early intervention services. Without necessarily going down the route proposed by this amendment. But I completely agree with her, and I'm sure that we quite rightly as a government will be held to account for explaining how the services are developing and the impact they are having.

Turning now to amendments 169 and 172, in the name of Baroness Barran, which seeks to ensure local authorities offer evidence-based support to parents who have had a child of any age removed from their care in order to prevent repeat removals. I know particularly that amendment 169 focuses on the important issue of supporting parents who have experienced the removal of a baby. I think the noble Lady ably a dental fired -- ably identified the scale and impact for any individual woman of the repeated taking into care of children.

I think she very well expressed what might be happening to a child who has been taken into care, that makes having a -- another child seem like the right thing to do. Keeping more children safely at home with their families and ensuring families get the right support at the earliest opportunity is absolutely vital. That's why at an important part of the family help being rolled out will be to provide support for multidisciplinary teams for all families, including birth parents, adopters and families when children are returning home from care.

And Pathfinder local authorities are finding positive early impact of those reforms. I note the noble Lady specifically mentions therapeutic services, and I want to reassure noble Lords our investments already support the delivery of these services including taking forward examples from Pathfinder local authorities where senior therapists have been embedded into family help multidisciplinary teams to provide direct therapy and support to families. We are also already investing in services that support families through pregnancy to early childhood, including family hubs and Start for Life programs.

The work of Pause certainly sounds enormously important, and leading the way in this area. It is clear that they are doing important work to improve the lives of women who have had or are at risk of having children removed from their care. My ministerial colleague Janet Daby met with Pause earlier this year, at the Department -- and the Department is keen to continue working with them both to support the work they are doing, and of course to learn more broadly about how we can support women in these particular situations.

And of course their babies as well. I think actually the ability to be able to use family group decision-making in these cases may well also be something that could support much better outcomes than we are seeing at the moment. Finally, I will turn to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 171... I would be grateful for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would be grateful for the Baroness Minister to go back and perhaps talk to her ministerial colleagues again about this. She is absolutely right that some of the effective targeted help and section effective targeted help and section 17 types help that she was talking 17 types help that she was talking about that is set out in the families first pathfinders, they can be useful to some families. But be useful to some families. But these cases where a woman has already had multiple removals don't typically fit into that bracket.

typically fit into that bracket. They are straight to care proceedings. The caseload, if I remember it rightly, for each full- time Pause practitioner is they work with three women. So it is super with three women. So it is super intensive. And I think it is complimentary to guess. I would be grateful if she didn't close the door on that as an option, particularly as I know her noble friend Baroness Armstrong previously put this down as an amendment. I feel strengthened in that knowledge.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have been persuaded during the course of this debate about the course of this debate about the significance of this issue. I had some experience in previous work I did in children's social care about this, so I will certainly undertake this, so I will certainly undertake to go back and talk to my colleagues about some more specificity around about some more specificity around the particular requirements in these particular cases. Perhaps I can return to the noble Lady with a bit return to the noble Lady with a bit more detail about that.

Turning to amendment 171 in the name of the amendment 171 in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Bennett, seeking to establish a duty on local authorities to improve access to authorities to improve access to bereavement support services for children. Like others, I recognise and respect the noble Lady talking about her own experience of bereavement, as we also heard from the right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Identifying the enormous pressure that falls onto families, particularly to other children at the point at which they are bereaved.

It is for this reason the government continues to consider how to improve access to existing bereavement support. There is a cross government bereavement group chaired by the Department for health and social care, the Department for work and and the Home Office continuing to look at how we can improve access to support. Following discussion by this group about opportunities to improve signposting of support, and I think the right Reverend Prelate said I would have appreciated being signposted to some support outside the family, we have recently added links to brief and support specifically for children and young people on GOV.uk.

Schools of course talk to their pupils about mental health and where to access further support, both as part of the curriculum and through their wider pastoral duties. Relationships and sex education statutory guidance specifies that teachers should be aware of common adverse childhood experiences, including bereavement. So I hope that bringing those things together we are hoping to, we are enabling an improvement in the support we provide for children who have suffered the evening. -- Suffered treatment.

So I hope this, along with the continued investment in services for children and family support, reassures noble Lords we are taking action on that. In all of these areas I hope I have provided, I think after a useful and important debate, some reassurance about the acceptance by the government, in fact of all of the issues identified during the course of this debate. But also the action government is taking to commit to invest in improving outcomes for children and their families, through effective support services.

I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw these amendments, but I will certainly come back on the specific point and also reflect on the case made in what I think is being a very important and helpful group of important and helpful group of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, -- Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that amendment 68 a is withdrawn? We that amendment 68 a is withdrawn? We are coming onto 68. 68 A is withdrawn. Amendment 60 8B, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. It's always a bit of a tangle when we get to that point. I want to

19:29

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

thank the noble Lady the Minister and everyone who has contracted a from all corners of your Lordship's House. I don't have time to run through all the contributions, I will thank the right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and Baroness Butler-Sloss for sharing our personal experiences. And I think in responding to the amendment on bereavement services I acknowledge what the noble Baroness Minister said, but a think we still feel there are major gaps. Baroness Barran referred to charities with lots of services, but not everyone will be able to access GOV.uk and I think there are still some gaps in I am not going to run through everything you just want to pick up a point from intervention of Baroness Barran, there is a need to come back on 169 and 170.

I think there is the point that if you have a woman who has had a series of babies removed, she doesn't have a child, and therefore, it is going to be very tempting to local services do not put... They don't have any statutory responsibility and are not going to see this as commitment of every net, and unless there is some specific step taken here, this is an awful problem, which is just going to re-occur at great human and personal cost. On Amendment 68, the one I started with, I think I neglected to thank the noble Lady, Baroness Benjamin, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for supporting it, so I'm going to do that now.

And I'm also going to come back to the noble Lady, the Minister, because I think what the noble Lady said on recounting her experience with sure start centres, actually provides start centres, actually provides quite a powerful argument, for this amendment, for something to be put on the face of the bill for because the noble Lady said, as ministers very often of all stripes, very often do, we are doing this anyway, you don't need to put this on the face of the bill.

But we are in a very politically... Nature of great political turmoil, none of us knows what comes next, and if this was to be made a statutory responsibility, a local authorities, to provide this, I'm going to use a non- stigmatising word, I am aware Baroness Barran fancied a bit of a mouthful, but it is an important principle that that door over there is not something that people, families with problems walk-through, it is a door that lots of families walk through to get support, and that non-stigmatising label is really terribly important to make sure everyone is able to access this service and it doesn't provide any sort of stigma.

And if that is given by a statutory responsibility to local authorities, we know local authorities have so little funding barely delivering statutory responsibilities. If it is not statutory and politics changes, then we can see the same seesaw, the same creation of services, destruction of services we have seen before, surely, we want to get off that seesaw. So, because I'm going to withdraw Amendment 68 in this moment but I reserve the right to come back to it at report stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that Amendment 68 be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 69, Baroness Spielman, not Amendment 69, Baroness Spielman, not move? Amendment 69, A, Lord Lucas, not moved. Amendment 69, AB, Lord Watson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Watson. My Lords, I was think there is something rather sad about an something rather sad about an amendment that sits on its own, amendment that sits on its own, forms a group of its own. It looks like it is afraid to speak its name, like it is afraid to speak its name, would I prefer to think of group for today as being small but perfectly formed. And I speak to it on that

19:33

Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)

- -

formed. And I speak to it on that basis. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure the same kind of parental care expected in families that applies to corporate parents. At the children's care system. And in that case, it has echoes of amendment 107, B, which I moved earlier. Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 provides that the court may only make a care order in respect of the child, if it is satisfied the child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, this is attributable to the care received by the child not being what it would be reasonable for a parent to give them.

We have heard much about this this afternoon and this evening, about the failures of birth parents. Nonetheless, this amendment would equalise the position of looked after children, and children who live with their parents with no social care, corporate parents would be required to provide the type of care it will be reasonable to expect a parent in the community to give a child. Surely it is reasonable for the state's care of children to be at least A-level expected of parents, and should certainly drop no lower.

Under the Children And Young Persons Act Mountain a Nine, a local authority must safeguard and promote the welfare of every child in its care, that is a symptom of a care order, and every child is provided accommodation for a period of 24-hour's. This amendment adds to the requirement of the local authority, as the child's corporate parent must provide care it would be reasonable expect a parent to give their child. My Lords, this would strengthen and give legal clarity, as to the primary duty of local authorities, in their vital and frivolous role as parent.

And to provide care that would be reasonably expected by a parent. Statutory guidance issued in 2018 for local authorities, implementing the corporate parenting principles, in section 1 of the children and social work act, says, " A strong coparenting ethos means everyone from the Chief Executive down to frontline staff, as well as elected council members, are concerned about those children and care leavers as if they were their own." This is evidenced by an embedded culture where council offices do all that is reasonably possible to ensure the council is the best parent it can be to the child or young person.

It was the late and most much missed Frank Dobson, the Secretary of State for health, to dictate a legal and moral responsibly of being a corporate parent. In a letter he sent to every local authority in September 1998, he said this, " For children who are looked after, your council has a legal and moral duty to try and provide the kind of loyal support that any parents would give to the their children. At that applies no less today than it did all those years ago.

Many important amendments are made to the 1989 Children Act over the many years, including the well-being and life opportunities. It may come as a surprise to noble Lords that there is still no clear unambiguous requirement that looked after children receive the same level of care from their corporate parents, as would be deemed acceptable for them, had they remained with their birth parents. Indeed, the High Court, in March 2022, in a judicial review, brought by the children's rights charity, by the children's rights charity, article 39, there is no provision in 1989 Children Act, in situ or as part of a placement.

The child can be subject to care proceedings of the family court, until the age of 17, where they are at risk of suffering significant harm. This is deemed to be double the parents care being not what it would be reasonable to give them. Yet once they are moved from the parents and looked after, there is no express duty on the new corporate parents to provide care within their new placement, which is the new home. How can that situation be defended? I simply do not believe that it can.

If the equivalent of a local authority saying do not do as I do, do as I say, and it was not be allowed to continue. For that to happen, it would help to transform the children's care system. And I look forward to my noble friend, if you can't give me a positive answer today, taking some time to consider again what I have said, and perhaps coming forward at report stage, with the proposal, because I believe this is a lacuna, which has the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunity to fill. I moved. Propose, a clause four, insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Propose, a clause four, insert new clause on parent equivalent care from local authorities, the words of which are on the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which are on the Marshalled list. I would like to speak to oppose this amendment. Well-intentioned as this amendment. Well-intentioned as it clearly is. I have several levels of concern about the imposition of of concern about the imposition of yet another duty. Firstly, I do believe that the expectations for believe that the expectations for looked after children, are generally well understood. Whether they are actually carried through in practice is another matter. This particular is another matter. This particular is another matter.

This particular amendment has some obvious holes. For exam, there are kinds of intimacy in a normal healthy parent-child relationships but absolutely wouldn't be appropriate, as between local authority staff and

19:40

Baroness Spielman (Conservative)

- -

children. More generally, there has been a proliferation of duties and been a proliferation of duties and legislation in recent years. To give legislation in recent years. To give an example, I became Chair of Ofcom 14 years ago, after particular duty was raised in my first board meeting, I asked my legal director for recession, to talk me through for recession, to talk me through all of the duties that applied, and I discovered, to my astonishment, we already had 28, I think it was, duties.

With a handful more in the duties. With a handful more in the pipeline. I am sure it is a lot more since then. And this imposition of duties as they go to solution has several problems. Firstly, it creates problems of overload. Normal human beings simply can't hold so many different duties in their thinking simultaneously. Secondly, they get imposing isolation, they are usually added without reference to previous duties, with which they often overlap, but sometimes, they're pushing different directions.

How do they reconcile them? They can lead to skin pain. -- Skimping. If duties, it it can mean everything is done less well, within the other functions, which reduces quality at the receiving end and takes away the ability of public services, to prioritise intelligently. Then it can diverse resource away from the main purpose of the duty is to protect, towards the kind of activities that demonstrate compliance with the activity. And lastly, if there is a surplus of duties and impossibility for actually giving full effect to all of them, you get asceticism built up that can corrupt organisation coaches.

When everybody knows they're actually really paying lip service to an enormous list. None of them, people stop believing in the ability of an organisation, to fulfil its real purposes. So, for all these reasons, tempting as it is, to think that another duty is the great solution that will protect children from all the awful harms that are being talked about today, there are great salve to all our consciences, but I think we need to resist and really ensure that we get to the essence of the things that we can do most to help children.

19:42

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in this group. And of course, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has again reminded of the House that vulnerable children in the care of local authority do not always receive the care that they deserve, and we should never lose sight that that should be our goal, but I think my noble friend, Baroness Spielman, put it very well in her remarks. And our pickup on it too, firstly, the local authorities do understand the duties in this area, and the noble Lord himself cited some of the legislation and guidance about the spirit of their response abilities.

The question, as ever, as in the implementation, and I share my noble friend's concerns about adding yet another duty to local authorities.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to this single amendment in group 4 of our single amendment in group 4 of our considerations tonight, Amendment

19:43

Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)

- -

considerations tonight, Amendment 69, AB, the name of my noble friend, Lord Watson. And I do want to reflect the concern that has been expressed in terms of the care and support that some of the most vulnerable children actually received. And I think Baroness Barran has just highlighted particularly in acknowledgement, some too many children have been let down over the years. And I believe this bill is a real opportunity to set things on a more constructive path.

I recognise that the amendment has been tabled to our legislative requirement, to ensure the nature and level of parental care that families try to provide for their own children is provided by local authorities, in relation to protecting children. A local authority as a corporate parent in two senses. First, it has corporate parenting duties, Second Committee also stands in at the parents shoes, having parental responsibility for the children in its care. I wholeheartedly agree with the goal, and I want to ensure that our looked after children receive the highest possible quality support.

However, existing legislative and regulatory framework already means that local authorities should be caring for looked after children like good parents would for subsections 22 and 22, A, of the Children Act 1989 already set out the duties owned by a local authority, to any child, that is looked after by them. These include to provide accommodation for the child, to safeguard and promote their welfare, to promote their educational achievement, and to help them access a range of services. I noticed the noble Lady, Baroness Spielman, is giving me a look, but I did check that that is indeed the case.

But there we are. It has On top of this, all looked after children must have an up-to-date and detailed care plan, setting out the arrangements the child's care, covering how their needs will be met. And importantly, taking the child's wishes and feelings into account. It is through this plan and their ongoing and trusted relationship with their social worker that the local authority ensures the looked after children are receiving the care and support they need. There are already minimum standards that must be met by those caring for looked after children.

Both the minimum standards for fostering and quality standards for children's services make it clear children should benefit from excellent parenting, "And staff should receive nothing less than a good parent would for children in their care". This includes feeling loved, supported in their personal and emotional development, and supported to pursue their hobbies and interests. Things we should all expect from good parents. In addition, local authorities are corporate parents under the social work act 2017, this means they must in carrying out their functions have regards to the need to seek the best outcomes for children and care leavers.

This includes, amongst other things, acting in their best interests, promoting their physical and mental health and well-being, and encouraging high aspirations. And just from a personal point of view, as a former elected councillor, we took our responsibilities as members of the council extremely seriously. And we had a separate board set up, with representatives of councillors to ensure that everything we had down in terms of expectations could be measured and taken forward. This of course includes training for those that are involved.

And ongoing conversations to make sure this actually happens. We will come on to discuss the new corporate parenting measures in the bill, these will ensure government departments and relevant public bodies take looked after children and care leavers into consideration when designing policies and delivering services. The phrase I used to use, and I had responsibility for children's services, is that looking after children is everyone's business. Everyone has a role and responsibility. The important thing is making sure that it's measured and acted upon.

The intention of the new corporate parenting measures is to level the playing field for children and care leavers who don't have, as we have heard, the family support networks their peers benefit from. Given the extensive duties and requirements already placed on local authorities and those that care for children, my belief is that this amendment would have little to no practical impact. And for these reasons, I would ask the noble Lord Watson to kindly withdraw his amendment.

19:49

Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)

- -

I thank my noble friend the Minister, her last point about the proposal of this amendment having little to no effect carries considerable weight coming from her with her experience as a leader of one of England's largest city councils. Something she did with some distinction. So that does carry weight. But she also talks, as did Baroness Spielman, about adding additional duties. The question to me is whether or not those duties are appropriate, and whether they feel any kind of void that experience shows require is to be filled.

We can talk in generalities but there are a number of occasions referred to earlier today of local authorities, and I don't doubt for any moment that they set out to do anything rather than their best, but if you think about situations such as I mentioned in my earlier amendment when local authorities move children out of their areas, when they separate them from siblings, when in certain occasions they move children just before they are due to sit GCSEs or A-levels and the disruption that can have.

They put them into foster care or adoptive care and then don't provide the resources for that care to be properly effective. There are ways in which councils could say, we are doing our best, but in actual fact that my not be enough. I'm slightly troubled by Baroness Spielman's point that we are just adding extra details and duties onto local authorities. I know she has experience with off while and OFSTED, but that sounded more like a comment coming from her business side of her career, it sounded like corporate jargon, adding duties for the sake of it.

But we are looking to prevent what can be sometimes going wrong in councils care of children. I would argue that they can. Otherwise they would not be the kind of stories we get all too regularly of local authorities or those funded by local authorities putting vulnerable children in some pretty dire situations. So while I do bow to the experience of those who have spoken in the debate, I do think there are issues here that need to be looked at further.

The point I made in introducing this is to say why should it be that a local authority can take a child away from both parents, become their corporate parents, then not have the same responsibilities for them. That just does not seem right. I thank those who have contributed to the debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I withdraw my amendment. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Clause 5, amendment 69B,

19:52

The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)

- -

the Earl of Effingham.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 69B in my name and that of Lady Stedman-Scott, as well as the other amendments in this group. Amendment amendments in this group. Amendment 69B Amendment 69B6 to ensure children and their carers can be referred to as a kinship family. By referred to as a kinship family. By using the term kinship families it will allow for the correct dignity, will allow for the correct dignity, respect and acknowledgement that they are indeed a family unit.

Currently, the use of kinship carers and children in kinship care does and children in kinship care does not fully recognise that they are actually a family unit. This amendment seeks to ensure that the amendment seeks to ensure that the whole family are able to access the necessary support as set out by the necessary support as set out by the local authority. Amendment 71 seeks to ensure that when a local authority updates its kinship care offer it proactively consults with kinship families.

These kinship families play an integral role in understanding the effectiveness of the local offer, as they are the ones in situ who are receiving the support and as such their opinion and understanding of such delivery is essential to enhance the overall service as and when required. This amendment would also require the offer to be reviewed annually rather than from time to time. We believe that such a vague timescale opens up the possibility for the local authorities who are dealing with a multitude of tasks at any one time to allow, through no direct fault of their own, such a review to remain unaddressed for a material amount of time without the subject matter being considered.

Which would negatively affect the kinship families in that local area. To be clear, and as referenced by the noble Lord Watson in the previous group, local authorities are always trying to do their best. That is not in doubt. But this amendment cements best practice to ensure the kinship care offering can be continually improved in line with feedback. As currently drafted, the bill does not make reference to any details surrounding how a local authority must review and update its kinship care local authority.

So this amendment provides further detail about how and when such a review must be conducted. Amendment 70 in the name of the noble Lord Hampton seeks to include family support and decision-making onto the list of services local authority can provide to support local kinship families. This amendment seems entirely sensible, as there may well be situations in which kinship families need these services. When family group decision-making processes are taking place it is right that the kinship care family should be aware.

Amendment 72 also in the name of the noble Lord Hampton seeks to require local authorities to publish their comments they receive and how they have addressed these comments. It is similar to my amendment 71, as it recognises the importance of understanding how local families interact with the care offer, and their opinions on its effectiveness which should be good thing. Amendment 103 in the name of Lord Storey seeks to extend the pupil premium to children in a kinship care arrangement.

Whilst we understand that kinship placement is are an essential part of the social care system, a decision like this would potentially involve a significant commitment from the Treasury, and as such would require a full financial impact assessment before further decisions could be made. Amendment 104 and 146 in the name of Lord Storey seeks to extend the rights of kinship carers so that they receive an allowance and are able to take leave in a similar way to other employees.

It is certainly important that the attractiveness and prospect of becoming a kinship carer is not reduced because of financial difficulty. And it is vitally important to recognise the importance of kinship carers and ensure the system works in practice. We would urge His Majesty's Government to consider ways to reduce barriers to entry for kinship carers, so the number of children in children's homes can be reduced. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed, in clause 5, page 9, line 12, at the end insert page 9, line 12, at the end insert three kinship families.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

three kinship families. I rise to speak to amendment 70 and 72 in my name, and remind the and 72 in my name, and remind the house I am a kinship carer of twin 13-year-olds. I would also like to 13-year-olds. I would also like to thank kinship for their help in this. The bill recognises the important role kinship carers play, important role kinship carers play, and strengthens welcome reforms which improve support for kinship

19:58

Lord Hampton (Crossbench)

- -

which improve support for kinship carers. However, some of the government's stated policy objectives associated with the Bill's provisions are unlikely to be realised without additional reform. And the bill ultimately. Of delivering the vital educational and mental health support which children in kinship care urgently need. Making the kinship local offer early legal requirements through new legislation is welcome. In kinship's 2024 annual survey 1/3 of kinship carers rated the information provided by local authorities very poor.

Only 7% of kinship carers said in 2023 they had seen their local authorities family Policy, something local authorities have been required to provide since 2011. A new delivery should help kinship carers better understand and access available support. However, as outlined by Kinship's associate director of policy and public affairs when providing oral evidence to the education committee last month the local offer's impact will be to magnify the lack of support available to kinship families. Particularly those with informal arrangements or where a legal order was made in private proceedings.

The kinship local offerings being introduced in a context different to that of other local offers for children with send awful care leavers where there are more well- established systems of both statutory and wider support, to signpost kinship carers to. It is vital that the government local authorities use the opportunity provided by the local offer requirements to improve the level of financial, practical and emotional support available to kinship families. Otherwise "There isn't a huge amount of point signposting to support which doesn't exist ".

A comment picked up by the Education Committee in their own scrutiny of This is particularly true, in the wake of the government is wake of the government is frustrating decision to reduce the Guardian support fund, the bill suggest a local author should include signposting, to services relating to health and well-being. For information about the ASGSF, is the only specific content included in a therapeutic support section of information about the kinship local offer, within kinship care statutory guidance.

As such, the very support to which local authorities are expected to signpost to is now being eroded. A comprehensive definition of kinship care legislation is welcome, to improve visibility and clarity. But this will not, in isolation, improve the negative experiences, which many kinship carers face in engaging with services, professional, without additional service raising and training. In itself, a definition will not deliver better support the kinship families. Nobody is an essential condition for this. -- Nor is it an essential condition.

Government action to improve support continues to target specific ribs of kinship carers, such as special guardians. All those raising children who were previously looked after. Undermining the definition's value. My Lords, these amendments would improve the visibility of and access to kinship care. It will greatly help to improve quality of local kinship offers, but there is more work to be done here.

20:02

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)

- -

I particularly rising support of Amendment 69, B, and 71. From my experience, and is an experience others in the chamber would have, kinship care arrangements are often needed as a result of an emergency situation. It is often sad, leaving the young person involved, feeling particularly vulnerable. The fact that opposed kinship carers, or carer, already has a relationship with that person, to whom the kinship care is being considered, could help them at a time they needed. Not least because they might be experiencing the sharing of executive same situation.

However, it should be noted that due to the nature of kinship care, it is unlikely the proposed kinship carer would have been seeking to take on the role. Thereby, there wouldn't be the same leading time that he might have to prepare them, as you would with a stick carer. -- With a foster carer. Depending on circumstances, there is also the potential for conflict with an original parent, as well as the impact on the family of the kinship carer. This arrangement means appropriate support might be required for the proposed kinship care and their wider family at speed, for the benefit of the young person.

But support properly will be the same as fostering arrangements. Due to the uniqueness of the situation for stopping that makes -- Situation. And that makes these amendments important. Amendment 104 and 146, I am sure you will not be surprised I will say this, kinship allowance and kinship leave, whilst it makes sense, it is worth noting this would be an additional cost to the local authority and as my honourable friend said earlier on, there would be consideration by the government, about how it might be funded.

But I support the amendment.

20:05

Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)

- -

I would like to speak to amendment 69, B, 70, 71 and 72 in this group. Firstly, I would just like to say, I think it is absolutely terrific kinship care will be defined in legislation for the first time. It is a significant step and I think it is one that we should admit is long overdue. Because I could never understand why kinship care was always overlooked when it is very often the best solution to a child's care. And when I say best solution, I very much mean in the sense of the interest of the child.

For one of the other things, it is also overlooked and underestimated, is the huge sacrifice family members and friends make when they take on such a responsibility. And while many do so willingly, the system doesn't exactly make it easy for them. That is why support amendment 69, B, in the name of my noble friends, it is a sensible one in that it acknowledges the role of the whole family. In terms of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton's, amendment 70 can I really do hope the government will consider this.

Another really significant step in this bill is obviously the duty for local authorities to publish kinship local offer. However I do think there is an error in omission in there is no reference anywhere to the different forms of kinship care. So, we know that different frameworks have different levels of financial, and therapeutic support for staff depending on whether you are kinship fostering, have taken a responsibility by a special guardianship order, and also whether the child you are taking on has a has not been care previously.

The only problem is, very often the potential kinship carers, very often for the reasons explained by my noble friend, does not have a clue, and why would they. If I may, I will very briefly give you some examples of what this means in practice, this is also courtesy of the Verica charity Kinship. Fiona's Branson was taken into foster care at birth and she was told that unless she apply for a special guardianship order to look after him, he will stay in the care system.

She said he felt pressured and put into this because she didn't have a clue what her options were. I she says, took social services at their word, that this was best for me and my grandson that was six years ago, and she was then 59 years old. She had to give up a well-paid career, and now survives on benefits and relies on food banks. Only 18 child size -- Only 18 child size meals herself in order to get by. She has also struggled to get her grandson the assessment and support he needs, something that would have been easier, have you been a foster carer.

Reddit had she been. A social worker, took care of her granddaughters and grandson, she was told by a local authority she had to sort out all the court work, and pay for the solicitors fees to arrange the care of the children and get a special guardianship order. She and her husband were on benefits, but as guardians, they were means tested and they received £70 per week per child. She is now a widow and had to complain to her local councillor, children's Commissioner, the ombudsman, before receiving an uplift.

In our very briefly, finally, Rebecca, 63 years old, she is raising her two grandchildren on benefits, after the death of their mother. But what she didn't realise what she wouldn't get any support from the local authority, because the children hadn't been in care. She is now struggling and in debt. What she says, she is resilient and resourceful. But it has been a huge challenge, we are flying by the seat of our pants with no resource, guidance, anything. The upcoming pilot on financial allowance will, I hope, address some of these inequities but it does seem essential that potential carers are given explicit information on any legal support available.

And I think we can all see from the examples given that it will probably help the three women I have just mentioned. As I say, I hope the government will consider amendment 70, which is a small change but will have a big impact. And if I might ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, if she will give us any further details on the pilot, which is an incredibly good thing, that does obviously come too late for this bill. I hope the government will also consider amendment 72, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton.

This also covers the issue raised in amendment 71, by my noble friend, and as Lord Hampton has already said, it simply puts the kinship care offer, on a par with other offers, such as SEND and disability fell to the other thing I'm quite interested in, in both of these amendments, is the requirement in both amendments, to guarantee the involvement of children and carers come in the development of kinship care offers. So, working with the Grenfell community victims of child sexual abuse and infected blood over the years, it has become clear that local and national governments are just not very good at meaningful engagement.

And I once asked a civil servant what engagement they had done with regard to a specific policy. And I was explicitly told there had purposely been no direct communication because it had been incredibly important to keep a distance between those developing policy and those who would be affected by it. Now, things have improved since then, probably not as much as they should have done. And so, I genuinely believe that embedding engagement into legislation, where appropriate, is the only way we will drive the necessary culture change for and we shouldn't forget the important benefit of that engagement is that it builds empathy into the system, because too often, empathy is an afterthought.

Such as certain television dramas might evoke a public outcry, when really, it should be there as a given. So, while expressly evolving Children and Families Act in -- Involving children and families, it is to take the state better for the people that need it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak to amendments 69, B, 70,

20:11

Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)

- -

7172, and I speak my interest as a trustee of the museum, both organisations of huge amount of work with children involved in these amendments. I think we don't realise how lucky we are with kinship care. The figures speak for themselves, the fact that we have 150,000 being kept in kinship care, when you compare that to the numbers officially in the care system, which is appropriate dangerously near Oder thousand, and the relatively small number of children fortunate enough to be adopted, we are incredibly good have kinship care, and I think a lot of the history of kinship care as it has evolved and grown has been really taking it for granted and assuming that is what families or extended families do.

To a large extent. In order to be grateful that they are there to take the shooting on and feeling that one probably needs to devote slightly less time and attention to helping those kinship carers do the best they possibly can. By comparison with, say, children that are conventionally going through the care system. That is clearly a major imbalance. There was a particular sentence which jumped out at me, from the briefing that the organisation Kinship did in preparation for this stage.

And I quote, " Given the long and troubling history of poor compliance with kinship statutory guidance, it is imperative that government does not simply take the approach that these matters can be attended to in guidance alone." Tempting as that guidance alone." Tempting as that is. Milos, with 153,000 currently in kinship care, we have come in theory, an enormous amount of data, to identify where it is being done well, and where it is being done less well. So, I did a bit of an interrogation with the artificial intelligence tool that we are provided with.

Courtesy of An example that jumped out several times, when I interrogated it, as a local authority, or City Council, which is best practice in this area commits the city of Portsmouth. And I have no idea whether people knew that, I have no idea to what extent the Department or the bill team have looked in detail at what it is Portsmouth is doing, that is clearly shooting the lights out, compared to a lot of cities or local authorities, but I think it is impossible to define what is being done well now, to learn from that, and try and see what is the best way to either put that into legislation, and in the guidance, so that we are not effectively reinventing the wheel.

This is happening at such a large-scale must be incredibly rich qualitative and quantitative data that we can learn from and I would just hope that during the course of this bill, we can drill down and look at that in more detail and try and identify some of those elements of best practice and perhaps bring that back to the discussion report stage.

20:15

Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I'm going to start using the mantra, I think, of the Minister, when she owned a number of occasions has said it is getting children and families the right support for very much agree with that. I want to start talking generally about the care system and I met a young man, correct name is Tristan. And when he was a child, he was put into care. And when I was chatting to him, I was quite genuinely shocked and he told me he had been, throughout the country, in nine different care settings.

Imagine this child going from one setting to another. I do not know the reasons why, but it happened. He was lucky enough to end the care placements by being fostered by parents in Liverpool, who eventually adopted him as their son. That had a happy outcome to all the trauma that went on before, and he is now at John Mose University of Liverpool, John Mose University of Liverpool, I think, as was said by Lord Russell, we don't know how lucky we are to have kinship carers.

I just think the system of caring would collapse if we didn't have them. So we've got this priceless asset which actually probably is amongst the best ways of caring for children that you could imagine, and we should be doing everything we can to get the right support for them. I just want to respond to what Lord Effingham said. Local authority care in many cases is in major problems because of rising costs and finding placements, so local authorities put children into private care providers.

And the costs are absolutely enormous. The local authorities haven't got the resources themselves so they go to private providers, and the costs each year keep going up. So when Lord Effingham rightly talks about costs he needs to be aware that the private sector costs are very expensive. Best estimates suggest, my figures are slightly different, best estimates suggest Durham more than 141,000 children in kinship care in England and Wales. This is three times the number in unrelated foster care, grandparents are the most kinship carers but they can also be older siblings, aunts and uncles, cousins and family friends.

A kinship carer provides a stable home life, existing in their -- remaining in their existing family network, therefore it makes sense to invest in kinship care and provide reasonable legislation to support those providing this care. Kinship care provides good experiences and outcomes for children and families, as well as cost saving for the government. We support the statutory funding of kinship care in this bill, but are critical of this bill merely providing a definition without practical solutions including that financial support.

So my amendments in this section tried to in some ways look at how we can give extra support to kinship carers. I have three amendments in this group, 103 would extend the pupil premium to children subject to kinship care arrangements. 104 would mean the person is entitled to kinship care allowance any week in which the person is engaged as a kinship carer in England. And 146, the amendment would introduce an entitlement where the individual is a kinship carer.

We do need to support this sector of caring, it's probably the best way that we can deal with some might say problems or some might say the crisis in the care system, I hope members will look carefully at all the amendments and how they can enhance what we currently have. currently have.

20:20

Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I rise briefly to lend my support to these amendments, most particularly amendment 103, 104 and 146 in the name of Lord Storey. We've heard it's been a very interesting group, the role that interesting group, the role that kinship carers, the number is quite high, and off a lot of children in kinship care are not going into the care system. With all the costs we know that can bring with it. I think it was Baroness Sanderson who said in her very interesting and exciting contribution that kinship carers are often doing this at great sacrifice to themselves.

Very often most times they are doing it out of love, but they are stepping up at a time of crisis to provide that love and care to children who would otherwise be in the care system. I just want to underline the point that that period when the child moves in can be incredibly difficult, and requires a lot of support. Often the kinship carer, who wouldn't have planned to take on parental responsibilities, would have to spend time attending meetings with children services, be involved in court proceedings, may be finding a nursery, making arrangements with the child's school, GP, whatever.

The list goes on. They are all things that tend to be need to be done during the day during working hours, and they all take time and money. Which is why I feel that making an allowance, a kinship carer allowance is so important, including the premium is important, and most particularly an entitlement for an individual to be absent from work on care leave. At that moment when the arrangements are being set up, I think it's absolutely critical. When I was looking at the helpful briefing I looking at the helpful briefing I was sent I was reminded that the issue of a right of paid employment leave for kinship carers was recommended by the cross-party parliamentary task force on kinship care, the independent review of children social care which we have heard about this afternoon, and indeed by the House of Lords Select Committee doing post-legislative scrutiny on the children and families act which I actually chaired.

I can now remember we came forward with that recommendation, and I think it's incredibly important we take this opportunity

20:23

Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)

- -

Apologies, were going to respond. Can I just start by saying how touched I am and how welcome are really want to welcome the comments that have been made about kinship care. It is such an important area, and I think we all have to put our hand on our hearts and say it is a set of relationships that has not been given its due recognition. From Lord Russell talking about areas of good practice, I think we could all add areas where we know places are getting it right.

Baroness Sanderson, Baroness O'Neill, just talking about the general background and trying to imagine the situation when you know a family member has got into difficulties. And often, as they rightly say, this becomes a moment of crisis. When the risk in terms of the children that we are talking about is absolutely at its highest. I think the recognition around focusing on the outcomes for children and young people is to be welcomed and needs to be at the forefront of everything we do.

Of course, from a local authority perspective we know that too many children are going into care. Which, as we've heard tonight, as a detrimental effect on their prospects and their outcomes over a long period of time. But also it has an enormous impact on the budgets of councils, particularly where money could be invested into setting up more support networks around this area. What we are talking about is supporting children to stay within their family and friends network, where it is safe and right for them.

And this is an absolute priority for this government. And a general recognition that the support kinship families have received to date has not been sufficient, and we are working hard to address this. And up until now it is quite extraordinary that has been no legal definition of kinship carer. I think this is something we can all come together to welcome. And we know that access to information for the families involved can very much be a postcode lottery.

So I would suggest that clause 5 is a significant step towards ensuring greater parity in the information on the support available to kinship carers by requiring local authorities to publish a kinship offer. Turning to amendments 69B, tabled by Lord Effingham and supported by Baroness Stedman-Scott, this amendment seeks to ensure that information and support for kinship carrier -- families and not just kinship carers is included in the kinship offer. Can I reassure the noble Lord that there is mention in the bill concerning a review, section 20 2H -- 22H7 says local authorities must review and keep the information up- to-date.

We also agree that the whole family approach is absolutely vital. But we do not think that amending clause 5 as proposed is necessary. The list of information about services that can be included in a kinship local offer under clause 5 is nonexhaustive. And this has been done for a reason. But it also does already include services relating to relationships, which will assist kinship families more broadly. Secondly, the kinship care statutory guidance states that local authorities should empower families by prioritising family led solutions, working collaboratively with family networks to support parents or carers to make and sustain positive changes.

Hopefully leading to deescalation of need or no further involvement with statutory services. Local authorities should engage with family networks from early help, and at every point through the children social care system as set out in working together to Safeguard children 2023. Finally, there are also other policies related to -- dedicated to families in need of support. We have heard about this already this evening, such as family help, aiming to improve children's outcomes, responding to needs and circumstances of the family as early as possible to enable children to thrive and families to remain together.

This stress on family help multiagency child protection, family group decision-making reforms are being rolled out through England through the family first program, batched by over £500 million of direct funding for preventative support for children and families. Turning to amendment 70 on the categories of information listed under clause 5, tabled by Lord Hampton, of course we agree it's important that published kinship offer has the full range of support -- information on support available in an area. However we believe amending clause 5 is unnecessary for the reasons I have outlined.

Firstly, clause 1 already sets out that family decision-making will be offered, to add it here would be unnecessary. Secondly, as I've mentioned before, the list of categories and information services for the kinship offer our nonexhaustive and broad. Meaning that local authorities can respond to their local strengths, their local circumstances, and bring in services available in their area. The kinship care statutory guidance sets out the expectation which a kinship local offer should set up support that may be available to local kinship carers and potential kinship carers, including the eligibility and expense of support.

Of course, this involves local relationships. The Power of Place, health providers working with local authorities ringing together all of the possible solutions to a And as Lord Hampton has suggested that practical and emotional support is absolutely key. We know there is more work to be done, and this is what we need to do, look at the areas that are doing it well, learn from their experience, and make sure that it is expanded in every local authority area around the country.

Turning to amendment 71 and 72 relating to the coproduction office with kinship carers and children, tabled by the noble Lords the Earl of Effingham and Lord Hamilton, in my view nothing could be more important. We have to stress throughout everything we do that the voice of children and their families should be absolutely front and centre with what we do, since the intention of clause 5 is to ensure the publication that gives a clear reflection of the services available in that area, consultation on the publication of this information would be of limited value.

But as Baroness Sanderson highlighted this is absolutely fundamental. Having said this, and to reassure the noble Lords the kinship has statutory guidance already providing safeguards to ensure that local authorities are seeking kinship children and carers, and there is, running throughout, an expectation that the parent should be consulted as appropriate and that should include bringing together the local office setting out how their views have actually formed how the offer is developing. Of course, we are mindful of the pressures on local authorities and are committed to avoiding unnecessary burdens.

We do not believe it is necessary to place a statutory requirement on local authorities to consult feedback and publish that feedback as part of the kinship local offer. The statutory guidance already set out in expectation, as we have heard, seeking the views of children and families and we strongly believe this strikes the right balance in making sure that meaningful engagement exists while allowing the local authorities the flexibility to determine how best to do this in their local context. Turning to amendment 103, tabled by the noble Lords story, concerning extending pupil premium plus eligibility to pupils in England who are living in kinship carers, we agree, absolutely, it is essential that all children get support they need in order to thrive at school.

This is why we are providing over £3 billion worth of premium funding to improve the educational outcomes of disadvantaged pupils in England including previously looked after. While being in the kinship arrangement is not part of the pupil premium eligibility, some children in a kinship arrangement may already attract a higher rate of pupil premium due to being looked after previously looked after by the local authority, and I have to stress that pupil premium is not a personal bond budget for individual pupils, schools with direct spending where the need is greatest, including to pupils with other identified needs such as children living in kinship care.

Pupil premium is a discretionary grant, and whilst there are no plans to replace the statutory footing, we will continue to keep eligibility under review to make sure that support is tied to those that need it most. Turning to amendment 104 and 146 relating to the introduction of financial support for kinship carers and kinship leave, also taken by the Noble Lord story, we recognise the new funding for a kinship allowance pilot announced in October 2024. This is the single biggest investment made by any Government in kinship carers to date.

The pilot is expected to go live in autumn 2025 and this will provide a weekly announcement to kinship carers and local selected authorities to support them with additional costs incurred when taking on parental responsibility of a child, and as the Noble Lord said, it is absolutely critical that we recognise the significance the board has been undertaking. Our ambition is that all kinship carers get the support that they need. It is important that we first build the evidence-based to find out how best to deliver the support for kinship partners, decisions about a future rollout will be informed by the findings of the evaluation.

As for kinship leave, some carers may already benefit from the various workplace employment rights. These include a dear one right to tie off independence, the right to request flexible working, and unpaid parental leave for employees who have or expect to have parental responsibility. By way of example and we are encouraging more employers to look into this and take the responsibility, the Department for Education more than 7 1/2 thousand public sector workers recently joined a small number of private-sector as including card factory Tesco and John Lewis in offering a paint leave entitlement to all eligible staff to become kinship carers, and this is where the local offer really kicks in.

By the partnership that local authorities have with employers can actually come up with bespoke solutions in local communities, no one area will be the same, but we need to make sure the drive to achieve this is universal. We have also committed to a review of the system to ensure that it best supports all working families. In terms of the special guardianship issue, Sanderson rose we recognise the importance of the adoption in special value leadership fund and the criteria to allow children to receive an excellent level of support and ensure that more children are able to access the funding available.

We recognise that we all have individual stories that we can relate to and we should spread the word and tell the stories and make sure that this important area is given the recognition and attention for those needs that do an extraordinary job looking after children within their remit. Other reasons have outlined, I would kindly ask noble Lords to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendment. Just before the Noble Lady the Minister sits down, I welcome and of Minister sits down, I welcome and of a lot of what she said and what her majesties Government is trying to majesties Government is trying to do. My heart to sing slightly when I heard the piece that was obviously written for her beforehand by written for her beforehand by relying on statutory guidance, I have worked very closely on a have worked very closely on a variety of bills over the last four or five years with the children's Commissioner, the victims Commissioner, the victims commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and I think if the Noble Lady the Minister was to sit Noble Lady the Minister was to sit down with each or all of them and ask them about the experience they have had about overreliance on have had about overreliance on statutory guidance, we would get some very mixed messages and some very mixed messages and statutory guidance is only effective if it is monitored in terms of to the degree to which it is being complied with.

Statutory guidance is of no use whatsoever if the organisations which are meant to carry it out know that nobody is really looking over their shoulder or calling them to book if they are not complying. This, again, comes back to the variation and practice across the country, so I would just ask her and colleagues in the department to, perhaps think, maybe even talk to some of those commissioners, just to understand the historical but also the experience they have now dealing with some of the statutory guidance that they have put in to some of the legislation that has come through this House in the last three or four years and see how effective that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and what can be learned from it. And I think the Noble Lord for his contribution and the current his contribution and the current reassurance that I was not just reading out from a script. I have reading out from a script. I have put a lot of thought into this, I have been in the actual place of have been in the actual place of delivering on this agenda, so I have delivering on this agenda, so I have got the experience.

We have to be careful, we are not too descriptive careful, we are not too descriptive at any level because that could take up more resources but I do acknowledge that the statutory governance has to be adhered to. It governance has to be adhered to. It has to be monitored and it has to be dealt with the same seriousness dealt with the same seriousness across the piece and where it is not being adhered to it has to be called out and the most important thing that all of us can do is make sure that there is an awareness in the different organisations involved and that they live up to it, as we have said, all the way through, putting the needs of the most vulnerable children in our communities at the heart.

heart.

20:42

The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, please let me thank all the noble Lords for their contributions to this group. The Noble Lord Hampton talked about improving the visibility of kinship carers and he is absolutely right. And of all of them in kinship family is and also the baroness give us life worked examples of why this group is so important. And the Noble group is so important. And the Noble Lord Russell reminded your Lordships house that there are 153,000 children in kinship carers and we are so lucky to have kinship carers which, I believe all the noble Lords would agree with emphasises, again, why this group is critical.

The Noble Lord referred to the kinship carers as a priceless asset, and the Noble Lord is entirely correct. I believe several of these issues merit further discussion at report stage, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standing in my name. Is a geologic pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 70, Lord Hampton, not Amendment 70, Lord Hampton, not moved. Amendment 71, not moved. moved. Amendment 71, not moved. Amendment 72, Lord Hampton, not Amendment 72, Lord Hampton, not moved. The question is the clause 5 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it.

Are we doing one

20:43

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

contents have it. Are we doing one more group? We are. OK, after clause 5, amendment 73, Baroness Barran.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 73 speak to amendment 7374, 75, 76 and 76 eight in my name and I would also like to thank the and I would also like to thank the Noble Lord Hamilton for adding his name to these amendments and I name to these amendments and I apologise to those waiting for their apologise to those waiting for their regret motion, but my speaking notes are quite lengthy on this group are quite lengthy on this group because it is quite complicated and important.

These amendments all seek to update the approach to the approval of kinship carers which, approval of kinship carers which, currently, mirrors that for foster carers and apologies if that is the carers and apologies if that is the wrong term. These amendments have been prompted by conversations I been prompted by conversations I have had with leaders, both in local authorities and in the family justice system and I would also like to put on record my thanks to the charity kinship for their advice and explanation of the current position of kinship carers.

My amendments into recognise that placing a child with someone other than their birth parents requires balancing the number of risks and safeguards. Kinship carers have the obvious strengths of long-standing usually lifelong relationship with the child in the way that a stranger foster carer, however compassionate, does not. However, they may not meet the full standards required by a. Panel in order to be formally approved, as the permanent home for a child. Currently, there is no ability to balance these considerations, which, in a world where the Government understandably wants to see an increase in the use of kinship carers, including through family competency, could be unhelpful at best and potentially damaging for My amendments aimed to speak a permanency for children and unnecessary testing the children of child's birth parents.

It aims to remove the unintended consequences of the current rules of creating unregistered placements for the purposes of Ofsted inspections where a Director of children's services decides a family member is the best person to care for the child knows they will not meet the foster panel standards. I think where most of us imagine an unregistered close relative I certainly think for myself holiday letter caravan that is being used to house children with agency staff care for them and not a member of the extended family.

Support the kinship families is highly variable and depending typically on the type of kinship arrangement and the child's journey into that arrangement. The type of kinship care arrangement that provides the greatest level of guaranteed financial practical and emotional support to kinship carers and their children is kinship foster care. This is where the child is placed in local authority care and therefore becomes looked after and there kinship carers are supported as foster carers. Kinship families secured by special guardianship child arrangement orders have fewer entitlements to support and less security as it regards parent and permanent responsibility particularly if the order is made in private proceedings and the child was not previously looked after.

As such there is a perverse incentive for children to enter kinship foster care or another local authority care placement, even briefly in order to secure their and their carers future eligibility to additional support and entitlements such as pupil premium plus, the adoption and special guardianship support fund and enhanced access to financial allowances. When a family group decision-making process determines the kinship care is the best option for keeping a child safe, prospective kinship carers are often encouraged to care for the child through informal arrangements or private legal orders.

These options including private agreements with parents or special guardianship orders avoid placing the child in local authority care. However many prospective kinship carers lack crucial information about how different arrangements will affect the long-term support eligibility. Those with informal arrangements or private legal orders may receive minimal support regardless of any informal promises made by children services during the family group decision-making process. So why does all of this matter? The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduces new duties like mandatory family group decision-making without first ensuring comprehensive support across all forms of kinship care arrangement.

The risk, this approach risks pushing families into arrangements without adequate support. The consequences could be serious, poorer outcomes for families, more legal challenges against local authorities and increased placement breakdowns. When kinship arrangements fail children often end up in more expensive, and related foster or residential care which in turn raises long-term costs for local authorities and the state. The sequence of reform is vital for achieving the government's kinship care goal. Support for all kinship care arrangements including those outside local authority care should have been secured before introducing new duties that encourage their use.

Currently the government's aim to reduce children in local authority care faces a significant obstacle. Families must enter kinship foster care to access Maximus support. -- Maximum support and this creates inherent tension in the system. I am aware the newly started Law Commission or I am aware of the newly started Law Commission review into kinship care. I hope subsequent legislation will set out specific legal pathways to well supported kinship care arrangements which deliver parental responsibility and permanence, ending the perverse incentive for children to enter local authority care in order to maximise their and there kinship carers eligibility for support.

In the meantime my amendments seek to address some specific gaps were faced currently. -- Were faced currently. Amendment 73 places a requirement for kinship carers to go through the same foster panel process and standards as a stranger foster carer. This aims to address the current situation where a local authority Director of children's services decides kinship care is the best person to care for the child. But knows they will not pass the foster panel requirements. This might be because of age, mild alcohol misuse or a number of other reasons.

The DCS judges the strength of the relationship of a potential kinship care and ways those risks and is in the best interests of the child rather than placing the child with a stranger foster carer. If they proceed with this it is technically an unregistered placement for the purposes of Ofsted and they are in breach of the law. My amendment would remove such placement subside oft -- if signed off from the the sea RS from being unregistered placements. It seeks to secure early permanence for a child with a kinship carer by removing the requirement they lived together for a year before being granted an order under section 8 of Children Act 1989.

It gives discretion to the Court to decide what period of time if any is needed. This would both speed up the process of securing permanence and help avoid the decision being contested by the parents which makes the process both acrimonious, stressful and lengthy. Amendment 75 removes the need for a kinship carer who has been approved by the DCS to be assessed and approved by the fostering panel including after approval by family group decision-making process. An amendment 76 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a full review of the effectiveness of pathways for the approval of kinship carers and lay this before Parliament.

76, three it would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations for the approval of kinship carers so the existing regulations would be updated and overhauled. This acknowledges the changes proposed by amendment 73, 74, 75 and 76 A are responding to the issues thrown out by the increased and increasing use of kinship care and this is an area in need of coherent review. As I set out in my opening remarks. Amendment 76 A removes the requirement for the local authority to undertake a full assessment of a temporary kinship carer as if they were a foster carer.

These amendments should also be considered alongside my amendment 17 to clause 1 which sought to ensure if a child is going to be looked after by other family members, the local authority takes appropriate action to ensure they are safe and well fed. All these amendments seek to make kinship care work as possible in practice, recognise the strengths and weaknesses of family members and improve both the support and the process so it delivers on the government's aspirations. I have also made the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede aware of these amendments as I understand they would overlap with his response -- with his responsibilities in relation to the family justice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 5, insert the following new clause, removal of unregistered status for approved kinship carers is printed

20:55

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the martialled list. Arise to support the amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arise to support the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend which as she set out aim to simply fire the process for approving kinship carers, balancing approving kinship carers, balancing the importance of robust safeguards with flexibility and discretion within the process to speed it up in the best interests of the child. As we heard in the previous amendments, kinship carers are an essential part of our care system. And the benefits are well known. Researching on average children in kinship care achieve five GCSEs compared to those not in foster care and are significantly higher than more -- than children in foster care or Children In Need.

The experience better overall health and well-being compared to those other out-of-home settings and care settings the familial environment contrary to these positive outcomes. In addition children are more likely to remain in the same area at school, maintaining continuity in their social and educational environments. And children in kinship care are more likely to experience better long-term outcomes including reduced involvement with the criminal justice system and improved implement prospects. However as my noble friend set out in her opening remarks, under the current system many of those wanting to provide this form of care face significant hurdles because the assessment frameworks for kinship carers allows a false care standards which can include checks and interviews that can feel invasive or inappropriate in the context of family caregiving.

While of course there needs to be a careful balance and assessment made tween the benefits of placing a venerable child with kinship carers who as we have already had will have a long-standing relationship and a clearheaded evaluation of any potential risks of safeguarding issues, the current approval process can be unduly slow causing delays and placing children during critical early moments. This means as we have heard children may be placed informally for long periods with no proper support while addressing and -- while assessments drag on and create difficult solutions.

The criteria around income and housing for example... Providing vulnerable young people within a kinship group. With the inclusion of the new kinship offer in this bill it is clear the government recognises the value of kinship carers and is looking to provide greater support and continuity of support them. I hope the noble Baroness the Minister, consider carefully my noble friends amendments which taken together offer a thoughtful balanced reappraisal of the current process and I believe would enhance the impact of the measures are ready contained in the bill.

Of course amendment 76 which would require the Secretary of State to carry out a full review assessing the effectiveness of the current pathways for approval in 12 months of Royal assent will also provide that opportunity for the government to look at the practical impact of these amendments so they can be changed or built on dependent on the effect they have had. effect they have had.

20:57

Lord Hampton (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly to amendment 73, 74, 75, 76 and 70 6A to which I have added my name. I am in that dangerous position where I am between your noble Lords and supper so I am going to keep it very short. In fact I spoke at length about kinship care in the last group. I think these are extraordinary sensible group of amendments that would speedup and make easier for all kinship carers to be kinship carers.

I heartily approve.

20:58

Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I will also speak incredibly briefly to the amendments in this group. Obviously we need protections in place but it is really just to say I think we are all agreed across the chamber we want to make kinship care a viable option for as many people as possible. And these amendments help to do just that. By removing some of the hurdles and I am very much in support of them. support of them.

20:58

Lord Meston (Crossbench)

- -

I do not want to join the competition of brevity. But I will do my best. There is no consensus preference surely impossible actually possible should be given to children with relatives or those who have some pre-existing connection with the child who are able to offer commitment to care. Kinship care and carers like foster carers are indeed a precious resource. Therefore I would wish to support these amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran said we should not lose sight of the fact the Law Commission have recently undertaken a review of the law concerning kinship care with a view to improving its efficiency and simplicity.

That has become necessary really because of the great range of variety of situations within kinship care can arise and might be required. From the temporary and informal arrangement to the longer term or permanent. Which can involve Costa care or special guardian -- which can involve foster care or special guardianship of all forms of order. It has indeed been suggested by some rather than having a scattered legislative and regular -- regulatory regime, kinship care should now have a separate and distinct regime.

Which is something that may indeed emerge from the Law Commission. Meanwhile that is not to say that improvements cannot be made to the present piecemeal structures. That is why I would support these amendments. Making a procedure easier for kinship carers or potential kinship carers without potential kinship carers without

21:00

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)

- -

I will be even more brief, I think, because much of what I intended to say has already been said, and I deal with this pretty much on a daily basis, back in the basics in Bexley. As explained earlier, kinship carers tends to have to be done much, much quicker than foster care placements, so if foster care placement can go through due process that will take much longer and will be very thorough but kinship carers does tend to have to be much, much quicker.

The things that you may need to look at for a kinship carers placement would likely have that foster care has is that kinship carers look to look after a child that they know. They are not looking to foster any child and therefore have to have a wide- ranging of experience, and therefore, no doubt, training to go with it. They may already be in a hunt that will taking the child or children in, so the accommodation might not meet the needs that if foster care panel might want them to.

They might have a job that has been said earlier and that would need to be worked around. They will not, necessarily, have made arrangements to be taking on a child, especially if it is a grandparent at an older age. All of these things need to be considered. And, frankly, kinship carers fostering arrangements are very, very different, which is why I support these amendments. It really does need looking at in a different does need looking at in a different way and I will now sit down.

21:02

Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments in group 6. I appreciate my noble Lords concerns about ensuring children grow in safe, stable, and loving homes with their family network. And just to reaffirm the Government is firmly committed to enabling children safety with their families whenever it is in their best interest and alongside that removing unnecessary barriers that may prevent this from happening and I recognise Baroness Evans as assessment of the contribution of kinship carers which adds to the debates we have had earlier through this committee.

Turning to amendments related to the removal of unregistered status and requirements under fostering regulations for kinship carers, amendment 73, 75, and 76 a table by the Noble Lady Baroness Barran, we agree with the Noble Lady that we must tackle the barriers that are currently making it harder for people to become kinship carers. We fully appreciate that process of becoming a formal kinship carers can feel intrusive or burdensome at times and we recognise that there is room for improvement in how these assessments are carried out.

It is vital that they are conducted in a way that is supportive, respective, and sensitive to the unique circumstances of the kinship families. At the same time, these assessments play a crucial role in ensuring that children are placed in safe, stable, and nurturing environments. They also help local authorities identify the right support for carers so they are not left to manage alone. Getting this balance right is essential. Whenever a child can no longer live safely at home with their parents or anyone else with parental responsibility, the local authority has an obligation to create a robust safeguarding assessment.

The approach to doing Out in the care planning case review in regulations 2010 and fostering services England recognition of 2011, removing these assessments as suggested by amendments 73 and 75 risks undermining the assurance of the risk for safety moving into kinship arrangements, however the kinship carers statutory arrangements make it clear that addressing some of the concerns that have been raised foster panels should not make negative recommendations solely based on perspective kinship foster carers not meeting the fostering national minimum standards during the assessment.

If the placement aligns with the child's best interest, the perspective kinship foster carer should still be considered for approval to foster the child and then supported by the fostering service to attain standards. Statutory guidance recognises that the assessment of kinship foster carers may differ from that of mainstream foster carers. Local authorities are permitted to adopt a tailored approach in presenting assessment reports for kinship carers, taking into account the unique family relationships, safeguarding considerations and accommodations soon to and any relevant criminal soon to and any relevant criminal risk.

Additionally,.. Panels are to include members with specific expertise in care to ensure informed decision making. Regarding amendment 76 a, in the name of Baroness Barran, that specifically the requirement for temporary kinship foster carers to be fully assessed as foster carers is not a barrier, but an important safeguard. It ensures that the placement is not only safe in the short-term but also sustainable and well supported, under regulation 24 of the care plan placement and case review, England regulations 2010, local authorities make temporary approval for a connected person to care for a child for up to 16 weeks where it is necessary to place the child urgently and the carer has not been fully assessed.

This reflects the emergencies flexibility but it is time limited by law to protect the child's welfare. Temporary approvals are intended to facilitate urgent placements but must be followed by a full assessment to ensure the child's needs are met and the carer is properly supported. This includes a thorough evaluation of the carer's capacity to meet the child's needs long-term, ensuring the carer receives the same care as mainstream foster carers, including financial support, training and establishing a clear and stable care plan for meeting the future needs of the child.

Removing this requirement unnecessarily increases the chance of a breakdown in the kinship placement. This is improving safeguard checks with placed with a foster carer and removes an opportunity for the services for the strengths for the right support. To provide safe and effective care. It is also important to recognise the kinship foster care is not the only route to foster care and many children are successfully supported through other legal arrangements such as special guardianship orders or child arrangement orders which can offer greater stability outside of the care system.

These routes can be less stigmatising and more apparent for families and we are committed to ensuring that all kinship carers, regardless of legal status, receive the support they need. On this basis, reflecting on the comments that have been made, I would kindly ask the Noble Lady to withdraw. withdraw.

21:09

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I have two say I was more optimistic about the noble Ladies response because none of these amendments cost any money, they simply improve the system that we hear from practitioners who deal with this on a daily basis, but speaking to others that the system is not working as well as it could, and the Noble Lord rightly raised his remarks, the position of the Law Commission review.

There is no reason why one could not sense that these clauses if we have them and that Noble Lord comes forward with a more coherent plan. I would say, and forgive me if I missed it, I was not sure I heard responses to amendment 74 and 76, so maybe the Noble Lady and I can both look at that and doublecheck. But she, in relation to doublecheck. But she, in relation to 73, 75, and 76 a, she talked about the fact that these need to feel like supportive amendments, assessments, forgive me, for foster carers, but I think the point is, really, finding that balance between the familiarity and security of someone you have known all your life, versus any shortcomings that they might have personally or where they live or any of the points raised earlier.

So, in reality, we know that directors of children's services are having to make choices today to leave children with a kinship carers that would not receive the fostering panel would not exercise the discretion they have outlined, so putting themselves in a pretty impossible position, as the director of children's services no director wants to be in that position. In relation to amendment 75, of course we need to take great care over approval and the point of amendment 75 is that the family decision-making process has already agreed that the kinship family is suitable for the member of the child's extended family is suitable to care for them, so the question is really by we have to do that twice.

I will go away and reread what the Noble Lady said about temporary placements. I think that was maybe more reassuring. I did not pick up, and forgive me if I missed her remarks on the other two amendments, particularly amendment 74 that we can pick that up separately. The only other thing I would challenge, and I know that the Noble Lady has enormous experience from her previous roles, but I do not think one can describe the child arrangement order is more secure or stable, nor a special guardianship order is more secure and more stable, certainly in relation to parental responsibility.

They are not as secure or stable as other alternatives, so we all want the same thing. I felt these amendments were a simple and constructive way of taking some stamps forward that we have been flagged as the most problematic from a kind of practitioner and leader point of view and I hope that maybe the Noble Lady can go away and reflect on that, but, in the interim, I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw my amendment. Is a tumultuous pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is, by Lee, withdrawn. Amendment 174, moved, amendment 75,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 76, amendment 76 a. My Lords, I think this would be a convenient moment for us to move to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

convenient moment for us to move to debate Lord Frost's movement, I therefore baked it move that the House be now resumed. The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Official control,

21:14

Orders and regulations: Official Controls (Plant Health) and Phytosanitary Conditions (Amendment) Regulations 2025 - motion to regret

plant health and phytosanitary Amendment regulations 2025, motion of regret, Lord Frost.

21:14

Lord Frost (Conservative)

- -

21:29

Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)

- -

noble Lord in introducing his regret motion, I hardly noticed any recognition of the fact we would not be discussing this tonight were it not for his dereliction as a negotiator when the negotiations were being carried out. To find any protection for the extremely valuable agri-food exports that we make to the other countries of Europe. And nothing was done about that when he was a Minister in the Johnson government. And no attempt was made to negotiate provisions in the trade and cooperation agreement with the EU, aimed at protecting those valuable exports and the people who produce them.

So it does seem to me he was also apparently unaware of the fact the SPS agreement if negotiated successfully, which the government did agree to attempt to do on 19 May, as did the European Union, would have many additional aspects which could be of great value. And those of course are the ones that relate to Northern Ireland. Because it is rather clear if there was an SPS agreement, quite a lot of the problems that have arisen in the operation of the Windsor framework and the arrangements from trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom and also the rest of Europe would simply fall away.

They would not be necessary. away. They would not be necessary. That surely in itself is a major That surely in itself is a major Now, the SPS controls which have prevented our industries from gaining the benefits from joining the European Union or which they could have gained their very substantial and I wonder whether the Noble Lord who is moving this motion has taken the time to look at the views and interests of those industries.

Did he ask them whether they wanted SPS agreement or not? I rather doubt it. I did not pay any attention to the fact that many of those industries are really now extremely enthusiastic about the idea of an SPS agreement with the European Union. I think that is pretty clear and that he at the time could conduct any kind of impact assessment as to the effect of his dereliction would have. And now, in ending, I would simply say that I hope this House does not regret the Israeli regulations because of the considerations that I have mentioned.

Because the benefits of an SPS agreement would I believe be very considerable. I trust that the House would, therefore, not approve this recommendation if it is put to a vote and could then be consigned to that increasing need of the benefits of Brexit.

21:33

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

I festival congratulate the Noble Lord frost? It is really good to see someone from the Conservative party actually praying against these regulations. The very wide-ranging contribution actually I think highlighted some of the real issues that we should be discussing, perhaps it might be helpful, sometime, if we are not discussing these issues so late at night. I also want to congratulate him on his patients because I think he prayed against this some months ago, and, of course, the regulations are already in place.

Hugely controversial these recommendations because they underlined the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, giving effect to the division of the UK into two parts. And although it is correct for these purposes Northern Ireland has been treated on the same basis as the rest of the Irish Sea border, the idea that this somehow literal eyes is the problem associated with the border regulations is just unsustainable and there is all the difference in the world between the effects of being treated as part of the same epidemiology unit as the rest of the island whilst remaining in the SPS borders of the United Kingdom and being treated as part of the same epidemiological unit as the rest of the unit.

Whilst being removed from the international SPS borders of the UK into the international SPS borders of the EU. But what makes these regulations really toxic to me and to others is the fact that they have been given effect through the SPS border enforcement framework provided by the official control so amendment regulations 2024, and such that not only do they divide the UK by means of the international SPS border, but they do so on the basis of a justification that their enforcement mechanism sweeps away, pulling the rug from beneath the feet of the entire order project.

The government's justification for moving both the customs and the international SPS border from the international border was that the only way we could have such a border was as a hard border, and did not want a hard border or the international border, and therefore agreed to the movement of the border after. However, the enforcement mechanisms for the regulations before us today demonstrate that the border can be enforced without SPS infrastructure on the border. And the government's justification for moving the border disappears, making the constitutional ramifications of the regulations in force today very toxic and controversial.

Now, when I raised this problem on 29 January in the debate about the official control amendment regulations that provide the framework for the enforcement of the regulations before us today, the noble Baroness the Minister stated that : 359 and I will quote I was also asked why SPS checks and controls take place away from the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. This was, obviously, part of the Windsor Framework. And was approved at the time by Parliament. We cannot unpick that through this SI, but, again, these things can be looked at by the work of the Noble Lord carrying out if the committee is interested in doing so.

But, my Lords, this is incorrect. Whilst the movement of the SPS border from the international border to the Irish Sea was obviously part of the Windsor Framework, the removal of the central justification for removing the border by means of the way in which the regulations before us today will be enforced was not in protocol, nor in the amendments that resulted in it being renamed the Windsor Framework. And that is the Windsor Framework. And that is the whole point. It is with the demonstration that this can be enforced through the SPS infrastructure away from the border through the enforcement regime with the regulation for us today which has only become apparent this year, that the whole justification for removing the border has been removed.

And on March 4 the honourable member for Northampton raised the very same point in another place. And, interestingly, on that, the Secretary of State actually said, and I quote, the answer is this, as a sovereign country it. Us to decide how we check goods that arrive in our territory. It is for sovereign countries to determine what checks they apply. The same truth applies to the European Union. It has a single market. So, what does the Secretary of State say simply has the effect of saying that the problems highlighted are, indeed, a reality that seek to validate this on the basis of the way the border works is the decision of the UK Government for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB and the EU Government for goods moving from GB to NI.

And as such it simply acknowledges the current situation does not engage with the problem that it presents. The problem is that doing this completely removes the justification for taking the extraordinary step of agreeing to move the customs and SPS border from the international border to the, namely, the justification was always given that this was the only weight to avoid having a hard border. When our Irish Sea border arrangements demonstrate that this is not true, so I really would ask the Noble Lady again who is right? She, herself, as the noble Baroness, or the Secretary of State in The Other Place.

It is a huge issue because the cost associated with moving the SPS border away from the international border, even as the border, as we know, the international border serves as the border for tax, excise purposes, purposes of currency, for many other legal purposes, and, indeed, more recently, for immigration purposes because the public now carries out immigration checks along the border. So, it does constitute the most extraordinary reversal of democracy. We are aware of the countries of course that our non-demographic and we want them to become fully democratic, but what has happened in Northern Ireland, by contrast, because of the needless movement of the customs and SPS border is really extraordinary.

Because we have seen the disenfranchisement of 1.19 million people in 300 areas, not just 300 bits of law, 300 areas. And this makes the government's position completely unsustainable. They cannot say as the Secretary of State has said that it is fine to agree to move the border when the operation of the Irish Sea border demonstrates that the only justification for doing so does not exist. Entries, no self-respecting country should agree to any arrangement that involves the disenfranchisement of many of their citizens, all of their citizens, in 300 areas of law, for any reason.

However, to do so in a context where one's own arrangements demonstrate that this is completely unnecessary, suggests that the United Kingdom has become the first country in the world that is prepared to prioritise acquiescing with the requests of other countries that its own arrangements demonstrate our needless when the price is trading the citizenship of its own people. And, of course, I have to say that the Secretary of State himself there was a unique responsibility because he brought before Parliament what became the act, the effect of which was to greatly weaken the negotiating position of the then Government.

Had he not tied his hands it is highly unlikely that we would now have ended up with the protocol because there is no doubt that the European Union would have feared the implications of a no deal Brexit and might not have been so unreasonable. Nevertheless, I think as the Noble Lord first has said, and as many of us thought at the time, when it did go through more of this that it would only be temporary, and Eikenberry said that the new Government coming in has not seized the opportunity with the so- called reset to actually try and get the European Union to see sense, so the Secretary of State intervention showed that there had to be a deal with the risk of it no deal and the price of that, certainly, that he wanted and others was that the people of Northern Ireland have become a commodity, trading to give the people of Great Britain the assurance of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

So, the regulation before us today put in focus, once again, the abandonment of 1.9 million people of the United Kingdom. And I think I will not offer it again but I read out the last time that offer from the young people of Northern Ireland that said about Government lecturing people about the importance of the active citizenship only to argue that they did not have citizenship in that part of the United Kingdom and I would say also that we are very grateful that Baroness Anderson has now agreed to meet them and they are looking forward to that.

All of this that is being said now will be said by others and has huge implications for the Noble Lord Murphy which is required by paragraph 7 of the unilateral declaration of 2019 to both consider the operation of the Windsor Framework and the implications of continuing to be aligned and continuing to use and operate the Windsor Framework and moving away from it which is only possible if one considers we all consider the tentative to the current arrangement.

The Noble Lord Murphy must consider the alternatives in detail, including as the Noble Lord first has said mutual enforcement which, originally, was what the EU favoured back into thousand and 19, but things have moved on since then. And as we have come to terms with the very constructive impact of the Windsor Framework on democracy, on trade, on division of trade, why has article 16 not been invoked on the effect of those wishing to buy goods from GB businesses and, most of all, importantly, driving the wedge between one part of the country and another.

As the Noble Lord first has said, this cannot continue it cannot be sustainable. Mutual enforcement can be a solution to address the UK Republic of Ireland border challenge, and while it may have been passed over in 2019, because some people felt it was not the solution, now that we have seen what was the solution, it most certainly mutual enforcement presents the best of the available options in 2025 and discussing these kinds of regulations and the effect on the people of Northern Ireland really should make noble Lords sit up and think something has to change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a great pleasure to follow

21:45

Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

21:57

Lord Lilley (Conservative)

- -

visible to the remarks made by Lord Paddick. -- Respond first of all the remarks made by Lord Paddick. He wants an SPS agreement. I have good news for him, we have an SPS agreement. It is called the WTO the application of sanitary and measures. A negotiation which I helped negotiate which created the WTO which led to this will stop it says as follows, SPS measures should not be applied in a manner which would constitute a disguise international trade.

In particular members should accept the sanitary and phytosanitary measures of other members of the island and the WTO is equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own. Our measures of course are very largely identical. And nonetheless they have not been accepted. By the EU. Because the EU likes to use phytosanitary measures in direct conflict with the agreement it has signed. As a protectionist measure and as a protection measure to impose as was referred to one member to me as a regulatory henchmen.

We are one and we returned -- we intend to remain at one member said to me. They like to impose it on us. But I know the noble Lord is a fanatical enthusiast for international law. And hate Sennybridge of it. Brush with any breach of it except when it is with the EU and on multiple occasions it has been on this issue of phytosanitary unsanitary. By the WTO. I am sure he will welcome the fact we have this agreement and will do his best to persuade the EU to live up to the agreement they have already looked into rather than make further concessions to something they have a ready agree to.

I do not fully understand the government position on the specific measures. I am looking to the noble Baroness the Minister to illuminate them and explain them to me. I may well have just not understood them. They seem to relate to diseases. The first is hetero a city on a regularity. I'm sure the noble Lord are familiar with it. And the impact will be host material imported into Great Britain from EU member states other than any EU member state where hetero city and a regularity is known not to occur would need to be free from this pest and compliant with the additional import requirements that are going to be imposed.

This pest would also be subject to awareness raising surveillance and selection and detection within great Britain to protect biosecurity. If Ireland is free from this bug or not? If it is free from this bug or not? If it Now, the second bug called properly japonica, there it says host material brought into Great Britain from EU member states. Any EU member state. Would need to be compliant with the additional import requirements imposed by these requirements, the horticultural sector is expected to be affected by the proposed changes.

So, this applies to all EU states, including the Irish. So, this will require checks because Northern Ireland has, for these purposes, be lumped in with the Irish Republican Army require checks at the border. Even if the whole of Ireland is free of whatever it was. I ask the Minister is it free or is it not? If Ireland is free, then surely we should go on continuing as we have for pragmatic reasons treating the island of Ireland as a single bio security area.

And we did that for very good reasons, that we know the sea is a rather good prevention for disease. It may seem quite difficult for diseases to get from the continent to us, even if it gets to us in GB if the sea stops it getting to Ireland, so for the points we always have pragmatic reasons as single bio security, but if it was free why don't we treated differently from the rest of the EU? Typically, bugs and diseases start in central Asia and move across Europe, sometimes they reach us and if they be trustee of each island.

They do not go in the other direction. It is very unlikely this book has reached Ireland without reaching us, but doubtless the Minister will be able to limit data on that. That moves us on to the question of whether or not as whether the Government issue as us that EU has been very deciduous in protecting itself from these books. It has been it has protected Ireland from it, why do we need to protect ourselves from a disease that does not exist in Ireland? Why do we need the controls of the GB Northern Ireland border other than to satisfy the desire of our EU partners to be regulatory edges? But the whole issue, if we are imposing these restrictions to all EU countries, raises the issue of the reset.

This negotiation, these negotiations as I mentioned at the beginning came into false back in January before the reset had been negotiated. Now it has been negotiated and we are told it is going to remove SPS controls, is it going to remove the need for these controls? And if it is not, what good is it? And if it is, why are we considering these controls? I may simpleminded soul. I hope the Minister will help explain that dilemma. Of course, we should not, by and large, need SPS controls with our labours in your because as I said our friends have similar measures and take these issues very seriously.

There are relatively few diseases which would only have control with those diseases. We did have almost no SPS controls for the first three or four years after Brexit. We only introduced them because of animal diseases on the continent, my Noble Friend will remind us which they were because I think she had the difficult task of introducing them which I suspect she did not particularly want to do because she does not like interfering with them, but they did and they may be necessary for that purpose, but either we take advantage of our Brexit freedoms to protect ourselves from diseases coming from the continent, or we don't.

Which is it to be? Research says we do not have any controls or protections from diseases coming from the continent and the Government is pleased about that. Actually, I am quite pleased about it because I do not think much of a threat and I would rather have free trade with the occasional patrol if there is a specific disease authority, then you just control that particular product, not across-the-board, not everything all at once. Now, underlying this, of course, is that problem for an agreement to be reached within the Northern Ireland Protocol.

And I would remind the House of the Northern Ireland Protocol when it was negotiated was specifically identified as intrinsically temporal. And I raised the issue why was it that we could not negotiate simultaneously a trade agreement and a withdrawal agreement. The EU said no, you must negotiate the withdrawal first and trade subsequently. But you have got to include trade with Northern Ireland in side the withdrawal agreement, even though constitutionally, article 50 did not give the EU real power to enter into a permanent trade arrangement under article 50.

It could temper related to ease the problems that would exist once we left and before we had a full conference of trade route, so, it can only be entered into by them under their law. Because it was intrinsically temporary. I did ask the very distinguished lawyer who I shall not name what temporary men to European law. He said about eight years, generally. Well, eight years are up, so as a temporary arrangement we ought to be moving speedily to think about some system of recognition which would enable us to have a fully functioning internal market within the United Kingdom, and the arrangements across-the- board between Northern Ireland and the public with a minimum of controls none of which will take place at the border, and then we would able to debate other things later in the night.

later in the night.

22:07

Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

To some extent, as previous speakers have said, this set of regulations is almost preposterous that we are debating it several months after its implementation, but I would have to say to the Noble Lord there is nothing as permanent as the temporary that he would be familiar with that phrase. Sadly. Look, the idea of protecting plant life and so on, there is not going to be a word of discontent around the chamber trying to do that, it is common sense.

And it is not simply that regulations in front of us, we are dealing with the circumstances in which they are brought forward. And other speakers have brought attention. I mean, if we go back to the beginning decision to deal with the European Union to leave it, my party was uncomfortable with that at that time, simply because we could see that this sort of thing was going to happen. I think we triggered article 54 to soon. We had not negotiated and worked out amongst ourselves what we were actually going to do, and that showed up very quickly in the negotiating process.

Because we accepted the EU is fundamental three top things that they agreed before we even sat down, namely leaving the citizenship out of it, which, I think there would be no argument. We agreed upon payment, so we decided to buy a house before we knew what it was going to cost. And we then agreed to take the Irish question out of the trade set up and put it into a political context and that had to be done before we even got started.

So, to some extent, you are fighting a losing battle from that point onwards. And I do not think if anybody was going to renegotiate that situation they would even contemplate such a proposal. So, we are also in a totally different context to when I suspect Lord Frost put his in for this motion because, as he referred to the for this motion because, as he referred to 19 May, there was a reset. But I have to say this is a skeletal bill, a skeletal set of agreements.

There is no substance and detail in any of those agreements with the European Union and anybody that knows anything about the European Union knows they are good at the small print, so we may have these high- level ideas of reset, but it would be the minutiae is where the European Union is at its best and we are at our worst, so I would say I have argued for some time that what we need to be doing and I hope the Minister will look at this I think I have said it in other debates the review of the T NCA agreement is due next year.

The United Kingdom should next year. The United Kingdom should be working today to work out what proposals we want to put the European Union in those negotiations. Now, the European Union would want to compress that renegotiation to the minimum. It is perfectly obvious that is what we will do. And the result will play into that, but it is an opportunity, it is written in to the agreement that the operation will be reviewed in 2026. We should be preparing the position now and not end up crashing position now and not end up crashing in at the last in it with a few things jotted on a piece of paper.

We need to see what is it that we want? Because, fundamentally, my Lords, this problem of us being half in the European Union and half out of it, it is fundamentally insoluble because even if you have all the fundamentals of the technical solutions, and there are many, now, that are applicable and could work, as has been referred to, but, politically, if we are in one trading block and the European Union is in another, we are part of that, that is a politically insoluble position to be in, because we are in a totally different regime, subject to different clauses with no impact on seeing what that loss should be.

Now, I have to say that, of course, things are changing, but all of a sudden people are saying how awful is this? People are going to be making the laws and we have no say over them. Well, I have to say, wakey wakey. We have had to live with this for some years. And now, it would appear, that in part, people in Great Britain are going to be in the same boat. And if you look at it this way, dynamic alignment is a very significant term.

And we have had expressions as to what that actually means, and I would just draw attention to the House to the fact that if people are uncomfortable and the lead benches are by and large empty when we discussion these issues, they would not be may be quite so empty in another years time and people have to take a dose of their own medicine. No, I personally believe we could, as a nation, have avoided a lot of this. I think we negotiated we handled things badly after people took the decision.

And we are living with the consequences of it. So, what we are actually doing thereafter, we are mitigating, we are trying to ease the pressure, we are trying to make things easier for traders and businesses to operate, but as has been referred to a think by Lord Dodds, not once the Windsor Framework has been changed, and I want to ask the Minister a particular issue which has really gone above the parapet yet and that is the new European union customs processes.

It was there undertaking, a massive review, and like the Americans, they have had a situation where small monetary value movement of goods does not require any paperwork. It happened. I think there was a limit of about 125 and indeed in the United States context it was $130. That is coming to an end, so if every single thing, irrespective of its value, will have to have a number and will be under the new regulations that are going to be coming in the next few years in the European Union, that will apply to us as a whole of the United Kingdom significant measure.

I have not seen or heard any comment in Parliament and I would just ask the Minister if she is aware of that and if she and her colleagues have anything to say about it and what the implications would be for the movement of products of a very low value and, of course, the people that hit on the very small businesses, it makes life more difficult for individuals, it may be bringing things in online or whatever mechanism that is used, and, as you know, with the personal issue, we have just, we are in the process of spending £200 million on border inspection posts.

£200 billion. And if people are then seen with the new race at that means we do not see them, that is not the case. We would continue to need them and the European Union is insisting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sure he will be able to remind me of which particular clause it is in the Northern Ireland Protocol to which the EU signed up Protocol to which the EU signed up that says, the EU may -- will use its best endeavours to ensure there is no leak for checks and border is no leak for checks and border posts but thoughts for the airports of Northern Ireland. The are insisting they exist rather than finding ways to do without?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

finding ways to do without? The answer to that question would be where we need them there just in be where we need them there just in case there is an outbreak of disease and we are going to have to inspect and we are going to have to inspect the animals. We are going to have to get back to crawling on their tractors to see if there was any tractors to see if there was any Scottish soil underneath them and so on and so forth.

There will be an answer. The resort is an answer as the noble Lord is aware. Could the Minister expand and tell us whether the new customs rules that are coming down the track which our Select Committee is aware of and is looking at, if she could tell us if or what the implications will be for situations that we are facing tonight? I think that means intrusive interferences coming down to a very low level to the level of an individual.

And here we are as a parliament, many members do not realise the Select Committee to which Lord Dodds referred and twitchy and I are members is the only committee -- and to which he and I are members is the only committee in this parliament is looking at EU Regulations 2023 laws that apply to Northern Ireland. Nobody else is looking at them. There is nothing down at the other end. And I think that is an outrage. The House of Commons should be looking at these things.

But ours is the only committee in Parliament that is looking at these matters and maybe that says a lot of what people's priorities are. So could I ask the Minister to refer to the customs issue because I think that is going to come very much to the for and could she also tell us what preparations are being made for the 2026 renegotiation of the Trade and Co-operation Agreement and whether the government is preparing and working with others, other interested parties to decide what is the best way forward to see if we can at least, where we cannot solve these problems in their entirety and certainly not constitutionally but perhaps we can mitigate them further to at least alleviate some of the obstacles that are in the way of business.

business.

22:19

Lord Bew (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, it is with considerable regret I propose a regret Motion because I respect enormously the work of Lord Frost on this question when in government. And in particular I wish to stress the introduction of unilateral grace periods was the beginning of the fightback against the authoritarian implications of the 2017 EU UK agreement which has considerable importance and help to give us space to further developments development with which I understand listening to him now he is radically dissatisfied with.

I'm not satisfied I am rather less dissatisfied. It is crucial to understand in the 2017 EU UK agreement, it is the core of the ideas that are there to be bound in the protocol and it is absolutely the protocol and it is absolutely clear. It is important to understand also that agreement involve the flouting of key elements in the Good Friday Agreement. Strand three of the Good Friday Agreement insists there be harmonious relationships, mutually beneficial relationships between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

Nobody could see how those mutually beneficial relationships could remain with full implementation of the 2017 EU UK agreement. One of the key themes of that agreement is the British Government was compelled to commit itself to supporting an island economy. Now look at the Good Friday Agreement. Look at the framework that precedes it. Explicitly it is about cooperation between two economies of the island of Ireland. Suddenly to the surprise of many economists who believe there should have been more of an economy in Ireland and the earliest 20 century, certainly there was a thing called the island economy -- suddenly there was think of the island economy.

But there is not overall and island economy. There is obviously no question about that. In the two economies on the island violence still remain a reality. Funny enough in recent weeks as a result of the probing, is that the right word of Donald Trump of the Irish economy, the indignant system all over the Irish press that there are two economies on the island of Ireland has really become explosive. But the island economy and the British island economy and the British economy need to support it and in the protocols, both in the May version solution.

-- And in the Johnson version. It makes it a very realistic assessment of the island of Ireland economy. Look at the galliard edition of the memoir, from page 137 to 140. You'll see a discussion there about which is largely mythical. Nonetheless these mythical concepts became the heart of policy and more importantly British Government was compelled to support that. The Windsor framework has been treated very distally tonight. There is one thing the framework does,, it is absolutely explicit. The island economy drive of policy for the British Government and the dynamic alignment people have talked about, that is dispelled by the Windsor framework.

That is one of the achievements of the Windsor framework. And white played at all -- played a role in the -- and why it played a role in the return. The importance of strengthening the union document is to demonstrate on the subject of the RAC border. That for large parts of the history of the union, for many many decades there has been an Irish Sea border of one sort or another. It is absolutely explicit it reproduces the documents, you cannot say the Irish Sea border as such is corrosive of the union.

The union somehow survives. And the phenomenon known as the Irish Sea border arrives in a different form today but what is not in doubt, it is not corrosive of the union as such. And that again is one of the importance of the strength of the union documents. The other thing that is important is lays out the first declaration of something which is now called -- which is now commonplace debate in this House which is the necessary role of Northern Ireland in the defence of the United Kingdom.

It makes it absolutely clear and is the first signal of something which this government has taken out of it very strongly indeed. Again one of the reasons why I mention this of course is that again what is the dynamic alignment? We are emphasising above all the importance of the defence industries of Northern Ireland and the defence of the United Kingdom. It is just very important to remember these realities. Just as I listened I had a picture of frustrations of in line with the Windsor framework.

There are many many such frustrations. The new SPS agreement, they help. I hope it does. -- May help, I hope it does. It is clear and the noble Lord has made the point. What can along be said in Northern Ireland is we alone are rule takers and now the whole of the UK will be rule takers from the EU. The reason it is fundamentally democratic as this Parliament has a right to make these decisions. Traditional unionism always accepted that, in the 1930s when traditional unionism just like the 1938 agreement still said nothing to do with Stormont's decisions.

It is up to this Parliament to make these decisions even if we are uneasy about them and dislike various provisions of particular trade agreements. That is what traditional unionism stands for. The idea this Parliament has a right to make these decisions. They are often very difficult and it so happens often they are very unsatisfactory Northern Ireland. Now there are difficulties. The Ulster Unionist Party -- the University of Ulster economists have been quite right to insist and other speakers have mentioned it tonight about the fall off of trade from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, particularly smaller concerns whether paperwork has actually brought up smaller has actually brought up smaller concerns.

In exports from the rest of the United Kingdom into Northern Ireland. The results are no question this is a problem. But there is also no doubt for example many Northern Ireland businesses are joining -- are enjoying dual access and access to the Irish Republic. There is no doubt the Ulster farmers Union seem to be increasingly relaxed, especially of course in the context of possible SPS arrangements and about with the framework. So while it is perfectly correct that there are many unsatisfactory aspects in the reality and Doctor Esmond Perry in particular has drawn careful and precise attention to this and I hope the covenant will pay attention to this end to the various scholarly papers which have been produced, well these possibilities exist, there are also areas of success in the services industry of Northern Ireland which is doing far better than anyone expected at this point.

Again detected in the Windsor framework. Quite expressly. In doing far better than anybody certainly myself expected at this particular point in history. Finally on the point of phytosanitary arrangements, I do want to say something. Back in the days of the BSE crisis, Doctor Ian Paisley and the leader of the DUP went into Number 10 and they said I need to tell you gentlemen, he said to Tony Blair, my farmers are British but my catalogue Irish. -- But my cattle are Irish.

Because he wanted to make special arrangements. The BSE was not some marketing featuring Northern Ireland. There was not the rest of the United Kingdom. He wanted basically a privileged relationship for Northern Irish farmers. So my farmers are British but my cattle are Irish. I respect they currently do not have the same lives of BSE. The logic behind this legislation, it is my gardeners are British. But my plants are Irish. That is actually the logic behind this particular piece of legislation.

It is hard therefore to dispute or argue with it. Finally, the noble Lord frost talked about those who suggest you have to live with ambiguity and Northern Ireland. And you have to live with compromise I am absolutely certain any expressed doubt and compromises have been very unsatisfactory, and up see certain there is no way Northern Ireland can survive as part of the United Kingdom without compromise of the sortie mentioned. He mentioned the logic of the Good Friday.

I also am clear in my mind the union is never going to be available on exclusively Unionist terms. It does not mean unionism is not available but it happens to happen at this point -- to have at this point a strong future ahead of it. It is not going to be available on exclusively Unionist terms. I think this is the point that we all have to accept, there is irreducibly an element, I criticised the Irish negotiation of that agreement in 2017.

Slower playing at the hand and the best Irish officials of my view now accept that. It was lower playing hand. It left lots of problems for the noble Lord to struggle with and it dealt with successfully. It left lots of problems. But the truth of the matter is there are these two identities and Northern Irelandboth ways and this cannot be avoided the settlement. The settlement must involve some level of compromise. The protocol was definitely unfair to the mainstream Unionist community.

The idea we can just drop the Windsor framework now which has pointed out significant elements which work well for the Unionist community the idea we can just drop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it is not realistic. My Lords, to come in at this stage of the debate can be

22:30

Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

stage of the debate can be difficult. Because much of what I was going to say has a ready been said. And perhaps -- already been said and perhaps even more eloquently than I can say it. Just on the last point noble Lord, Lord Bew made in relation to Northern Ireland pointing both ways. We were of clear understanding the Belfast Agreement actually articulated that. And that I remember one member of the STV and it must be said, all eight unionists that are here tonight, all of us have served in The Northern Ireland Assembly.

In some capacity. Some have served as And I do want to say this, I do recall a prominent SDLP member saying at the time that all the Unionists have to do is take one heard swallow and everything will be fine, it is like medicine going down. And it is not nice to take, but when you get it in it will start to cure you. And as we are told that will be the hardest decision you have ever had to take in your life and all the Government decisions are now made and we can get on with it.

If it was just as simple as that, we probably would be getting on with it, but let me say there are so many of us in the House and we opposed this. But we did not resort to any illegal activity or anything else to do that, we did it by a democratic way and democratic means because that is what we are. My Lords, I want to stick to what I wanted to stay and it would be very easy because there were some excellent speeches here this evening and it would be nice to come and everyone, but I do commend the Noble Lord Frost for bringing that motion here for his powerful speech.

He has been accused of many things here this evening and I am not sure I have time to try and put those all right, but I do want to say that the Explanatory Memorandum says of these regulations says this instrument protects bio security and supports trade between Great Britain and third countries by introducing our protected measures against high-risk pests and plants. Now, that immediately poses to issues. In the first instance by not taking care to clarify that Northern Ireland is not 1/3 country and while the implication plainly is that Northern Ireland is 1/3 country and due to the extent of the international SPS border it has been constructed to divide Northern Ireland from GB, that is the only weight to understand these regulations.

We were told at the time that these regulations were being put in place, that you are getting the best of both worlds. It will be interesting to see how the people of GBE who voted to leave the EU when they are voted to leave the EU when they are told this is good for you, this is the best of both worlds, I suspect there could be a pushback on that, but we watch with care and see just how that works.

DEFRA has allocated £190 million for the construction of the border control which is supposed to come operational next month. That is concrete and the division of our country into two. Noble Lords might be inclined to imagine what 198 or £190 million would do to our health service, to our policing service, to our building of new homes, and how many nurses that would create, how many doctors, but it is going into a building this massive apparatus to create the border.

The day that Northern Ireland ceases to be 1/3 country. Yes, OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very grateful. With the Noble Lord also accept that as well as capital costs which are very significant, you have to add to that significant, you have to add to that the £450 million going into the trade support service, the moving trade support service, the moving assistance scheme and other schemes adding to hundreds of millions of pounds being thrown down the drain at a time when we are told there is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at a time when we are told there is no money available. Thank my noble colleague who is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank my noble colleague who is very forensic and he has again very forensic and he has again pointed out the figure that I have mentioned is but a fraction and I mentioned is but a fraction and I thank him for making that point. In the second instance, if the the second instance, if the Explanatory Memorandum can explain, the UK Government judges that the regulator known to cause rot known as an unacceptable risk to GB, would they not also pose an unacceptable risk to the rest of the United Kingdom? Similarly, if the United Kingdom's Government judges that specific import requirements must be imposed in relation to, and this has been referred to, which simply is a Japanese beetle, because it is spreading in Europe and therefore warrants additional measures to prevent it entering into GB, does the spread and the rest of Europe similarly constitute a threat to the bio security of Northern Ireland? If the Ministers answer is going to be the same as her answer to us and the related bio security question on 29 January, then clearly I say respectfully to the Minister that just will not do.

The levels of protection of the UK Government insisting on for GB and rightly so could not be more different from those the EU provided for Northern Ireland. The UK, it's bio security responsibilities in addition to Northern Ireland as the noble Baroness said, in this context, the claim by the Minister and The Other Place that Northern Ireland farms are just as important is quite limp, downright pathetic, and indeed, absurd. The Minister responded that they regularly let out the situation that Northern Ireland has been part of the EU regulations and the fact there is a surveillance zone in Germany.

I want to stress that the EU takes the bio security responsibilities for something like foot and mouth extremely seriously. There has not been a foot and mouth outbreak in Germany since 1988, so this is very significant for them. That may not be just as reassuring as some would perhaps want it to be, because we have heard a charge of a dereliction, would there be any dereliction, would there be any remote possibility that Europe could be shown dereliction at times to, or are we just to utterly trust them, when, quite frankly, I would not be prepared to utterly trust.

And it is not enough to say your bio security standards are now determined by a different country from the rest of us, whose Government you do not elect, you do not change, but do not worry, they're very good. No, that just is not acceptable any more. And the answer, also, fails the Windsor Framework because it demonstrates how its operation is now feeling in its own terms. And article 1 of the framework is designated as having very specific function by means of its objectives and I will not go into it because my colleague the Noble Lord Dodds has already articulated that very well.

If the Government is to fully and faithfully implement the Windsor Framework, the task of ensuring that the operation is faithful to those objectives is, plainly, of the utmost importance. Furthermore, the objectives include the requirement that the Windsor Framework aspects respect the territorial integrity and essential state functions of the United Kingdom. The regulations before us today divide the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland into two with international SPS borders. This respect the integrity of the United Kingdom as GB and Northern Ireland and they testify to the fact that the central insecurity function has been passed from the UK to the European Union and whose legislator executive and judiciary that UK has not represented.

In her response to this debate, I very much hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will not suggest that a veterinary agreement with the EU is the answer. I must tell this House that it is not. If the Government negotiates an agreement with the EU they were not restore the integrity of the United Kingdom because the United Kingdom will still be divided into two by an international customs border and subject to EU law and all areas. That they do not make and cannot change.

This is just not acceptable. We will still be subject to the EU Customs code, but that is one third. That is a foreign country in relation to Northern Ireland. And this, my Lord, it is my purpose to offer, not a control of despair, far from it. The truth is that the way the Government are managing improvements non-core Northern Ireland goods to GB in respect of these regulations, the official amendment regulations without SPS checks already provides the answer of how to manage the SPS order on the international border.

Things can, however, the even more robust by adopting mutual enforcement which has already been mentioned by a number of speakers here this evening. Developed from within the EU commission by Sir Jonathan fall, together with academics Professor Joe Wheeler and Professor Daniel Sarah Minto. Which provides a means of protecting the integrity of both the United Kingdom internal for goods and the EU market for goods without a hard border across the island of Ireland. It begs the question, what is so desperately wrong with that? When, in fact, it does not hurt either territory.

There has to be some other reason that they must tell us, but if the current delivery mechanism for the framework was exchanged for checks away from the border as is already the case on the West East movement together with mutual enforcement than the objectives of the Windsor Framework have set out in article 1 would be clearly met. Not only would the territorial integrity of the knitted kingdom be respected, and the essential state functions of the UK be respected, but also the other components and objectives of the Windsor Framework set out in article 1 could then be fulfilled, namely protecting the Good Friday Agreement and all its dimensions.

While I would not digress on that point, now the reasons why, far from protecting the Good Friday Agreement and all its parts, the core Windsor Framework constitute the greatest existential threat to the 1998 agreement, where it is set out in an important article quite recently in one of our local papers. There are strong advocates in this House for the Belfast agreement and I fail to understand why they are silent on this particular one because it is not being protected.

Of course, I appreciate that in 2019 the EU decided that they would have preferred their sea border to mutual enforcement but now we are in a situation where it is clear in 2025, in part courtesy of that regulation first today and the changes necessitated by the Windsor Framework are causing them to contradict, violate, and undermine the objectives as set out in article 1. The issue must be revisited as a matter of urgency, and in conclusion, I hope that the regulation before us today can rapidly be withdrawn and replaced by regulations that are not implicated in the division of the United Kingdom into two, and in the seating of a central state function to an entity of which we are not a part.

In closing, I would stress unless the Minister might be tempted to point out that Northern Ireland have been part of the epidemiological unit since long before the introduction of the oversea border. At this point it is well understood as not relevant because it was never objected to. What is subjected to has been divided from the rest of the United Kingdom by our border and the international SPS which necessitates Northern Ireland being disenfranchised in hundreds of disenfranchised in hundreds of disenfranchised in hundreds of

22:45

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

My Lords would like to remind my house there is a firm convention the House and revises about -- rises around 10 PM and there has been alternative agreement made but there has not been tonight. There has been some good forensic debate. I was going to suggest we should move on to Frontbench contributions. If there are going to be any more backbench contributions I would really like these to be the last couple and make sure they are very brief.

22:46

Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

I suspect I may be the last backbench contributor. On that basis. And in the true spirit of equality it may be useful if I can perhaps they at least make a few comments in relation to that. I am sure neither Front Benchers really object to being detained too much. And it is a matter of crucial constitutional significance. I had not intended to speak originally in this debate but I want to touch just on three points that came up during the debate.

First of all I think Lord Frost is correct while this is a highly technical issue it is one that speaks to much greater constitutional significance. As has been mentioned this as I think systematic or symptomatic of a wider problem. And that has been the overall approach that has been taken over the last number of years. I think there has been a number of failures. There has been a failure of planning, failure of negotiation and failure of detail and failure and I do think nationally we do need to learn those lessons particularly for the future.

Secondly while it will come as no great surprise that myself and my Unionist colleagues on the benches from at least two parties are not the greatest fans of the Northern Ireland Protocol the Windsor framework. What is particularly concerning about this regulation is it is actually worse than the protocol or the framework. As it has been highlighted by Lord Dodds and others, at the very least in article 1 which are supposed to protect security and indeed national security on biodiversity -- biosecurity, we are left with the situation where we have quality protocol plus, we have a situation in which the requirements of the government have been goldplated, the supposed safeguards have been largely disregarded and I think if anything what is there in the protocol would actually provide better protection than what is there to do.

Thirdly and finally, as a number of speakers relatively critically from Lord Frost and benignly from others has indicated we could only really look at this debate within the context of the Reset arrangements. Now there have been many promises made about that Reset. I suppose those of us in Northern Ireland will take a slight scepticism towards that and we will scepticism towards that and we will actually test out what, it is not what is promised that is important, it is what is delivered.

It is not is what is said, it is what is done. I think to be fair to the government in terms of what they have promised, some of the fundamental issues which are still there, they have not suggested that the Reset particularly solves. We are still going to be left now. I await office of the Minister's response in relation to this but there will still be customs arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Secondly it is clear that it will not be with the democratic deficit of 300 areas of law.

And thirdly whatever arrangements are there in SPS as I think was indicated by an Lord Frost in one of his -- by Lord Frost in his opening questions it does seem apparent that will clearly not cover those goods outside of SPS. On that basis. Let us for a moment in conclusion take perhaps a much more rose tinted approach to this. Indeed the borrowing I think from some of the suggestions of Lord Hannay. Which this will be greatly easing the situation and improving the situation.

If that is the case, it is because we treat the United Kingdom albeit in a situation of which it is largely subservient and in dynamic alignment with the EU as being one unit on that basis, that seems to be the direction of travel of the skeletal agreement that has been put and produced in terms of SPS. If that is the case and if that is something which is going to lead to a much healthier future for the country as a whole that I have to say this regulation that has been put before us takes us on a diametrically opposed position.

Because it very explicitly creates the situation from a biosecurity point of view, it creates a fortress of Great Britain at the expense of dividing us off from entirely from Northern Ireland. I would say in conclusion, if you are a true believer and a true advocate of the Reset arrangements than actually refresh yourself in agreement with the regret motion of Lord Frost. So without wanting to detain house any longer I look forward to the response from the Ministers.

22:51

Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I rise to support these regulations is a sensible step to protect our biosecurity and reduce costly and deeply damaging barriers to trade. But we see this is just one stage in the journey. As my noble friend, Baroness Suttie has said before in previous debates of this nature, these regulations are stopgap, the real prize is a full Senate -- falsetto and phytosanitary agreement with the SPS with the EU. That was agreed at the summit and that would mean one day our aim would be to do away with all of the cheques on plant and animal products altogether.

Indeed we welcome the government recent decision to delay new checks on medium risk on fruit and vegetables and that which a lot of industry rightly calls common sense. This extension until January 2027 gives businesses breathing space but everyone knows this is temporary. The government expects the new SPS agreement which will make the stopgap measures are necessary. The maisonette made clear necessary. The maisonette made clear the aim, common sanitary and phytosanitary area with no time limit. That would mean goods, plants, animals and their products could move between Great Britain and the EU without the current certificates and controls, it would costs -- cut costs, ease pressure on prices and end routine border checks.

The benefits would also extend to Northern Ireland thanks to the Windsor framework. Sometimes it is such an agreement it would make Britain a rule taker. In reality if we want to explore it -- export we always need to meet our trading partners standards. This deal would mean genuinely unfettered access to the EU market and therefore far less trade friction. Friction which has been so damaging for example to our farmers in recent years. Farming groups like the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association have raised concerns about the role of European courts and the need for flexibility.

Especially around issues such as precision breathing and pesticides. The proposed agreement suggests dynamic alignment with the EU rules but also promises things are safer for the UK and independent arbitration panel. My Lords I am looking forward to a few more answers on this and the need to be sure any genuine processes are fair. And reflect our own Parliamentary procedures. This agreement could bring real benefit and no crisis, less red tape and more secure food supplies. But I do echo some of the previous requests in previous debates with questions to the Minister.

Especially from these benches about a clear timetable for finalising the implementation of the SPS agreement. And so far our understanding is that no data has been set -- no date has been set. Another question is there any risk to animal health or biosecurity? We will wait for the new agreement to come. Ongoing surveillance in that period obviously is vital but we do feel that reassurance is needed. On another point the Explanatory Memorandum on this Statutory Instrument mentions debt recovery and collection costs from paid fees and I wonder if the Minister could tell us the total cost of unpaid fees? The average fee charged and whether non-payment is a widespread issue? And if the Minister is able to answer that this evening, if she is unable to, if she would be able to write we would be very grateful.

Finally on this could the Minister confirm there are robust checks to prevent those deliberately avoiding control posts now and in the future? I note with regard to their motion of regret in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the 15th report, paragraph 17. Both the submission from Jim Allister MP and the DEFRA response was reference to the use of the four nations of the UK Plant Health provisional Common Frameworks and that for example measures against propelling a japonica offer instance already in place in Northern Ireland and it will be the rest of Great Britain that will be catching up.

I have been a little bit confused therefore by some of the conditions I have heard this evening. Along with the benefit so ably described by the noble Lord Hannay and indeed a very detailed explanation by Lord Bew. We will also from these benches not be supporting a regret motion tabled by the noble Lord Frost. We want to see these regulations and the wider agreement deliver what matters. What matters to people. Less bureaucracy, lower costs, a stronger partnership with our closest trading neighbours.

We would my Lords, prefer that sooner rather than later. My Lords, that is what is best for our businesses and our farmers and indeed ultimately for our consumers.

22:57

Lord Roborough (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I thank all noble Lord who have contributed to this debate. And to my noble friend, Lord Frost for bringing the debate to the chamber. At face value this instrument appears to be a routine update, technical in nature and laudable in attempt. It introduces new and stricter import controls on certain part -- plant pests including hetero busy deal regularity and Capelli a japonica. Which are already spreading rapidly in parts of Europe. These steps are necessary. We have seen all too often the devastating consequences of failing to act quickly and unilaterally if necessary.

Whether through devastation and sudden oak death, threats to our commercial crops from the great Spruce Park beetle and a tooth European beetle, for some reason neither of those have Latin names. I refer my -- the House to the register of interests. These regular seek to bolster by security across great Britain they do not extend the same protections to Northern Ireland and that is a shame. I know that concerns of my noble friend sincerely held and reflect the views of a great number of those in Northern Ireland in particular.

As my noble friend Lord Caine has said on previous occasions it is important His Majesty government and opposition continue to listen to those concerns and seek to address them. We are told biosecurity is an essential state of function -- state function. It is and it must be. Under the terms of the Windsor framework that central function has been revised. Biosecurity measures which will apply robustly to England, Scotland and Wales are not being applied to Northern Ireland in the same way. Plant Health Northern Ireland is not subject to policy voices of the EU -- policy choices of the EU and not the will of the sovereign Parliament.

The Windsor framework however was the best deal available to us while in government and we continue to support it. While urging this government to try and improve on it. For that reason we do not support my noble friend Lord Frost's regret Motion. My noble friend is Lord Frost and others have already mentioned the new sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU which is designed to ease trade by removing checks on food. To add to the many questions posed the noble Baroness, the Minister could she reassure us this will not provide easier entry for plant diseases? And a repeat of imported pests I mentioned earlier we were in the EU.

And what checks will remain in place to protect our natural environments.? The EU appears to have betrayed our fissures in return for reduced checks. My Lords, the farm salmon industry seems to be the only efficiency -- fish and seafood range seem to have spoken in support of this deal. The damaging effects of this deal and the environment have been debated at length in this House during committee and report stages of the act. The farm salmon industry is distinct from the UK fishing industry.

Which has greeted the deal with the deepest disappointment. In answer to my Oral Question two months ago the noble Baroness, the Minister give encouraging answers which I will briefly quote. After the end of the fisheries adjustment period set out in the Trade and Co-operation Agreement European Union access to UK waters and vice versa become a matter for annual renegotiation. As is typical between coastal states. The government we will always push for the best opportunities for our fissures and the fishery industry.

The end of the Trade and Co- operation Agreement in June 2026 represents the opportunity to increase the sides of our fishing effort by 60% with full zonal attachment. In our exclusive economic zone. A huge economic opportunity to deprived coastal communities. The deal was a betrayal of those communities and those who live and work in the fishing industry. We are now committed to a 12 year extension of the very disappointing status quo. Whilst this phytosanitary deal really with that betrayal? The benefits of trade accrue to both side of that trade so why should any price be paid let

23:01

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

My Lords, can I thank the Noble Lord for introducing this motion and to the noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today with such passion and such energy. And I have listened very carefully to all the concerns that have been raised, but I do want to draw the attention of noble Lords back to the very positive impact this legislation has. Protecting our bio security is of paramount importance to address the climate biodiversity crisis. This instrument introduces and immense protective measures against high risk measures in Great Britain as identified by our scanning process.

As a result, this instrument protects bio security and supports trade in the UK. As part of these technical changes, this instrument re-categorise a certain plants and plant products, again following the completion of the risk assessments, as committed to under the order target operating level. This is part of an ongoing technical review plant product subject plant health import environments and maintains the plant health regime as risk based and proportionate. This instrument also amends certain official can measures to exclude large plants, plant products, and other objects for the requirement for unloading in an area for relief.

This provision enables the implementation of appropriate bio security standards in these cases. I would like to emphasise this instrument does not separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom, or treat Northern Ireland as the third country. Indeed, several of the measures in the instrument actually ensure that Great Britain is applying measures already in place in Northern Ireland. An noble Lords I am sure will not be surprised that I am going to remind the House at the island of Ireland has been treated as a single epidemiological unit for decades.

Under this regime, Northern Ireland implements official can and additional protections in response to these risks maintained in bio security as part of the island of Ireland. This instrument also upholds the government's policy in unfettered access in relation to qualifying Northern Ireland goods. Indeed, the Royal Windsor Framework underscores Northern Ireland's place in the UK. The UK Government wants to see the Windsor Framework's benefits realised for the benefits of businesses and of people in Northern Ireland and right across the UK, in a manner that meets our international obligations, so I am pleased to state that the devolved Governments gave their consent for these regulations to extend across Great Britain.

And the UK Government and all devolved Governments will continue to work closely together on plant health issues by the UK plant health professional common framework. And noble Lords may be interested to note that I had a meeting only this morning with representatives from the devolved Governments with Ministers to discuss this in the context of the SPS agreement. So, I have listened carefully to the points made by Lord Frost in support of his motion and two other contributors in today's debate and I have been struck by our shared commitment to protect UK bio security.

I would also like to thank the noble Baroness Lady Grender and Lord Honey of Chiswick for supporting us this evening. In respect of the late hour, I will address the noble Lords points directly that relate to the legislation in front of us this evening. And any questions that I have not answered relating to the SI I will put in light, the fees, for example, I do not have the details with me. And they asked where the SI only apply to GB, as I said this has been treated as a single everyday my logical for decades.

And the important thing is amending the GB specific that addresses the risk proposed to the United Kingdom, things already uncovered in Northern Ireland will continue to work closely with Northern Ireland on plant health issues. And we will continue to play a full and comprehensive raw in those decisions for other UK common framework. And for other UK common framework. And the Noble Lord referred to the memorandum that they talked about in countries. Just to reassure him it applies the controls to the European Union and the rest of the world and that is the third world mention third countries, sorry, mentioned in the PM.

And a number of noble Lords have mentioned the SPS agreement and asked what is in it and what checks would remain. The agreement will cover SPS standards controls and also the wider rules relating to food labour, organics, and key marketing standards and compositional standards as well as pesticides. This is regarding checks. This will further bring down costs for UK businesses by removing the majority of regulatory barriers to trade, hopefully helping with the to trade, hopefully helping with the trade job that Noble Lord referenced earlier.

Because what we want to do is we want to get the best deal for British businesses and British people. There is a very limited scope of application to the agreement, we are making commitments only where that removes a barrier to trade. The EU cannot unilaterally dictate the regions to which they will implement. They will have to agree the new rules, so it is not like a member state could flutter the UK, even if we voted against it, not going to return back to those amendments.

This is in some limited areas where the UK will also have a role in shaping the relevant laws as they are designed. Again, regarding this agreement, I have been asked for some specifics, but moment that negotiations are ongoing, I am simply not in a position at this moment in time to provide that information but it will come to the House in due course. The noble Baroness asked about the border in the Irish Sea, the Windsor Framework recognises Northern Ireland's unique circumstances and therefore prevents the hard border of Ireland.

There is need to maintain the bio security of the island, and some pests that propose a risk such as protected zone bests are present in Great Britain and therefore it is important to have procedures in place to ensure compliance with these requirements. To be honest, I will not take any interventions, it has gone 11 o'clock. On plant health threats, the UK plant health service that I mentioned earlier has DEFRA Scottish Government, Northern Ireland executives and forestry commissions as part of it, so it is properly considered and looked at.

The Noble Lord odds and Lord Roborough talked about removing border checks, putting bio security at risk, particularly looking at the rising past in the EU. This will allow for the UK to protect action to protect bio security and mean that the UK has access to EU data risks and other systems to help us do this. This is a big benefit and the common understanding states that the UK should be able to take targeted action to protect its bio security and public health in the same way as member states can in the EU.

The Noble Lord Dodds mentioned FMD protection for Northern Ireland, as he said that Northern Ireland is protected under the bio security regime of the EU, but Northern Ireland implements official can and additional protections in addition to this such as related to this additional notification requirements for the highest risk goods in order to remain Northern Ireland's bio security. A number of northern lords and Baroness Grender are asked about this and the nobility quite rightly said the reason why these pests are mentioned in this SI is because the new requirements are already in place in Northern Ireland, so this is bringing the rest of the GB into alignment with Northern Ireland, that is what the SI does.

I said I am not taking any interventions, it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has gone. Why are we expecting goods coming from it? There are books that do not exist

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are books that do not exist in other countries and are far away that still have the propensity, so that still have the propensity, so therefore we need to be absolutely therefore we need to be absolutely vigilant regarding any new potential pests and diseases and the Noble Lord talked about the devastating Lord talked about the devastating consequences if we do not do that, so I make absolutely, we absolutely so I make absolutely, we absolutely need to be doing this.

I just have got a couple and then I am going to got a couple and then I am going to went up, because it is getting late, went up, because it is getting late, the Noble Lord mentioned the trade cooperation agreement in its review cooperation agreement in its review that is due next year and I will take that back to the Department and speak to them about your concerns on this because there was a sensible amendment point, I thought. And, finally, I just wanted to say that I completely agree with the Noble Lord regarding compromise.

I think it is an extremely important point to make and we are going to move forward, compromise is going to be absolutely critical. In conclusion, I would like to emphasise this instrument is a routine update that ensures the risk-based and proportionate bio security controls are in operation in Great Britain. Northern Ireland continues to be able to support pest risks, specifically for Northern Ireland were needed and will continue to play a full and comprehensive role in technical policy opinions affecting the UK as a whole.

I would like to remind noble Lords that I do meet regularly with the Northern Ireland Ministers and the team and I understand we also have a regular meeting about this this Wednesday, so we will continue further at that meeting. And, finally, it is very late, it has gone 11 o'clock, so I would like to thank all the staff who have stayed and supported us in the House at this late hour. at this late hour.

23:13

Lord Frost (Conservative)

- -

I too would like to thank the nobility the Minister, frontbenchers, noble Lords who stayed late and staff who have kept the chamber running this evening. It has been an important debate and I will not prolong this discussion. I must say I have some sympathy with my Noble Friend clearly that not all the detailed questions were answered and perhaps understandably in the roundup but I hope the Minister will look through in particular in three specific questions I asked in addition to others.

I thank all of those members of your Lordships house who have expressed support to the points I made this evening, I think the Noble Lord who I suspect has frustration at Brexit that might have led him not to pay full have led him not to pay full And not every barrier that currently exist a non-SPS. I do want to point out that the noble Lords made and I think he is absolutely reasonable in saying that if one could have different degrees of dissatisfaction with the Windsor Framework arrangements, while still thinking any solution might be imperfect and I think that is true but we do have different if not very strong degrees of dissatisfaction.

I think my concern would also be whether there is a stable ending point, not merely an unsatisfactory one. And I think what we have heard, the concerns expressed, show that it probably is unstable. The reality is that having parts of your country Government is not stable and again at the end there are two stable points. One is to extend the anomaly to the rest of the country and that seems to be the approach the government's plan is taking in the reset and the other is to remove the anomaly where it exists which is Northern Ireland and that is the direction that I hope I will not divide the House, I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw the amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion is by leave withdrawn. My Lords, I beg to move the House to adjourn. to adjourn.

00:00

Oral questions: Further regulation of spending by political parties on elections, including by applying a national expenditure limit every year

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page