Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Questions on an urgent question: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United States Government’s national security concerns regarding the proposed Chinese embassy development at Royal Mint Court

opinion, say "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents had it. Question in an answer to an urgent question asked in the House of Commons on Monday, June 9 on the Chinese embassy

12:36

Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, the government's cyber My Lords, the government's cyber security experts Innovate UK have warned about the threat to the city of London from the embassy. Even the government of the United States and government of the United States and the Dutch parliament have raised concerns regarding the presence of sensitive communications infrastructure, especially cables beneath the Royal Mint Court. Given the well-documented history of cyber the well-documented history of cyber and infrastructure -related intrusion linked to the Chinese state, does the noble lady the Minister agree planning permission never be granted to locate a Chinese never be granted to locate a Chinese embassy for many reasons, including the fact that the Royal Mint the fact that the Royal Mint Ct is adjacent to the Wapping telecommunications exchange and it carries very sensitive information?

12:36

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, before I answer the specific question from the noble lady, may I update the House in that the report was received on June 10 by the Department? Participants have been notified a decision will be made on or before September 9, 2025. As the report has just been received, we have not yet started to assess the case. The report will form part of the final decision and will be released alongside it. Until that stage, neither the recommendation or the report will be made public.

I hope that is helpful to noble Lords to update the house. In relation to the noble lady's question, because we now have the report, we will be considering it and it would not be helpful to comment on any specific security issue raised on the application while it is under active consideration by the department. But if I can say that all decisions that come before ministers are subject to examination by an independent planning inspector, usually via a public enquiry. The inspector then provides evidence-based recommendations, setting out reasons for the recommendations.

The report considers the applications against published, local, regional and national policy and that is likely to include a wide variety of material planning matters, which may include safety and national security. On the specific issue around cyber security, as I have said, no decision has been made on the case. Ministers will come to a decision based on material planning considerations which I have already mentioned in line with the est process these cases follow. process these cases follow.

12:38

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We know from warning from the director-general of MI5 that China has been operating on an epic scale with attempts to influence, political influence in the United Kingdom through educational arrangements and the use of state funds. That is why these benches think it is disappointing that the Conservative opposition have agreed this week with the government to exempt China from the foreign influence registration scheme. When it comes to educational arrangements and the use of sovereign wealth funds.

But we also know that China has been coordinating through its embassy within the UK transnational repression of those people who are carrying out normal activities within the UK, but have bounties upon their head coordinated by the Chinese embassy. I will not ask the Minister technical planning or security considerations, but what statutory provision can there be in the embassy that will prevent both foreign influence from the Chinese embassy into our political processes, and the prohibition of

12:40

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

transnational repression of those transnational repression of those What I would say to the noble Lord on that matter is national security is of course the first duty of government more generally. With government more generally. With regard to the specifics of the case, the report will consider the the report will consider the application against all of the national issues, local issues and regional issues according to regional issues according to planning policy. Safety and national security will be taken into consideration to make sure that we have considered fully all the issues which may relate to this which may relate to this application.

It is difficult to answer general questions about the relationship with China and talk about that in the same space as a planning decision which has to be taken according to a fixed process. But be assured national security, we strongly consider that to be our first duty.

12:40

Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)

- -

I want to imagine that if in 1980 the former Soviet Union had asked for a prime site for a new mega embassy that we in Parliament would have agreed at that time and it is even harder for me to understand why a regime accused by the House of Commons of genocide against Uighur Muslims, which has incarcerated pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong, including a British national, Jimmy Lai, which sanctions parliamentarians in both houses of which I am a member and places bounties as the noble Lord Purvis said on the heads of a young girl, a bounty of HK$1 million, somebody bounty of HK$1 million, somebody living in the UK, why now in comparison with what we would have done in 1980 are we doing this now? In the House of Commons the Minister there said the government is open to more representations.

Who should they be made to? How will they be considered? Given the conditions set by the government around consolidating Chinese consular consolidating Chinese consular premises and access to the site have both been rejected by the Chinese, how does the government intend to address the rejection of those commissions?

12:41

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, the noble Lord raises a number of points and I have heard him speak many times on these issues to my colleagues from the FCDO. The government stands firmly on human rights including against the Chinese repression. We have raised human rights issues with members of the Chinese government and we continue to coordinate efforts with international partners to hold China to account. On the issue of Jimmy Lai, I know this question has been answered before in your Lordships' House. We continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Jimmy Lai.

The Prime Minister raised his case with the Chinese president at the G20. The Foreign Secretary raised it most recently with the Chinese Foreign Minister in April. The Prime Minister is following the trial closely. The Minister for the Indo- Pacific remains in regular contact with Jimmy Lai's son. And last met him on April 28. In relation to the question which I believe was about representations, in the normal way they can be made to the Secretary of State or planning casework unit, and all considerations will be taken into account in determining the case.

If any noble Lord would like to do so, that is to the Secretary of State or the planning casework team.

12:42

Lord Spellar (Labour)

- -

The noble minister rightly outlined some of the concerns their art regarding the Chinese come in a regime in the way in which it treats nationals and international activity. But international relations between states have never implied approval of those states. Or of their domestic regimes. They are about relations between states and that also implies embassies as well. The fact is that big states, going south of the river, the United States, but big states have big embassies.

China is a big state. That is just a fact. Can we dial down the rhetoric a bit?

12:43

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

I'm not sure that was really a question. All I would say to the noble Lord is the government takes a strategic approach to managing the United Kingdom's relations with China, which are firmly rooted in our national interest.

12:43

Baroness Uddin (Non-affiliated)

- -

I had not intended to make any points on this as I treat with care accusations against all Members of Parliament and community leaders of Chinese heritage with whom many of us have a long-standing relationship. But I do want to say something following the comments made. The fallout of some of our rhetoric and very high rhetoric and intention, there is a real impact on the outside of the community. I live alongside a large volume of Hong Kong-Chinese in my local area.

I have had associations for 50 years with the Chinese community, who have contributed hugely to this community. Would the noble lady the Minister agree that whatever the relationship is, government to government, we must not make the communities the fifth column? I say this as somebody who is Muslim and have experienced the rhetoric being made in the public discourse and experiences in the community. May I ask the noble lady if she would agree that we do need to make sure that we are extremely cautious in any condemnation of states and the actual fallout that may exist and be experienced by the local communities? communities?

12:45

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

I think it is important to reiterate once again that this is a planning issue and will be considered on planning grounds. However, the noble lady raises concerns about the Hong Kong community. And targets by the Hong Kong police would arrest warrants and bounties. Andy Security Minister was recently targeted by Hong Kong police with arrest warrants. The government will support members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK as we pledge to do in our manifesto.

Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law, regardless of nationality. The UK government will not tolerate any attempt by foreign governments to intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the United Kingdom. I would reiterate this is a planning issue. The issues will be considered by planning ministers against the criteria, including national security and other issues, and a decision will be

12:46

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons yesterday on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Spending Review 2025. Delivered by the Chancellor in the other place yesterday, made it the other place yesterday, made it clear in no uncertain terms that the Treasury has lost authority determining how the government determining how the government spends taxpayers money. How else can the Treasury explain a Spending the Treasury explain a Spending Review which the government will add another £140 billion to the National bill in extra borrowing, forecast bill in extra borrowing, forecast over the period set by the Chancellor? How else can the Treasury explain a cost burden so Treasury explain a cost burden so substantially increased? They are unable to rule out tax rises in the autumn.

Hearts can the Treasury explain how they are subsidising tax reductions in Mauritius but making reductions in Mauritius but making decisions that will limit domestic growth? Ministers are lauding a Spending Review that does not address the fundamental issues we have raised in your Lordships House many times. A few weeks ago we had an excellent debate on the crisis we face in light of the scale of our national debt. The situation has been made worse as a direct consequence of the Spending Review, ensuring value for money of public sex by the, another issue we have raised time and again that has been virtually ignored.

I would like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for the long overdue investment in nuclear at Sizewell C. -- Value of public expenditure. I hope they do not take too long. They are essential to an energy balance will stop following our discussions on the transport package, I welcome the extension of the three pounds bus fares until 2027, London based politicians do not understand how important buses are to the less well off, especially in rural areas, which are bearing the brunt of the government policies.

The introduction of a planning cycle for capital is positive. I'm concerned at the way the Chancellor has hit police spending and defence to find more money for the NHS. Police chiefs are very anxious and there is still no plan to reach the three percent we need on defence. The NHS is one of the major winners for the Spending Review, claiming over £29 billion a year in additional funding. However, unlike our conservative record, the new money With no productivity additions and no demands for services to be improved or patient outcomes bettered.

This is a major problem. In recent years, we have seen record levels of spending poured into the health service, yet productivity has not taken place. According to the Office for National Statistics, NHS productivity remains low, below pre-pandemic levels. We have an inverse ratio, the more money given the NHS, the worse the outcomes. We are witnessing a shortage of effective reform. The NAO and the independent bodies have highlighted how much of this new funding has . I am grateful for the government allowing an extra 20 minutes for backbenchers to ask them questions they may have about the detail of the statement.

I would have preferred a full debate on this as it sets the scene on expenditure choices for the rest of Parliament. In the round the statement is a cause for concern. As the shadow Chancellor put it, spend now, tax later. The fiscal rules have been loosened so the government can borrow more and lay out the succession of goodies in £190 billion spending. There should have been more focus on the nearly £100 million of interest we are now paying on our national debt, and how paying on our national debt, and how to get that done.

A debate on how we balance the nation's books. Investment is separated out under the fiscal rules, but I'm afraid it still has to be paid for. Is this investment being wisely invested? To mention one angle, the promised Green Book is not a new book but the findings of the review. It concludes, as I expected, given the changes the Conservative government had made, the correct methodology is not biased towards certain regions, but I was surprised to read the existing Green Book puts too much emphasis on cost benefit ratios, and a ratio of less than one might be fine.

I am worried about this as an encouragement to the approval of white elephants. This is against a troubling economic background. Unemployment hit a four-year high of 4.6 percent. The first estimate showed 109,000 decline in jobs. If confirmed, will be the worst month since the height of the pandemic in 2022. Since a Spring Statement, higher gilt yields have blown a £5 million hole in the Chancellor's £9.9 billion got -- buffer. Productivity 0.2 percent lower in the first quarter of the year compared to the same period of 2024.

The UK's total investment has been the worst in the G-7 on average. ONS has today announced a 0.3 percent decline in GDP growth. Partly, no doubt, because of the hikes in national insurance which have hit businesses so hard. These are facts. The Chancellor should have taken corrective action at the Spending Review but we can see that more taxes and higher council taxes are coming. I would like to come back to the Minister on a couple of points he keeps making, he has alleged often and aggressively that when many new products were announced by the Tories, no money was provided.

That is because we rightly delayed the spending round until after the election. We, like the government, would have allocated the money for what we have planned following the review. This is linked to my other concern about which I have been very patient with the Minister, that we patient with the Minister, that we had and have no plans for saving money defined as necessary spending. Apart from the strong growth trajectory at the time of the election, undermined by labours doom and gloom, we were on course to reduce the public sector.

Instead, the Civil Service has risen in the last three months to over 516,000 full-time equivalent. The highest level since 2006. In contrast, according to the Civil Service world, adding to the total of 384,000 in September 2016, when I was previously serving the Conservative government. This government has chosen to give pay rises to the public sector costing £9 billion and more if you add on the future cost of that pensions, without the kind of links to productivity that any sensible managers insist on when a generous pay package is offered.

30 billion for the Chagos islands, funding reduced taxes in Mauritius, not the UK. £8 billion on Great British Energy, the abandonment of plans for Energy, the abandonment of plans for welfare reform, and the blue book a pale imitation of. The government are creating their own black hole with this. It has been topped up by the reversal of the Winter Fuel Allowance. We understand why this was done, but it destroys confidence in the Chancellor's determination not to raise taxes.

My fear is we will run into the autumn with anaemic growth, persistent inflation and a large new tax bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I recognise the Chancellor faces

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I recognise the Chancellor faces real constraints. This morning's GDP figures for April-the problem. I'm figures for April-the problem. I'm not going to use this opportunity to spend a lot of time talking about growth, I think is such a big issue growth, I think is such a big issue that we do need some separate debate time set aside around that issue. time set aside around that issue. Looking at the Spending Review, we are pleased on these benches with significant allocations for the NHS and housing.

There we are concerned and housing. There we are concerned there are no targets for social housing since we need at least housing since we need at least 150,000 new social homes a year. My question to the Minister is, given question to the Minister is, given the additional money, only 3.9 million year, but still, it is million year, but still, it is additional money, will we see that number of social homes coming through on an annual basis? That really is the need that must be met.

However, nobody will be surprised that I was disappointed, almost to the point of devastation, to see adult social care overlooked with no adult social care overlooked with no uplift until 2028. Despite the reality that the situation is grim as we speak and without properly functioning adult social care, improvements to the NHS will be seriously undermined. If the Casey Review is the hold up, it should be and could be completed within this year. The Chancellor suggested also that she would back the fair pay agreement for adult social care workers sought by care England and she absolutely showed.

Care workers deserve every penny. But did I hear correctly she will not fund it? The total package is £2 billion a year, adjust the living wage and sick pay portion is 805 million year. That kind of money puts in jeopardy many care providers, but also many local councillors. If the Minister says there was an uplift for councils, that not only relies on five percent council tax increase in those councils, but the additional money will be swallowed up by send, also in a dire situation.

Will the Minister explain what seems inexplicable, which is the overlooking of adult social care? I need to ask for clarification on defence spending. The Chancellor said she would raise it to 0.6 percent by 2027. That is the right direction. But is it correct that when the Chancellor spoke, she treated spending on the secret services, Ukraine and the Ukraine war as defence spending? If we speak in the terms we have all been using up to now, the 27 spend is, in my estimate, below 2.4 percent.

I am hoping the Minister will tell me that I have simply misunderstood. And will he help explain what exactly is going on with this defence budget? Defence spending? To me, all of this confusion is really a underscoring the importance of cross-party talks, which my party has proposed, so collectively, we find a way to reach the needed three percent, well ahead of 2034. But would I appreciate some clarification as to what is happening in that budget. I am pleased to see new funds for the British Business Bank, the greatest weakness is its tiny size.

Which bit of its activity is the additional money to be directed to? I'm concerned about small business lending. It could make a serious

13:00

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

- -

difference if budget new funds are directed into the community enable fund and the growth guarantee fund and the growth guarantee scheme. He was going to make that call? Is it dedicated? Does it have a target? Could the Minister please a target? Could the Minister please tell us more? I could raise a lot of other questions but I am anxious to other questions but I am anxious to hear from the Minister. I did, away from the Spending Review, the blue from the Spending Review, the blue book and the speech, finding I was asking endless questions to which I asking endless questions to which I could not find answers.

I thought I am obviously going rather brain-dead am obviously going rather brain-dead here. Then I heard Paul Johnson of the IFS talk about the documents the IFS talk about the documents being so opaque that he was asking questions and could not find answers. If he cannot, we need to help. Could I say in the future help. Could I say in the future could we have clarity, but in the meantime could the Minister please serve as our clarity?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments and questions on yesterday's Spending questions on yesterday's Spending Review. In terms of what lady rev -- Review. In terms of what lady rev -- lady rev all the noble Lady said in her statement, it would have been reasonable for her to come today and so she did not support the so she did not support the investment because she did not support the decisions to make the investment possible.

It would have been credible for her to say she has been credible for her to say she has changed in mind and does support the difficult decisions we took and therefore she will support the investment those difficult decisions investment those difficult decisions Unfortunately she did neither of those things. We heard from her support for huge amounts of suspending that we announced yesterday, for the nuclear program, for example, £30 billion into nuclear. We heard her support the 3 pounds bus fare cap, even though her party had refused to fund it any party had refused to fund it any longer than last December.

And yet she opposed every difficult decision every time we have stood here for the last almost a year now, she has opposed almost every single difficult decision we have taken to repair the public finances and to fund public services. Even today again she was opposing the changes to the fiscal rules that enabled the additional investment spending that we have made. She supported the nuclear spending, which is investment spending, but she opposed the fiscal rule change that enabled that spending. That simply is not credible.

The party opposite cannot support the investment in the spending review without supporting the money to pay for it. And it is of course we all know how we ended up with a 22 billion black hole in the public finances, that exactly as the approach that Liz Truss took in her mini-Budget, which crashed the economy and sent mortgage rate spiralling. So, we will not, I am afraid, be repeating that mistake. I note the shadow Chancellor is distancing himself from the Liz Truss approach but I think the noble Baroness should distance herself from that approach too.

She talked about the money that is being allocated. I'm not sure she kind of understood the process of the spending review, the envelope was set by the Chancellor last spring. So she can't say in anyway that we have lost control or are deviating from that. The Chancellor allocated everything a penny of that envelope, not a single penny more. I'm not sure that the criticisms that she makes of the Leanne... I can makes of the Leanne... I can understand which is saying,...

I don't understand why she made the criticism she did because the Chancellor was simply allocating the envelope that she set out in the spring. She did also say that the last Government delayed the spending review. We all know why the last government delayed the spending review. Because their sums do not add up. They had a £22 billion hole in the heart of it. And they knew the moment they did the spending review, that black hole would be revealed. That is the reason why they delayed the spending review.

She talked about growth and the performance of the economy. We know that in the first quarter of this year the UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7. We also note that under the forecast inherited from the previous government, in this year the UK would have been the slowest growing economy in the G7. So I think that if she wants to compare growth stats, I am more than happy to do that with her all day. The figures out today do show that April was a challenging month, given global headwinds.

We know that was a month in which the tariffs were imposed by the US and it was before we had agreed the agreement, the trade agreement with the United States. And we know that a lot of that, if you dig into those growth figures, you see a lot is driven by a decline in exports, I think because of that reason. But it does I think underlined the need to continue to deliver on our growth mission. She talked about facts. Facts are living standards are now forecast to grow four times faster than the previous Parliament will stop real wages will grow more in the first 10 months of this Labour government than in the tenures of the previous Conservative Government.

She talks about productivity and GDP per capita, it fell in the last Parliament and is now forecast to rise by 5.6% in this Parliament. The IMF have upgraded our growth forecast as to the OBR in the Spring Statement. It was disappointing to me that the noble Lady often says that she and I agree on growth. She did not mention I think any of the growth boosting measures that were included in the spending review. She did not mention that capital spending would increase growth by 1.4% in the long term.

She did not mention the £39 billion affordable homes program, vital for growth. The record amounts of our indeed London,... None of the major rail projects that connect downtown in cities and make sure growth is felt throughout the United Kingdom. She did not mention the skills budget and the amount of money we're spending on skills. It is disappointing she says she supports growth but then does not actually welcome or mention any of the investment we are doing to get that growth. She mentioned borrowing and the public finances.

Of course, average borrowing in this Parliament is 2.8% of GDP compared to 5.6% of GDP over the previous 14 years. She did talk about the investment rule, obviously we have change that this choral, quite rightly, to enable the investment infrastructure much- needed to deliver stronger growth in the future. She opposes that change to that this choral and yet somehow also claims to support the investment that rule brings about. -- Fiscal rule. Yesterday Spending Review allocated... Set out by the Chancellor in the spring.

These ref's call settlements have been made possible by the tough work we took in the budget last year. In Thema future spending, I will not predict for years budget at the moment, even if in my power, the OBR will produce a new forecast in the autumn for the budget, the Chancellor will take decisions at that point based on that forecast and I will not be prejudging that now. She asked me about funding of the winter fuel in the Question Time previously, as she knows, we will set that out in the full at the time of the Budget.

The noble Lady rebel North and -- noble Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Kramer asked about defence. Increasing defence spending is a strategic necessity and that is why we will be spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027. The noble Lady Baroness Kramer asked about the precise definitions, 2.5% is absolutely the case by 2027. If she wants to include those other intelligence agencies spending it is 2.6% and 2.5% excluding those things. I will give have absolute certainty. Our ambition is to reach 3% on the next Parliament if this economic conditions allow but we were not her arbitrary dates are.

Two final points, if I may. The noble Baroness Lady Neville-Rolfe asked about efficiency and productivity. This is the first zero based review done into spending for 18 years. The previous government had 14 years to do a zero based review if it really cared about efficiency in public spending and it did not do well at all over the course of 14 years. She did not mention any of the reforms were doing in the NHS. She sounded actually quite sceptical of additional money going into the NHS, which I think is a great shame.

It is the most treasured public service in this country. She did not mention the digitalisation, £10 million into the NHS app to make it far more efficient in terms of the spending it is doing. We are doing I think a great deal more in terms of efficiency savings. All departments have identified at least 5% savings and efficiencies by 28-29. Finally, the noble Lady Baroness Kramer spoke about social care. I'm grateful to have a welcoming some of the other additional spending, particularly on NHS and housing, for example, and she talked about social housing.

We have done the 39 billion plan investment into the affordable homes program. I think that is crucial for growth, as she said. She has paid... I pay tribute to her... She has consistently campaigned on the issue of social care. It does provide an increase of over £4 billion available for adult social care in 28-29, compared to 25-26. An increase in NHS minimum contribution to adult social care by the Better Care Fund, in line with Department of Health spending review settlement and this will support the sector to improve adult social care with further details to be set up shortly.

She asked about the Fair Pay Agreement. As the Chancellor said yesterday, we remain committed to the Fair Pay Agreement in line with our manifesto commitment, we will set out further details of that shortly. Just about the British Business Bank. Increasing £25.5 billion, will set out further details onto how that will be allocated. Also I think in the industrial strategy in a few weeks time, obviously access to finance is a major issue for all of those sectors and we will be setting out how the British Business Bank can help with those access to finance issues at that point.

issues at that point.

13:09

Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Labour)

- -

May I also wish Lord Livermore a very happy significant birthday. Communities across the country were told for years that they would be levelled up. In practice, regional investment plummeted and long promised schemes will downgraded or polled entirely. Does my noble friend agree that while it will take time for people to see the results of regional investment, the money allocated to English city regions and the devolved authorities will enable long-term schemes that provide jobs, growth and are genuinely transformative? -- Or Paul entirely.

entirely.

13:10

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

- -

Grateful to my noble friend for her kind words and good wishes. I absolutely agree with her, I think one of the real central themes of the Spending Review was making sure the Spending Review was making sure that growth is both created in all parts of the country and felt in all parts of the country. I think that too long we have been reliant on just one or two regions of our country to generate that growth. And clearly, given our growth mission and the importance of raising sustainably the level of growth in this country, making sure that every part of the country contributes to that economic growth is absolutely important and vital.

I think that the regional investment that my noble friend talks about, probably particularly the transport investment. The noble Lady Baroness Noakes -- Baroness Neville-Rolfe referred to. The government previously made lots grand plans but never funded those plans. We are setting out strategic plan to connect our cities, connect our towns to our cities. And finding that fully, so those transport connections are made and able to absolutely getting around cities and getting around regions is absolutely vital to economic growth.

It is no vital to economic growth. It is no good having the jobs and skills, the towns, the housing if they are not connected and people cannot travel around them. It is an absolutely vital part of getting growth right vital part of getting growth right throughout the country.

13:11

The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)

- -

Notwithstanding the welcome monies for the repair of cultural venues, the cuts overall to the arts are hugely disappointing. This will affect most the individual freelancer, who really had high hopes that finally there would be hopes that finally there would be reinvestment in their sector. And of course more and larger organisations will be affected too. I asked the Minister would he agree with me that these cuts make no sense considering the Government has earmarked the creative industries as the linchpin of growth? They do not seem to grasp the vital role of innovation the subsidised arts sector plays and the ecology of the creative industries as a whole.

The 15% cut to staffing in the DCMS when such cuts are not happening everywhere. Neither is that a vote of confidence in the sector. The Government does need to rethink these cuts.

13:12

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

- -

I'm grateful to the noble Lord for his question, I know he is a passionate and long-standing campaigner for the cultural sector. I would say that in the Spending Review yesterday, that the DCMS will invest more than £2.9 billion across its entire capital program to safeguard and modernise cultural heritage institutions in towns and cities. I hear very much what he says about the wider cultural sector. If I may, I would beg his patience to wait for the third culture...

The creative industries industrial strategy sector plan. Which will be coming out shortly. Which will I hopefully address many of the issues that he is talking about. As he says, we do absolutely recognise the enormous value both cultural and economic of the creative industries offer. We will be setting out in the sector plan for the industrial strategy in the coming weeks. I hope we can discuss that at that point.

13:13

The Lord Bishop of Chichester (Bishops)

- -

My Lords, I think there are things to welcome very much in the Spending Review. Particularly I would point to His Majesty's Government's steps to support the most vulnerable. Regional inequality, investment in schools, inequality, investment in schools, social housing, healthcare. And to maintain some level of support, recognising the importance of the arts and culture. More support for libraries, which act as community hubs, is welcome. I hope the benefit of churches, which also public buildings which contribute to community life, especially in Royal areas, will also be recognised.

-- Rural areas. The DCMS will do this by resolving the long-term uncertainty about the future of listed places a warship grant schemes -- listed places of worship grant schemes by 2026 and capping of grants by VAT liability. May I press the noble Lord the Minister onto other matters, which I think are important. -- Two other matters. Children, our nation's future and investment in them. While on the surface the increase access to free school mills is welcome, can the Minister reassure the House that the Government has not uncouple free school meal eligibility from the pupil premium.

-- Free school meals. Second, given the impact of the cost of living on families and the growth in child and rural poverty, which I do see even in the diocese of Chichester, especially now coastal towns, can the noble Lord the Minister give assurances that the much delayed child poverty strategy will now be published as a matter of urgency. With further consideration being given to ending the two child limit and reviewing other policies which so adversely impact the well- being and flourishing of our nation's young people and their families.

families.

13:15

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

- -

Right reverend Prelate set out a number of issues that he agreed with and I am grateful to him for agreeing with those issues. He talked about child poverty and he knows that as the Prime Minister has described, the free school meals policy as a downpayment on the work we want to do to tackle and N child we want to do to tackle and N child poverty. I was part, lucky enough to be part of the previous government work for the previous Chancellor.

-- End child poverty. He reduced our property by one million children. He should have no doubt my personal commitment to reducing child poverty. I had to sit by, as many of my noble friend stick, whilst the previous government increased chart poverty by 700,000, that is nothing poverty by 700,000, that is nothing any of us want to see. Free school meals will be eligible for every family on Universal Credit, he described the child poverty strategy as much delay, I'm not sure I would accept that, I think we set out where it will come along in the Budget this autumn.

It will consider all of the issues that representations are put to it. I think there's quite a lot in this review to tackle child poverty, that is a downpayment.

13:17

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

- -

I very much welcome the Chancellor reiterated the commitment to no unfunded increases in expenditure yesterday in the other To reassure me that the other promised that she made that I am not misrepresenting you that there will be no further tax increases during the current parliament? She said I will not increase your income tax or your national insurance. I will not increase your VAT. Does that promise still stand? And how can it possibly stand with the government's debt interest bill being 105 million and rising and on the subject of Liz Truss with costs of around because of the level of debt actually being higher than they were at the time of that crisis.

13:17

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

- -

I am grateful to the Noble Lord for his question and the specific question that he asked about that manifesto commitments that we have given to working, do they still stand, yes, they still stand. There will be the manifesto that very clearly sees there will be income tax, national insurance VAT and that agreement continues to stand. In terms of future decisions on tax- and-spend income as I have said, for years worth of budgets, as he knows, they will produce a new forecast in the autumn for the budget and the Chancellor will take decisions at that point based on that forecast.

He can be assured that at all times we will meet the fiscal rules but I will not prejudge those decisions now and I unnatural with he was defending at the end the Liz Truss budget or not. He shakes his head vociferously. I do not blame him.

13:18

Lord Wood of Anfield (Labour)

- -

There is much to welcome in the spending review. Can I especially welcome the £30 million of investment in social and affordable housing the Noble Lady mentioned earlier on. Yesterday this was called a game changer, the National Housing Federation said it was the most ambitious affordable homes program indicates, all of which is extremely encouraging. I note that the ramping up of extra funding is gradual, as the Noble Lady Baroness Kramer mentioned, reaching an additional 4 million per annum by the end of the Spending Review., So can I ask the Minister what needs to be done? Is this money is ramped up in the next couple of years.

To ensure that the funding is generally transformational, in particular I know something he is passionate about or how we can work to improve the skills workers in the housing construction sector so that it really does result in a step change that we all want in social housing. that we all want in social housing.

13:19

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

- -

I think Mike Noble Friend for his question. He is absolutely right, Government is providing the biggest stage to social and affordable housing investment in a generation getting social housing the long-term certainty that they need to focus on development, putting in £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes program, doing a 10 year social housing settlement for 2026 and see the plus one alongside the social how and putting in over £1 billion of new investment to accelerate the remediation of Social Housing Act as I think that is, genuinely, transformative.

And I glad that the expert in this field have welcomed those allocations. He says it is a gradual increase, probably sensible for public finance reasons and delivery reasons also to ensure that can actually be implemented, but he is absolutely right to point to skills at the time of the Spending Review we have a record allocation in terms of skills, but also at the time of that Spring Statement the Chancellor set out a construction skills package which, I think, is incredibly vital and not just housing but we are doing a lot of infrastructure investment and spending, we must have that skilled workers to do that work, so I absolutely agree with my Noble Friend on the vital in buttons of skills alongside this investment.

13:21

Lord Burns (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I declare an interest as former chairman of the Southeast with transformation and the north- east Wales commission and I would make if you remark in response to those rather than permitting at this stage that macroeconomic aspects. I very much welcome the proposals in the Spending Review for the investment in rail services in both south-east Wales and in northern Wales. I understand that this will rely on the recommendation to the transport commission is to go ahead.

The new stations in New South Wales will provide vital commuter rail services connecting major housing developments to sites of potential economic growth on both sides. They provide an effective alternative to many existing car journeys on heavily congested roads and improve opportunities for those without cars who face serious challenges with existing public transport. In the case of south-east Wales, much of the work has already been done to progress these studies were both projects, the development work is largely complete and the project is ready to go.

In North will start project identified that will also improve the transport to important centres such as Wrexham industrial estate as well as the aircraft facility and the city of Chester. And, if you can believe, there is the real possibility of connecting by train those two great cities of Liverpool and Wrexham. Does the Minister agree that these funds are used responsibly? used responsibly?

13:22

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

- -

Well, in the Treasury over the last months I have had many references to the burns stations and it is now a great privilege to be able to talk to the man himself for the Noble Lord himself, about these stations. He is absolutely right, we are investing at least £445 million into real enhancements over 10 years to enhance rail across Wales, including in the borderlands line and through upgrades to the core Valley lines as part of the 10 year infrastructure strategy which my right honourable friend the chiefs will set out more details of next week.

This includes providing £48 million over four years to the Welsh Government to work with them to operate the core value and come up to £80 million report investment supporting offshore wind as well into Wales, 2.4 million over three years for a new Welsh program prompting investment opportunities and exports around the world. and exports around the world.

13:23

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)

- -

In welcoming the increase in defence spending, I am sure the Noble Lord the Minister and I also wish him a happy birthday and will acknowledge the fact that diplomacy goes hand in hand with our ability to actually deliver on our defence priorities and our trade priorities. My former department has suffered the largest reductions of over 8.3% in both Cedar and Ardell. What assurance can the Noble Lord the Minister give me and indeed all members of your logic tells that important priorities such as the integrated security fund which focuses on cyber security threats, counterterrorism, that these will not just be sustained, but in the ever dangerous world we now live in, that these will be increased.

that these will be increased.

13:24

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

- -

I am grateful to the Noble Lord for his kind wishes. And he is vastly more experienced and expert in these important matters of defence than I am. Answering his very specific question on integrated security, this settlement does enable the integrated settlement fund to continue to deliver programs that support the National Security Council's national security priorities. Integrated security fund will focus on the most pressing trend in the UK while opposed by hostile states, regions, and emerging cyber technology enabled risks.

risks.

13:25

Baroness Keeley (Labour)

- -

The continued funding by DfE is downstream for talented young musicians, and for the outreach of the centres, it is right that the Government funds schemes like these which ensures that training is not just for links but children of any background Is a world leading music or dance education. Could my Noble Friend the Minister conveyed to the Chancellor the need to protect and where possible to grow the funding of our leading pathway into music and dance careers beyond those funded.

13:25

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

- -

I absolutely will do exactly what my Noble Friend asks and I will pass that on. I think that the important announcements yesterday that she mentions are incredibly welcome and I think across the piece the Secretary of State of culture media and sport also announced the assets initiative to get more creative industries into more schools, as she says, so that the huge advantages to the children are in the creative industry she is talking about as this is no longer just the privileged children available to for more children in state schools.

13:26

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

I can only welcome the increase in the NHS funding in real terms, although I note that the long-term every decade is 3.6% increases. But also that the Chief Executive of the NHS Federation has said that this quote will not be enough to cover the increasing costs of new treatments. With that in mind, it is disappointing that while the phrases public services, public finances, public debt, appear in the Chancellor's speech, there is no use of the phrase public health.

Given that the NHS is under such pressure, surely the Government should be looking to increase the demand for healthcare to improve the health of the nation which is compared to comparable countries extremely poor. That would mean measures to deal with water, air, and other pollution, our broken food system, the poor quality and lack of green spaces, is the moment going to look at actually making the nation healthier to help the NHS? healthier to help the NHS?

13:27

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

- -

Yes. The Noble Lady says that it is not enough, we are not spending enough on the health service, £30 billion we invest over the next five years in day-to-day spending, over 5 billion specifically allocated to address the most critical issues. She likes to tell is how she does not believe in economic growth must if we do not have economic growth how are we going to find the money to fund our public services? I sat through the National insurance bill where the Noble Lady opposed the national insurance bill and the additional money that brought into the National Health Service, so she says it is not enough money.

How exactly is she going to find the money, she has wealth tax, if she think this is going to raise this many million pounds I would love to see her proposals. see her proposals.

13:28

Baroness Wheatcroft (Crossbench)

- -

The investment contained in the Spending Review is obviously going to be very welcome in many parts of the country and the problem will be making sure that it is money well spent, and as those that were here earlier in the morning and heard public bodies are not actually the greatest at making sure that they can build the motorway. And so, my Lords, how is the Noble Lord and the Government going to ensure that we do get value for money on our projects? Just having an office or the office for value for money might not be enough, but I was she had to see the Chancellor said the amount of money being spent on consultants had come down, so I wonder whether the Noble Lord the Minister could put a figure on that and tell us what the budget consultants over the next few years is going to be.

13:29

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

- -

On this specific question the Noble Lady asks in terms of the specific budget I am afraid I do not have that to hand but I am morally than happy to write to her with that figure if it is available. She is absolutely right that we have reduced the number of consultants which ballooned under the previous Government who would like to talk about saving money, but did not always walk the walk. She is absolutely right, we are investing an additional £130 million in capital spending which is enabling so many of the projects that we are discussing today that would not be possible if we had not the fiscal rules that we inherited from the previous Government which guaranteed neither stability nor investment which is why we inherited such a poor public infrastructure situation.

And then as they repeatedly cut investment spending to patch up holes in their data spending, so she mentions this alongside the schools that we set out very clear guardrails to ensure that money is spent wisely, that it must be spent carefully through public finance institutions, so I am very confident that we have set out those guardrails and will ensure we get that value for money that she is describing.

13:30

Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)

- -

I also wish you happy birthday and I declare my interest. Does the Noble Lord recognise the damage caused to UK growth by pension funds? We have the second-largest pension system in the world, according to Government. The Exchequer gross contribution is 70 billion per yer, and our DB and DC schemes are no longer backing Britain, selling or under waiting risk assets, damaging investment and corporate finance costs, DB pension funds built by annuities are driving up long-term gilt yields which many noble Lords have mentioned.

As the insurer sells the gilts they tell the pension fund to buy as they take over the assets, competing with the Brilliant companies are being snapped up on the cheap by foreign owners or private equity. I believe in Britain and the government seems clear opportunity to require pension funds, if they wish to receive these generous taxpayer subsidies, to put, let's say, at least 25% of their new contributions into British assets to reverse the doom loop that pension funds have created for our markets.

And resource growth.

13:32

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

- -

The noble Lady and I and many others in this House have discussed these issues many times before. I think she knows what she wants, what I want, what the government wants, pretty much the same thing. She says she wants to see greater levels of investment by pension funds into the UK, into UK assets. That is exactly what we want to see as well. The Chancellor set out some proposals in that in her previous Mansion House speech last year. We have seen a substantial pension fund reform announced by this government, which you get an additional £50 billion more investment into the UK.

We have seen the Mansion House contract announced last week by voluntary scheme, by pension fund providers, to get more investment into the UK. The Chancellor will make her next Mansion House speech on 1 July and I hope this will include more interesting announcements on this regard. It will also include a financial services growth and competitiveness strategy, which I hope will achieve many of the things the noble Lady is talking about.

13:33

Lord Lemos (Labour)

- -

I declare my interest, from 2018 to 2025, I was the lead non- executive director of His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service. Could my noble friend the Minister tell us how much the government is having to spend to rectify the appalling failure of the last government to address prison capacity crisis and all its consequences?

13:33

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

- -

My noble friend is absolutely right and I picture boot to the expertise he brings to this expertise he brings to this particular issue. -- Pay tribute to their expertise. In the summer 2024, at the time of the election, prisons were operating at over 99% capacity. So clearly the previous government, as I was saying before, they did not believe in investment spending it seems because they kept cutting it. Our social fabric was in a terrible state when we took over. We are having to do a lot of investment spending now to make up for the damage done over 14 years.

The Government in the Spending Review are now providing £7 billion to deliver 14,000 new prison places by 2031. 2031.

13:34

Baroness Penn (Conservative)

- -

Today's growth rigours make tax rises in the autumn all the more likely. -- Growth figures. While right we do not have to wait for is right we do not have to wait for is that 5% increase to council tax each year, plan for in the Spending Review. The noble Lord the Minister will know that council tax is a regressive tax and he will also know that this is the biggest increase since the 2001-2005 Parliament. Could the noble Lord confirm to the House how much of 5% growth in council tax each year will cost the average working family?

13:34

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

- -

The noble Lady says we do not have to wait for it, she is absolutely correct, because her Government introduced it. A 5% cap in council tax is something introduced by the previous government, we have not changed that, it is a cap. Councils don't have to increase council tax by 5% under the rules, councils cannot increase them without a local referendum on more than 5%. We have not change that. That is to invest in things like social care, also as is normal, to put money into...

13:35

Baroness Whitaker (Labour)

- -

The benefits of the infrastructure expenditure, wide- ranging, and indeed thrilling. However, most of those benefits are going to be long-term, quite a lot of them. And I think most people are still worried about the cost-of- living, their day-to-day access to public services. Can the noble Lord the Minister, my noble friend the Minister, say a little bit more about how the plan is going to affect ordinary people day-to-day?

13:35

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

- -

Yes, absolutely. My noble friend is absolutely right when she says of course that a lot of the capital spending that we are doing is long- term. I think that is perfectly right. For example, I was speaking... The noble Baroness Ali speaking... The noble Baroness Ali was talking about pension funds for example. I was at a meeting with some of the representatives of some of the largest Canadian Australian pension funds recently. They were telling me one of the most attractive parts of the UK economic landscape at the moment is the long termism of our policy-making.

They want to see low -- long-term commitments to long-term investment, so they can invest in this country. So I think the long-term nature of the policies is important that she is absolutely right, people should see improvements in their lives much sooner than that because obviously they have lived through the cost- of-living crisis brought about by the previous government. Of course we need to see those cost-of-living improvements quickly. One of the funds established yesterday was the pride in place fund. I think it is important people see improvements quickly in their local communities.

We also announced funding for the Warm Homes Plan, a total of £13 billion allocated across this Parliament to improve the energy efficiency of people's homes. We did a big boost to social and affordable housing, with £39 billion. Expanding free school meals eligibility to children in England to all children with a parent receiving Universal with a parent receiving Universal Credit. We invested more to fund childcare entitlements for working parents. We funded the freeze to prescription charges at below £10 over the Spending Review period and we launched a new crisis and resilience fund to help families in crisis.

13:37

Lord Lansley (Conservative)

- -

The noble Lord the Minister will recall table B1 to the Spending Review, she lists the departmental expenditures stop within that there is a line for the reserve, which I see is essential, the contingency reserve. I do recall that the contingency reserve back in 2023-24 was over 9 billion and that was completely blown and we have to have supplementary estimates. What is in table B1 for the phase 2 is at 1% of total... The totals for Dell. And it does not increase over the three does not increase over the three years.

It goes 6.7, 7.7, 7.1. This seems both to be in an adequate Big Apple contingency that far out and it isn't, as one would expect, a rising figure, a wedge of contingency in the later years. I wonder if the noble Lord the Minister might explain why that wedge does not appear as one would have expected?

13:38

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

- -

If I may say so, I think the rising wedge, as he describes it, is his analysis. Not an analysis clearly showed by the government. I'm not sure of anyeconomictheory,maybe,butitisnot whentheGovernment sharesbecausethosearethenumbersthe sharesbecausethosearethenumbersthe $$TRANSMIT$$NEWLINE

13:38

Baroness Andrews (Labour)

- -

$$CAPITALISEI Because Because one Because one of Because one of the Because one of the most Because one of the most explicit elements is a new towns person which is absolutely lined up, not just with housing but to drive housing growth and economic growth into infrastructure in different parts of the country where we need that growth. Could he just tell me actually how that fits in to the £439 billion which is now made available for social how.

13:39

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

- -

I absolutely agree with my Noble Friend in terms of where she started and where she ended. And I completely agree with her and that what we have been able to do in the Spending Review with the industrial strategy in the coming weeks, clearly innovation on R&D is vital to the growth sector and she also talked about the importance of partnership and I think that is at the heart of the industrial strategy in partnership between Government, business, and helping to systematically remove the barriers to growth that they face and as my Noble Friend will know we have increased public funding on R&D to a record high of 22.6 on R&D to a record high of £22.6 billion in the Spending Review.

And obviously it's linked to growth and I completely agree with her that for too long people have not been able to live anywhere near the jobs that they want to do because they have not been able to afford the housing to be able to be close to those jobs. That is not good for growth and I am sure that the £30 billion we are sure that the £30 billion we are sure that the £30 billion we are

13:41

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)

- -

The government was elected on a promise of ending housing of refugees and hotels within 12 months of ending elected to office. For what reason have they now decided to continue housing refugees in houses continue housing refugees in houses until the end of this Parliament? -- until the end of this Parliament? -- The party opposite did absolutely nothing to tackle that, they did not nothing to tackle that, they did not find that, we have funded that in the spending review on the time she has set out.

13:41

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)

- -

Largely in contrast to the death from the Frontbench opposite, my inbox is full of emails congratulating the Government on the spending review. Some unexpected sources like Liz Cameron, director of the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, who welcomes the Acorn carbon capture go ahead. The defence expenditure and the Edinburgh University supercomputer. So that is a great welcome. But will the Minister today confirm that the money being allocated to the Scottish Government is the largest ever grant since devolution.

And will he do everything he can to make sure that that money is spent efficiently, effectively and according to our priorities? according to our priorities?

13:42

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

- -

I'm grateful to my noble friend for giving me the feedback that he is receiving. I think he is absolutely right to highlight the incredibly important things that we have done in the spending review for Scotland. The nuclear investment, for example, £8.3 billion for home- grown clean power, alongside establishing a new government campus energy, drawing on the city's world leading energy expertise inhabiting. They called carbon capture and storage project and the new £750 million for a new supercomputer at Edinburgh University.

I think these are all really genuinely exciting developments. This is a record settlement for the Scottish Government since devolution in 1998, receiving £50.9 billion per year on average between 26-27 and 28 Hogan 29. Including additional 2.9 billion per year on average for the operation of the Barnett Formula and operation of the Barnett Formula and 451 pain year on targeted -- 451 per year targeted capital funding. The year targeted capital funding. The best way to do that is ensure people vote Labour at the next election.

13:43

Baroness Coffey (Conservative)

- -

Like my noble friend the shadow Frontbench, I was surprised that the review suggested that a benefit cost ratio of less than one could still be considered value for money. But it did also commit to publishing the PCR for all the cases. And I would be grateful if the Minister can say when that would happen and will it also include projects from the NHS? -- Publishing that BCR.

13:44

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

- -

The noble Lady refers to the review of the Green book, had six key findings. That there was impositions -- imposition assessment, continued overemphasis on benefit cost ratios and decision-making, overly long and complicated guidance and capacity across the public sector and poor transparency around appraisal. We will set out the information she requires in due course. requires in due course.

13:44

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)

- -

I physically welcome that extra nuclear expenditure in the spending review. However... -- particularly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I join the House in wishing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I join the House in wishing the Minister of very happy birthday. And many more of them ahead. I too welcome the statement yesterday. I think that we feel as if we are turning the corner and we are turning the corner and we are starting to take a longer view, which we have not had expressed by politicians for quite some time. True, there are risks for us. And True, there are risks for us. And given the instability we have in the world, I think it's desire is that world, I think it's desire is that we are not too inflexible about how we look to change our mines as needs require it when circumstances require it when circumstances change.

-- Change our mines. I don't like to see digging into their me in saying we will not change this, we will not change that, when circumstances may force it. And I think if we look at our tax system, I know investment is one of the ways in which we will see progress being made and that we will be having statements made very shortly indeed. One of the things I believe the Government ought to be looking at and indeed, all the parties ought to be looking at, is the way in which we try to maximise opportunities for origin funds.

Council tax, it is high time that it became subject to review. It is way out of touch with reality and it is now being run on her very unfair basis and I would suggest to the Government as it takes a look at tax reform, it looks particularly at council tax and looks for changes and made it fairer and made it more productive in terms of pain for these investments. -- of pain for these investments. -- of pain for these investments.

--

13:46

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

- -

I agree, I think he was talking about the ways we are facing as a country when it comes to the economy, a thing he talked about stability and I completely agree with him. The IMF, for example, in their most recent report when they upgraded their forecasts for the UK economy so that our fiscal strategy is striking a good balance between growth and sustainability and that our growth mission focuses on the right areas to lift productivity and on spending the also concluded that our plans are credible on growth and expected to provide a boost over the medium-term and we further agree with him on the points he made.

13:47

Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)

- -

The Noble Lord, welcomed the extra nuclear expenditure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lord the Minister mentioned the police fund recently and this is understandable that and this is understandable that people have pride in the place that they live in one of the indications of that is the number of volunteers that come forward to work in the Britain in Bloom scheme, and some Britain in Bloom scheme, and some volunteers have told me that there has been an enormous amount of vandalism tearing apart the part of all plantings that unpaid volunteers have made to beautify their local have made to beautify their local area, much appreciated by local people and to say that part of the people and to say that part of the problem is there are not enough police on the beat and even when they have CCTV evidence and data can identify the perpetrators the police do not have time to do anything do not have time to do anything about it.

Well, I have been hearing from the police that the settlement for the police is not really going to be adequate for the increased number of police that have been promised, so I wonder if that Minister could give us cause for optimism for all those volunteers that worked so hard.

13:48

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

- -

I'm grateful to the Noble Lady for what she sees and I agree with her about the importance of pride and place about vandalism, graffiti, fighting et cetera. I think that is exactly why the pride of place fund was established to tackle some of those really difficult local issues. When it comes to police funding the Government increased funding yesterday and the spending power of our police have increased by 2.2% in every year of this parliament, that is abound and extra £2 million so I hope she can take that back to the people that she talks about and give them the optimism and reassurance.

them the optimism and reassurance.

13:49

Lord Northbrook (Conservative)

- -

I particularly welcome the expenditure in the Spending Review, however the ISS director Paul Johnson would be baffled by the Spending Review and the Chancellor will have all her fingers and all her toes crossed in the growth forecast, not which has almost certainly sparked the tax rises. And I asked the Noble Lord the Minister whether that would be the case and, secondly, supporting my Noble Friends point about encouraging investment in UK aid and equities, could the Minister give his views on how that insurance companies could be encouraged to give more assets to the markets?

13:49

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

- -

So, the Noble Lord started by welcoming nuclear and then seemed to say that this was not what he would like it to be. I feel he needs to choose which lane he wants to be in on that respect. Will he respect the measures we have given and support the schools or is he going to support the spending? I am not sure he can propose the weight of his money with them support the way in which we are spending the money.

In terms of his second part of his question, we set out very clear mentioned before, would they not agree on that specific point and hopefully they will agree on the objective we are trying to do which is to get more pension fund investment into the UK economy.

13:50

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

- -

Has to be again in committee on the children's wellbeing and schools bill, the Baroness Smith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this might be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this might be a convenient moment to have a short pause to let noble Lords leave who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I beg My Lords, I beg to My Lords, I beg to move My Lords, I beg to move that My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not again resolve itself

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House do not again resolve itself into a committee on the bill. The question is that the House do not again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content, Of the contrary, "Not content, Of the contrary, "Not In clause 6 amendment In clause 6 amendment 77, In clause 6 amendment 77, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lucas. I beg to move that amendment 77

13:52

Lord Lucas (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that amendment 77 will speak to amendment 77 just asks the question what is the effect of the question what is the effect of the woods and others at the end of subsection 2, is it just to enable the insertion for those that have wider implications that we may have wider implications that we may have noticed? And 78 is to encourage good and improving practice by making sure that what is being done is published so that it can be assessed and criticised by the noble electorate, amendment 81 from the Secretary of State by specifying the way in which local authorities should report on the achievements of Children In Need of kinship carers that they are OK with the object of making sure that information is out there, against which the local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

authority would wish to report. Victim. Amendment proposed clause 694,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 694, leave out subsection 2.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave out subsection 2. I support strongly this grouping. Does the Minister agree that the local authorities but also much

13:53

The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)

- -

local authorities but also much welcome the positive effects of constructing the proposed amendments within it and thereby the local within it and thereby the local authority and success stories have is that Noble Lord Lucas has already indicated that visibility in itself would, clearly, proved prudent as indicated in 78, 79, and 80. This applies to the education achievement of Children In Need or kinship carers as it also should do to all previously looked after how were adopted, whereas correctly in ATD employment opportunities as part of the education achievement, taking into account the increasing benefits of education I am sure that the noble Baroness the Minister will noble Baroness the Minister will concur as well that in 83 the Secretary of State in our review of the current future role and remit of virtual education so that these and funded.

13:54

Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)

- -

I rise to speak to amendment 80 in my name, and this amendment seeks to include career and employment opportunities as part of the educational achievement. I have spoken many times in this House and will probably do so again, about the need to ensure that we have a system in place that is part of the education system that prevents young people from becoming a need. Let me share some statistics with you. There are 354,000 young people who are unemployed and actually seeking are unemployed and actually seeking work, 569,000 who are economically inactive and not seeking work.

According to the Department for Education's latest report in 2025, 41% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 were doomed to be neat. Let me add to this that I discovered recently that 66% of young people or young and offenders who had been in care and 25% of the adult prison population had been in care. I have no doubt that these figures will ring alarm bells to all of us and so they should, so what can we do about it? The main contributors to these figures and the main reason why these young people are in the position they are is that there are some factors that contribute to it, education disruption, major health and emotional well-being, lack of stable housing, limited support networks, stigma and discrimination by employers for those young people who have been in care and inadequate transition planning were moving from education to employment and it is to this last point I would like to focus.

I hope that all noble Lords and I hope the Minister will agree that we must have a system that prepares all young people, particularly those that have been or continue to be in care, to make an effective transition from education to work. My first question to the noble Baroness the Minister is could you tell us what tailored and individual careers adviser coaching in this bill will put in place, working with the DWP, working with all of their great partners to ensure the Government get the service at a much earlier stage and dispel the negative assessment that keeps them out of the workplace.

Will the noble Baroness the Minister please ensure that every educational establishment that publicises its need to table that we can see what is working, do more of it, and help those who are not doing so well. Prevention is much more effective than cure, it costs less in financial terms, and puts young people on the right path. It was explained to me that the fence at the top of the cliff better to be then the ambulance at the bottom and IM sure you will agree with that.

One of the most enjoyable experiences I have had in this House is to be a member of the public services committee, so ably chaired by the noble Baroness Morris. Before I left the committee we did a report entitled think work first, the transition from education to employment for young disabled people, but the findings show specifically help to disabled people have resonance with young people. The second recommendation in that report says the Government should work with local authorities to improve the availability of ready to work programs, such as that provided by think forward.

Now, another happy moment in my career was to deliver, develop and deliver the prototype for think forward. And I can tell you this work so that it can be done, it is in the school, coaches are part of the school management team, young people are currently identified very early and they get a dedicated coach who was on the journey with them. Results, 85% of the 14 to 16-year-olds have shown significant improvement in attendance, 60% of school leavers achieved at least five GCSEs at grade a to C and 96% of the 17 to 18-year-olds were in education employment and training.

I know I have seen it forward in other organisations we would be more than happy to work with the Government and it was, to the Private Equity foundation the funding model in place to make sure that works, so not every penny came from the Government and I hope that might excite the noble Baroness, so, my Lords, it can be done, it must be done, and I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will confirm that it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be done. I rise to speak in support of

14:00

Lord Hampton (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of Amendment 79 and the noble Baroness Amendment 79 and the noble Baroness of Manchester. Following on from this, statistical barrage, I will give you some more. According to the drive forward foundation the children in care on average achieve a score of less than half of the overall pupil population, just 14% of care leavers go on to university compared to 47% of all young people. 22% of currently busy that they always or often feel lonely compared to 10% of all young people and 15% of care leavers report that they do not have a good friend compared to 5% of all adults.

One in three care leavers become homeless in the first two years that they leave care and 52% of children in care have a criminal conviction by the age of 24 compared to 13% of non-care experienced children. The bill could achieve so much.

14:01

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

- -

I rise to speak to my amendment, number 83. It seeks to address what is currently a series of gaps in the information that we have about the effectiveness of the virtual school run. Clause 6 extends statutory duties of the B has huge role, children, social workers and children in kinship carers of the question is whether it needs to be put in statutory footing and what resources are necessary to implement resources are necessary to implement As I understand it, we do not yet have the assessment that confirms the positive impact of that role or the emergence of value of money.

May I take your Lordships are the interim evaluation, as published in 2024. On page 11, " It's the evaluation of phase 2 follows a broadly typical pattern of data collection and analysis alongside ongoing analysis of secondary national datasets. We assumed that there would not be merely only one way of providing effective support and that the aim at this stage was to support shared learning about potentially affected practice, rather than conduct and effectiveness trial." Go but they do want to write in the report, " The final report of the evaluation will test whether there were any early signs of process inadequate level in attendance, persistent absence, suspension and permanent exclusion." Can I suggest to the Minister that the policy document for the Bill seems to overstate the impact and if we look at that policy document, and I quote, what it says is as follows, "The evaluation of the extension shows early signs of improved educational outcomes, with several local authorities reporting enhanced attendance, reduced exclusions and better collaboration between education and social care services." I am concerned that trends in attendance could be influenced by a range of other factors apart from the presence of the VS H.

We therefore have possibly correlation rather than causation. I may have misunderstood things but could the Minister please correct me if indeed I am wrong? I hope the Minister will look sympathetically at my amendment. It seeks to fill the evidence Both in terms of impact and in terms of resources before extending the role of the SH is extending the role of the SH is still firm. -- Vilde evidence gap both. Otherwise the Government is at risk, in my opinion, of expanding and diluting a role by the evidence that clearly demonstrates that it really can make a difference.

I hope the Minister will look at this amendment sympathetically and in the spirit of which is being drafted and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in favour and support of my own amendment 82, providing further opportunities to children in kinship care to have access to boarding school places where appropriate. Firstly, the Government should be applauded for Government should be applauded for its commitment to raising the profile for kinship carers as a vital part of the ecosystem.... As vital part of the ecosystem.... As vital part of the ecosystem.... As we heard from the noble Lord Russell earlier in the week, there are over 150,000 children in kinship care in 150,000 children in kinship care in England.

The unsung heroes without whom it would be almost inevitable the care system would buckle. For most of this part one of the Bill I've taken a backseat, as they do not have direct expertise for the

14:05

Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative)

- -

not have direct expertise for the many complex areas it seeks to track all -- tackle. However, for this proposal I was Water Minister for boarding schools, both state and private when it with the DfE. Noble Lords participating in the Bill will know what a huge task in France kinship carers when taking on children, more often than not from broken homes carrying the emotional scars of the unhappiness that has unlimited from this breakdown. We have heard for the level of support of kinship carers is patchy at best and almost non-existent.

Many potential kinship carers the prospect will be simply too daunting, even if they might be the best solution in a given set of circumstances. This is why am so keen to give much more oxygen to the prospect of offering boarding school places to children in kinship care. Where it works for the child, and of course this is not always the case, it can provide a vital partnership to the carer in the upbringing of the child. At the simplest level, the day-to-day caring responsibilities for the kinship carer are around -- reduced from 56 weeks to 62 -- 52 weeks to 16, when using bodies.

I believe it is dramatically unused resource. There is a squeamishness among many departments on directing children's services to use it more. However, when I was Water Minister in the area in 2018, we published a report which showed how impactful it can be. The work was led by the Norfolk County Council where I live and the results were remarkable. We at the DfE then jointly published a report that is no longer available on the DfT website, which is a shame. I would urge the Minister to not only read it and I can send her a copy, but also asked officials to put it back up again.

-- DfE website. It tracked 52 memorable young people between two and five years. Over that time, 33 of these young people were able to come off the risk register completely following placement in boarding school. -- Vulnerable young people. The doctor who contributed to the report highlighted three specific benefits. The setting can provide remediation from risky emotional and physically stressful situations, for example, circuit breaker from a local gang culture. We heard from the Baroness Stedman-Scott a moment ago, and number of children from care ending up in prison, it is appalling.

Secondly, improvement of educational outcomes and thirdly, it is a more cost-effective solution than other forms of care intervention. The view and of many others in the sector was that successful boarding placements can help strengthening families experiencing significant difficulties. The longer school day that is part and parcel of boarding school life can provide a form of round-the-clock care and this part of the reason for the improved educational and emotional outcomes. In this study, 52 children were placed in 11 different boarding settings, a mixture of state and private provision.

21% of these children achieve a formal GCSE qualification in maths and English above grade C in old money. This compared to a national pass rate of compared to a national pass rate of that year of 17 1/2%. These are not dramatic increases but put them on the side of the substantial reduction in the numbers being removed from the risk register, it makes for a very positive story. This story also compared costs against more institutional forms of care for young kinship.

At the time of writing, the report of the Norfolk schools born partnership and average cost of between 11 and 35,000 a year compared to £56,000 for a looked after child in a normal or more standard setting. This translated into a saving of £1.6 million over four years to this group. Obviously kinship care is more affordable because they get less support for our argument is if boarding was offered to potential kinship carers, the take-up would be much higher, therefore reducing local looked after children cost.

Today the springboard charity offers bursaries for looked after children attending private boarding school. We know that educational out comes for looked after children remain way below the national average, this is not a silver bullet. Combined with other benefits, as I have outlined, I believe it is a vital additional tool to support these memorable children who never chose this half -- harsh return flight. I hope the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister will agree to my amendment to provide more awareness of these opportunities. I was pleased to be asked to speak to amendment 82 by the noble

14:10

Baroness Berridge (Conservative)

- -

speak to amendment 82 by the noble Lord farmer, who was unfortunately not able to be had today. As well as the evidence I will refer to, I was in your Lordships' House back in 2014, when my noble friend gave his Maiden speech. A Conservative party treasurer perhaps brings a certain stereotype to mind. However, you could have heard a pin drop, as a globally successful trader spoke of being a young teenager in a chaotic home with an alcoholic single mother. But he went to the boardinghouse at the state run Wantage grammar school.

It rescued him. He made me also reflect on the him. He made me also reflect on the role of boarding school. I am born and bred in Oakham and I've had to deal for many years with annoyance of, "You are from Oakham, so you went Oakham School then? ", "No, I reply." There is also another school that was found outstanding in every inspection last year, forgive the shout out mail school. This is supported by the 2023 study of the University of Nottingham School of education commission by the Royal National children springboard foundation.

Which found out that children in on the state of care that attend state boarding or independent schools experience significant educational and financial benefits. They are four times more likely to achieve good GCSE passes in English and maths and five times more likely to pursue and succeed at A-level, leading often to higher education. The study estimates that for every 100 children attending boarding schools, lower social care costs and increased future earnings mean there is an economic return on investment of approximately £2.75 million.

When vulnerable children in boarding schools were interviewed, they report that such opportunities were seen often as life changing. Also this amendment would make it significantly easier, as the noble Lord Agnew has outlined, for certain kinship carers to step forward to offer a home to a child who with an otherwise enter the state care system. Not every family member might want or be able to house the child 24 seven, 365 days a year. That can be a daunting task.

And they know of course that their own children will be greatly affected and the House actually might not be big enough for that extra child. So kin altruism can be greatly aided and encouraged when a child can be educated in this way in a state boarding sector, given the carer breathing space to attend to all those other responsibilities, whilst knowing that the child is safe and cared for in that state boarding sector. I do hope the noble Lady the Minister look at the evidence matter.

14:12

Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We have no amendments in this group but are very sympathetic to them. When you look at all of the figures and all of the statistics about children in care, your heart just goes out to those young people. And we should do everything possible, everything we can humanly Them, develop them, encourage them, any other adjective you can think of. If I could just deal with a few of the amendments. I want a festival deal with Lord Agnew's amendment.

-- First of all deal. He may not know that Liverpool College, which was an independent school, a very successful independent school, with a very dynamic teacher, who was a Dutch American who came to England. And he decided to build a... Two things, festival he became an academy stop -- first of all. And then he decided to make a boarding school available at Liverpool College. He did an agreement with the local authority that he would take a percentage of the places for children in care.

And the results have been spectacular. And I just think it is a model that should not be shunned for party political reasons, we are not in favour of independent schools or we are not in favour of boarding, but should be welcomed, embraced and encouraged. The second point I wanted to make was to Lord Bellingham's amendment, was to Lord Bellingham's amendment, 83. So, again, personal experience. In Liverpool, not only did we create a virtual school, but the then director of education, Colin Hilton, he said I am going to be the virtual parents of these children.

And for the children in care in local authority, set up a steering committee of young people and met with them once a month to hear their issues and their problems. And just by taking on that role, some might think it is just flag-waving, he actually nailed his political master, he now the colours of the local to the mast and the results again were just amazing. I am favour of all sorts of information being made available. It is only by getting information that you know what you have to do and how you are going to achieve it.

I am surprisingly chair of Liverpool's education employment and training Scrutiny Committee. And a Labour authority, who have made a Lib Dem chair of two of their select committees. And local authority set a series of targets. And in education, there was odyssey training, employment, et cetera et cetera. -- Obviously training. I was surprised... Each quarter we look at the results next to the targets we hoped to achieve. I was surprised that children in care were not separated in those figures.

And as for those -- asked for those figures to be separated and that has now happened. She can naturally track the progress this children in care are making. All these amendments in one way or another I think can only help further the support we as a nation want to give to those nation want to give to those And on Baroness Jones as amendment, why not? All these things are important, so I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to them.

will be sympathetic to them.

14:16

The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 79 in the name of the noble Baroness and the Right Reverend Pollard the Bishop of Manchester and to amendment 80 in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Stedman-Scott. Whilst we are, of course, positive towards efforts that support children and social work, those currently and previously looked after and to those in kinship carers, we would like to question why adopted children are excluded from his majesties government's plans to strengthen the role of the virtual stipend.

Our amendment 79 would clarify the role of the virtual store head to ensure that those children who were in the care of the local authority are then do indeed receive the same support as children with a social worker or those in kinship care. The Children Act 1989 section 2 care. The Children Act 1989 section 23 ZZ airports the duty on local authorities to, and I quote, make advice and information available in accordance with this section for the purpose of promoting the educational achievement of each relevant child educated in their area.

Clause 6 introduces the duty on the local authority to take steps it considers appropriate, which is a much broader role but one that does not currently appear to include adopted children. As the very full briefing sets out, almost half of adopted parents surveyed for their barometer 2024 sought advice from their local virtual school in the previous Sierra. The report also highlighted the variability in support that they received and the value that they are placed on the advocacy that the virtual school head could provide with their child's school.

Their exclusion in the bill appears inconsistent and we would be grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister could confirm either that adopted children will be included or if they will not be, why not? Turning to amendment 80, this amendment seeks to include career and employment opportunities for children as part of educational achievement. The number of young people who are unable to find employment or further training when they finish their education is alarmingly high. According to the ONS, there are an estimated 12.5% or 923,000 individuals aged 16 to 24 not in education, employment, or training in the period of January to March 2025.

And although that is down on the previous course, I think all noble Lords would agree that number is way too high, and we must act to reduce that number. Amendment 78 and amendment 81 in the name of the Noble Lord locus seek to require that authorities publish the steps they have taken to promote the process undertaken which has resulted in educational achievement of the Children In Need of kinship carers and the Secretary of State may specify how this is reported.

Indeed, it is important for successful practices to be shared, and through this amendment it would ensure that performance can be more accurately measured. Amendment 82 in the names of the Noble Lord farmer six to provide boarding school places to children in kinship care. I think the noble Lords raise a most interesting point. It clearly works very well for the Noble Lord farmer. Where it works for a child, that is obviously critically important. It obviously critically important.

It can be a hugely positive experience where that child may have the ability to immerse themselves in education, sports, arts, or drama, away from the distractions or dangers they have previously experienced in their outside school life. It also lessens the time pressures on kinship carers who we know do an amazing job, but often find there are simply not enough hours in the day. We would welcome the opportunity to learn more about the work done by Norfolk County Counsel, and the issues that they encountered, and how they addressed them, and we look forward to discussing further and we hope the noble Baroness the Minister will do this.

Amendment 83 in the name of the Noble Lord Bellingham seeks to review the role of virtual school heads, and their role in improving educational outcomes from previously looked after. There is not yet sufficient evidence to fully analyse the extent of the improvement from the introduction of virtual school heads, and, as such, this review would certainly help to understand the impact that virtual school heads had before full implementation, and we very much look forward to hearing the noble Baroness the Minister in line with the Noble Lord stories, these will seem entirely sensible these will seem entirely sensible

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and well thought out amendments. Can I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lords for their very thank the noble Lords for their very thoughtful contributions to this very important area of the bill? I think, hand on heart, we all know that children who need a social worker and children in kinship carers experience significant carers experience significant difficulties, and many of them have poorer educational outcomes than poorer educational outcomes than there appears as a result across all there appears as a result across all key stages.

And, Lord Storey is absolutely right. That it is absolutely right. That it is important that everyone shares their experience, and just out of interest experience, and just out of interest in Leeds, we always make sure that the scrutiny of children's services was held by an opposition member. It seems to make absolute sense that we would want the best for these young people, and we must make sure that every area is fully scrutinised. Clause 6 aims to confer statutory duties on local authorities to promote their educational achievement, increasing their visibility, as we have heard, for many contributions, ensuring they receive consistent expert support to improve their outcomes.

In practice, these duties will be discharged by virtual school heads. And will have strategic oversight for the outcomes of these children, raising awareness, improving visibility needs, for example through training to schools and effective strategies for improving outcomes. We have literally just received more information about why this

14:25

Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)

- -

information is so important, and having a real understanding of the having a real understanding of the numbers of young people who experience school instability, for experience school instability, for example, placement instability, social work instability, all of social work instability, all of these contribute to their experience in learning and ability to achieve in learning and ability to achieve going forward. As well as this, going forward. As well as this, virtual schools will have a duty to provide information and advice upon request to kinship carers with request to kinship carers with special guardianship or arrangement orders, regardless of whether the orders, regardless of whether the child spends time in care.

We know child spends time in care. We know that virtual heads were first introduced on a nonstatutory basis and we actually recognise the need and we actually recognise the need for a much stronger basis and echo the Earl of Dundee about the importance of local authorities in making sure that this moves forward successfully. As I say, I welcome the spirit of the amendments tabled which ensure that virtual school heads work on behalf of all children whilst ensuring local authorities are rightly held accountable for the delivery of their duties.

They also ensured that previously looked after adopted from state care are not inadvertently disadvantaged as a result and I will come back to say more on that in a while. We are confident that the measures of this clause meet these aims and, as a result, that these amendments are not necessary to go into more detail. Turning to amendment 77 /81, in the name of the Noble Lord locus, amendment 77 seeks to enable discussion about which children are eligible for local authority support and how virtual school help will promote their educational outcomes, providing clarity on the children to whom the virtual school has extended is important, clause 6 subsection 2 of the bill provides a clear definition of these children stop specifically, their children for whom the local authority is providing services or has provided services under section 70 services under section 7010 or B of the children's act 1989, children in the authorities area who live in kinship carers.

Turning to amendment 78 and 81, again, as I said from Lord Lucas, these seek to place the statutory duty on local authorities to publish a report on how they are informed in promoting the educational outcomes of these children and to specify through regulations what local authorities must report on. Transparency and consistency of local authority support is essential for driving improvement and ensuring decisions are made in the child's best in trusts. However, not every child receives support wherever they live or wherever they are educated.

Statutory guidance already requires virtual school heads to publish an annual report, summarise strategies for supporting children in their care while local authorities are held to account through inspections of local authority children's services. It is vital that we continue to ensure local authorities are held accountable for all children they are responsible for. And that this support is transparent. We will reinforce this accountability by updating statutory guidance to improve reports on strategies for supporting educational outcomes of Children In Need and will run in kinship care.

This will enable continuous improvement to the support provided while allowing for local and regional variations. This Government is committed to ensuring previously looked after that have left care through adoption are supported to succeed. In education. Turning to amendment 79 tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Barran, this seeks to ensure that children adopted from local authority care benefit from the same support that the clause extends to Children In Need and extends to Children In Need and children in kinship.

And his statistics are always useful to have that level of granularity in the discussions that we are having, so I repeat local authorities already have a statutory duty under section 23 Z8 of the children's act 1989 to promote the educational achievement of all previously looked after who have left care through adoption, special guardianship, or child arrangements or does. I hope that satisfies the questions that the Earl of Effingham raised on behalf of the Noble Lady Baroness Barran.

In addition to this subsection 3 of subsection 23 Z8 allows the local authority to do anything else that they consider appropriate with a view to promoting the educational achievement of relevant children in their area. And I would suggest it is that level of flexibility that perhaps adds a great deal in the particular circumstances of each individual child. The proposed amendment is therefore unnecessary, as the existing legislation sufficiently covers these children's educational needs. We are, however, committed to reviewing and revising the sections on promoting the educational outcomes of previously looked after in statutory guidance for virtual school heads.

There is no room for complacency here and we have to keep revisiting and refreshing, real looking, on behalf of all of the children that we are talking about. This will present an opportunity to further strengthen intersections on support for adopted children and we will work with the adoption centre on this, including clarifying and reinforcing the interpretation of the duty and Turning to speak to amendment 80, in the name of the noble Baroness Stedman-Scott and supported by the noble Lord Effingham.

I have had the noble Lady speak many times on this subject, it is a subject that is absolutely central to this Drive to improve outcomes for young people. -- This Government strive to improve outcomes for young people wherever they started their journey in life and making sure the support runs right through to the other side of right through to the other side of school. I think we can all put our hands on our heart and say the statistic we have heard today and many of us know from a full simply are quite shocking.

-- Know from before. And all of us need to have real commitment to looking at how we can work to improve career and employment opportunities as part of the educational achievement goals for children and people. We know these opportunities are key to breaking the cycle of disadvantage for many children who have experienced the care system. While career and employment support is not explicitly referenced in clause 6 of the Bill, it is implicitly part of education achievement. This includes raising aspirations, promoting transitions into post-16 education, employment and training and supporting access to timely and effective careers advice and guidance.

In practice, virtual school heads will support employment opportunities by championing improved attendance and educational progress and working closely with schools to identify and address barriers to learning. Our updated statutory guidance for virtual school heads will provide a framework for promoting short and long-term academic achievements and aspirations, including the career and employment opportunities of all children under the virtual school children under the virtual school head remit. We also, I believe, need to make sure that every area has the appropriate relationships with employers, so they are aware of the situation and the circumstances and to make sure they do not miss out on a very rich scene of young people with incredible backgrounds to give them opportunities to move forward.

And government departments of course are looking at ways in which they can move this forward. I welcome the whole area of corporate responsibility, which we will discuss later on in this Bill. And of course we have transition as part of the local offer in many areas... For close agreement. Can I thank the noble Lady Baroness Berridge for speaking so effectively for the noble Lord farmer. -- Lord Farmer. I'm sorry he can be here today but can I thank her for putting forward his point of view.

Turning to amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord Agnew of Oulton. This is seeking to increase boarding school places available to children in care but also in kinship care. Particularly. I thank the noble Lord for tabling this amendment and I would like to reassure him that we are committed to ensuring that all children are giving the best possible opportunities to succeed. We do actually recognise the positive impact boarding schools can positive impact boarding schools can have.

We do not believe that they should be the default position for all children living in kinship care. I think we all know that stability has to be the watchword for young people going through some enormous traumas in many case and stability in education of course is a fundamental importance for both well-being and educational outcomes. And it is essential that we minimise disruption through unnecessary changes to school placements. And removal from friendship groups, for example, all of those things that really do matter to a young person.

However, where a placement in a state boarding school is in the best interests of a child in kinship care, they should have the opportunity to consider this. And of course the noble Lord is quite right to raise the profile. This is why we continue to support the Royal National children Springboard foundation... Sorry, a bit of a mouthful this, broadening educational pathways program, which provides a placement matching and brokerage service to Children In Need and children in care in state boarding and independent schools.

I boarding and independent schools. I am not aware of any... Who are squeamish about this, I'm sure he will inform you another time if he knows any that are. -- Will inform me. I obviously recognise his involvement in this work and thank him for his information about the Norfolk group. As I say, recognise the role in the program and the work that has been doing at Wyndham, with the five children that have been placed and the outcomes that they hopefully will achieve.

We recognise that the college continues to be an active participant in championing of this work. Lastly, I turned to the amendment 83 in the name of the noble Lord Bellingham. Which would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the role and effectiveness of virtual school heads. And as I have already stated, understanding the effectiveness of virtual school heads is crucial for assessing the impact on educational outcomes and for ensuring that they are adequately resourced.

And the important part about this, by making the role statutory, virtual school heads will have a stronger legal basis to support the educational outcomes use children and it will also give local authorities greater certainty over the future of the role. I would like to say that current data has shown the positive impact of the role, with nearly 2/3 of virtual school heads reporting an increase in school attendance of children with a social worker. We expect this extension of the role to continue positively, impacting children with a social worker and with children in kinship care arrangements.

We are resisting this amendment, as we believe an extra review is not necessary. We have been formally evaluating the impact of the role since it was extended to include Children In Need on a non- statutory basis in 2021. There will statutory basis in 2021. There will be a final evaluation of the work published later this year and I'm sure we will all look forward to that with enormous interest. Our updated statue guidance will provide a clear framework enabling virtual school heads to support the educational outcomes of all children they have a duty towards.

And we will continue to work closely with key stakeholders, including the National Association virtual school heads, to ensure the role is sufficiently resourced and funded to meet all the children under the virtual school head remit. I therefore ask...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to her for her very comprehensive and courteous way she has responded to the amendments. But can she just comment on the But can she just comment on the need, as I see it, for some sort of report back to Parliament?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report back to Parliament? With all of this work, I believe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With all of this work, I believe it is important we focus on the job it is important we focus on the job in hand. And we don't give virtual school heads but probably through their route of accountability through local authorities, yet another onerous task to do. I another onerous task to do. I believe there are enough safeguards in place and enough ways in which in place and enough ways in which the outcomes can be reviewed. So I do not believe that this is do not believe that this is necessary.

At this time. And I was going to go on to say, I therefore ask noble Lords to withdraw their ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. Based on the fact that this is work in progress. If we all know the significance and the contribution that so many take -- make to this area, and I think we are opening an exciting new chapter to make sure the work that happens is accountable and transparent and more people are aware of what needs to be done and how these young

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people can be helped going forward. I am very grateful to the noble

14:41

Lord Lucas (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for what I thought was a really satisfactory set of responses really satisfactory set of responses to these amendments. Thank you. I will... Will she commit, when the evaluation on statutory guidance published, to giving a heads up to those noble Lords who have expressed an interest in this area in this debate?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have a feeling that I would not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have a feeling that I would not have any other option... From the comments I have received to date.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

comments I have received to date. I should be very grateful for that. I hope she will also have a quiet word in the ear of her colleagues responsible for the colleagues responsible for the Employment Rights Bill. Referring to Employment Rights Bill. Referring to my noble friend, Lady Stedman- Scott's speech in particular. One an employer wants to take on someone employer wants to take on someone who has a history in care, they know that this may be a difficult that this may be a difficult experience for them.

As it is at the moment, the Employment Rights Bill makes that much more dangerous... makes that much more dangerous... And it is a matter just of casting And it is a matter just of casting the rules right, it is not just... But the government has not got there yet and it is really important in making sure that children from a care background can find their way into employment, that an employer can take on someone, no it will be difficult for them, have time to bring them through and that the regulates -- regulations are set up to make that happen.

I would encourage the government to encourage local authorities to use boarding schools where this is appropriate. As my noble friend Lord Agnew said, this is something which can really save money and make for a better outcome for the right children. Can I also ask that where this is done, we do track the performance? We ought to build up not just as one experience -- experiment, but as a routine, how these children have done that experience. So we can all learn who it works for, how it works best and that the schools concerned can learn from each other how to do better.

There is a real wish in these amendments... In every part of this, I do hope they will be included but I thank the noble Baroness and Egli to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- Egli. Is at your Lordships pleasure the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure the amendment is Brazil? -- is amendment is Brazil? -- is withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The amendment is by leave 83 the question is clause 6 stand 83 the question is clause 6 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

14:44

Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)

- -

contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Clause 7, amendment 84, Lord Watson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am pleased to be able to introduce this group of amendments, introduce this group of amendments, half of which are in my name. Before half of which are in my name. Before I go unto them, I would like to say I go unto them, I would like to say a word about yesterday's Spending Review. I apologise, I could not be here for my noble friend Lord Livermore is session just before we Livermore is session just before we started. There was some significant spent announced yesterday on wider spent announced yesterday on wider children's social care.

I am quoting children's social care. I am quoting from the review in these few lines, "This settlement will improve support for England's most support for England's most vulnerable children and people I setting aside £555 million over the spending review period from the spending review period from the transformation fund for the Ministry of Housing communities local government and the Department of Education, as well as total capital investment of over 560 million to reform the children's social care system and support the refurbishment and expansion of the children's homes estate.

This will help will children and families say safely together, expand support for care leavers and fix the broken care market. -- Stays safely." It remains to be seen how that will shape out but I think it is a really promising start and a real indication of how seriously the government views the current situation as far as children's social care sector is concerned. In its present form, the bill that we are discussing today only extends staying close support to young people up to the age of 25.

That is for any relevant child in residential care but not staying put for those former relevant children who are living in foster care. And the increase support will provide for care leavers is welcome but it risk, I believe, creating a two-tier system for care leavers in residential and foster care. More needs to be done for young people in foster care who want to remain with their fostering family beyond the years of 21. And the amendment in my name this group seek to extend entitlement up to the age of 25, with proper funding of course and I suggest the figures I have just quoted would be a suitable source The last issue may be a sticking point for the Government but I suggest that it need not because even if my amendment is entirely for elsewhere in the long-term we see the cost benefits if young people are allowed to stay in foster care beyond the age of 21.

My Noble Friend the Minister, both Ministers, will be familiar with that argument because it was set out in the widely respected independent review of children social care published three years ago commonly referred to as the McAllister report, and that report quoted figures from 2020 which showed that the average cost of a residential care placement was £3830 per week, annualised to £199,000. By contrast, an average foster care payment was costed at £71,000 per year, or just 35% of a residential care placement.

The benefits of foster care were recognised with the Children and Families Act of 2014 which extended the rights of people to stay with their foster family from the age of 18 until 21 under what became the staying put arrangement. The fostering network has won that many young people and foster carers would like their children to stay with them beyond 21, but most of us often cannot because there is currently no provision in law for this or funding to support it. I very firmly believe that there should be.

On average, a young person living with both parents does not leave the home until the age of 24, but of course if they do not want to leave home at that age there are often strong financial reasons for not doing so and they simply remain where they are. It just seems wrong to me the children in foster cache should be forced to leave their foster parents unless those parents are in a position to replace the support previously provided. The McAllister report stated that the current convention that care leave us face puts them at a severe disadvantage when navigating adult life.

It is widely acknowledged that young people reach better outcomes when the remaining family through foster care, adoptive care, or kinship carers is in comparison to residential care. And it is not that. Carers are often best placed to prepare the young people for independence because they are the most trusted adult known to the young people. Should they have the same support, the same opportunities beyond 21 and the environment they feel most comfortable as those feel most comfortable as those living in residential care.

With an amendment to support young people up to the age of 25 in line with stakeholder support in another place, the Minister refused, stating that they recognised the case made but felt that need to prioritise young people in residential care who often have the most complex needs. That is all very well, but now they have complex needs. As there are not enough. Places available for them, or, indeed, beyond the age of 21 with nowhere to go in residential settings.

The OFSTED report in 2022 said that one third of children in residential care had foster care on their plan. And certainly I would not want to give the impression that I am seeking to put those in foster care against those in residential care, so this closed provision is greatly benefited relatively small but nonetheless significant group of vulnerable young people in care by extending their care 2025. Some young people even wish to or need to be accommodated in children's homes and often that is because for whatever reason children foster carers have not met their needs.

And have been unsuccessful in placement and I think that it is unfair to say that the amendment in this group will help those with foster care. Young people should not be subject to a two-tiered system were essentially the same group of young people, not least because it is well evidence, generating the young persons that live in foster care and the family environment to improve outcomes of the transition into adult hood and I am sure the novel Baroness Barran would remind your logic tells that an extension of staying put to age 23 as proposed by the McAllister report was committed to by the previous Government in its response to the McAllister, although that was never actually introduced, so I say to my Noble Friend the Minister please do not allow this bill to be a missed opportunity to provide an opportunity for caregivers by extending this to foster care to remain with with the former foster carer beyond the age

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of 21. I move. Amendment proposed, closed seven, page 12, line 8, after support,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert stay in support. My Lords, it is a pleasure to

14:51

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the Noble Lord Watson and having attached my name to the amendments in this group that amendments in this group that include staying put support for include staying put support for young people up to the age of 25 and I think the Noble Lord has already made the case because I will not repeat the stats of recommendations that we have in the McAllister report et cetera, but I think it is with reflecting on the fact that it is for young people to be independent at the age of 21 the office of National statistics showed that across our society the average age that a child moves out of their home, a family home, is 24.

And surely the kind of care that children are getting in families should also be that variety. I do also have a question, a genuine question that I have not been able to establish this and these amendments in the plan covers both children in foster care and those institutional arrangements but my understanding is that about 14% of 17-year-olds are staying in unregulated accommodation or independent and it would appear at the minute they are falling through the cracks by not being covered by happening now which I think there would anyone but would disagree.

Last year, the big issue was in care with the foster family that he had been with since age 11 and he came home from college one day and found that all of his bags had been packed up. It was one week after he turned 18, the foster carers were happy for him to stay and social services simply said that is not an option, that cannot happen, and packed his bags up and that is what he came home to find. If we think about how utterly damaging that would be and what happened was he was then put in to supportive accommodation at 3am the next morning to someone knocking on his door looking for someone else there was drug dealing happening all around him.

He had someone throwing something in his face in that accommodation. And that is what the corporate parent is doing to a child at the age of 18 and there are some places and that should surely be the absolute standard vision. And that is we need the parity to this day put schemes. Which is what these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments would achieve. I rise very briefly indeed to lend my support to the amendments in

14:54

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)

- -

lend my support to the amendments in the name of the Noble Lord Watson. Regarding extending the staying put scheme to the age of 25. I have an amendment myself which, for some reason, is in the next grouping, amendment 130 that does exactly the same thing. And so if you words about it, can we come to the next about it, can we come to the next group, group 3. But I just wanted to underline my support that it is a very important issue.

14:54

Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I rise to support the Right Reverend Pollard, The Lord Bishop of Manchester's amendment 164, to introduce a national offer for childcare levers. This is strongly recommended by Barnardos because this amendment would end the postcode lottery of support for care leavers and help remove barriers of opportunity. Each year around 13,000 young people leave care without the support that they need, and the outcomes of these young people remain much lower than their peers. That is why we, at Barnardos, and I declare an interest as vice president, we believe that there should be a new minimum standard of support for care leavers.

A national offer regardless of where they live, that should include measures recommended by Barnardos, which I hope the Government and the Minister will agree to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 97 and 99 in the name of amendment 97 and 99 in the name of my Noble Friend Lord Farmer who cannot be here today. Looking first at amendment 99, his support for

14:56

Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)

- -

at amendment 99, his support for this, and mine, for this, is grounded on the small group. Is it? I do apologise. I was just so keen, I am sorry. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise briefly to support the amendments in the name support the amendments in the name of the Lord Watson and also the amendment 164 in the name of the amendment 164 in the name of the Bishop of Manchester. I am a hereditary peer that originally came down very not long ago in 1981, left down very not long ago in 1981, left in 99, but was recycled like an old tire in 2014. And I made what I tire in 2014.

And I made what I suppose is my second Maiden speech. The first was in 1982. The second Maiden speech was in 2015. And it was on the subject of staying put. Because at that time the children's Because at that time the children's minister was the rather wonderful Edward Timpson, the younger brother of the Minister for the Department of the Minister for the Department of Justice who had grown up in an extraordinary family. Where, apart from having siblings, his amazing parents, during that time the team since were growing up, fostered over 90 children.

So, staying put was put in place by an individual who had a deep understanding of the issues that young people who were unfortunate enough not to be able to live with their natural or even unnatural parents and so staying put was a result of that. And the debate in 2015 was to welcome the fact that it had been extended. Because it was deemed such a success. So, I think it is very fitting that now we have another Timpson in Government, albeit in a different department, that would be again look at this again and recognise how successful it has been.

Those not, what we are asking for in this amendment, will not involve a vast number of children, or a vast amount of money. It will, however, be transformative for that small amount of children. And, in economic terms, the benefits of giving them support if they need it up to the age of 25 will be more than repaid by some of the problems that might cost rather more if they have to leave earlier. So, for all of those reasons, I do request that Government look at this sympathetically and see how it can be fitted in.

As far as the Right Reverend Pollard the Bishop of Manchester's amendment, there is, in so many parts of our society, a postcode lottery. And it is not surprising given the way in which what on the one hand is a highly centralised country of England with all roads leading to London also all roads leading to London also coexists with a mosaic of different local authorities, different organisations of all kinds, which, to some extent, relish the sort of English creative impulse to reinvent the wheel in your image.

As a result of which, there is very considerable variation, and IM sure if you went to a variety of organisations which provide support for those in care or coming out of care and you asked them to define into or three minutes succinctly exactly what their offer was, you would get rather different ancestor. So, for those reasons, as the noble Baroness has said, I do think that having clarity about the core elements of the offer are and trying to do everything one can to make sure that is understood and, as far as possible, compliant across the country would be very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beneficial. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 164 in the name of the Lord Manchester and Mike Noble Friend that I added my name to. And Friend that I added my name to. And I declare my interest as teaching care but you probably know that. And care but you probably know that. And I will quote the foundation again and I must almost belatedly and I must almost belatedly acknowledged the rights in their work on kinship.

We have seen firsthand the potential, the firsthand the potential, the systemic barriers thriving, despite the government's role as a corporate the government's role as a corporate parent, care leavers face disproportionately appalling disproportionately appalling outcomes. There are three times more likely to need, twice as likely to suffer from mental health issues,

15:01

Lord Hampton (Crossbench)

- -

and significantly higher risk of homelessness. By forcing the Government to publish you local care Government to publish you local care of our, and then forcing local of our, and then forcing local authorities adduce you to publish the offer, then we should avoid many of the traps that capture caregivers. This provision should include following specific new entitlements and services for young entitlements and services for young entitlements and services for young All public bodies to offer a All public bodies to offer a specific care agreement, using the specific care agreement, using the Civil Service grid model.

Local authority to act as a guarantor, provide rental deposit, free NHS prescriptions. The dedicated mental health offer in every local authority. For those eligible for Universal Credit, the rate should be the same as those aged over 25. Local Authorities create and embed local protocols for reducing the criminalisation of children in care and care leavers. The government is serious about improving the lot of care leavers. This amendment would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make it even better. I have amendment 94 in this

15:02

Lord Lucas (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have amendment 94 in this group, it is the same as the previous amendments in the last group, if we can get Local Authorities to say what we are doing -- they are doing clearly, what they have achieved in the year, they will wish to do better next year.

15:02

Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

In support of Lord Watson's amendment... I remember almost 15 years ago, 14 years ago this issue was discussed in the then a children and families bill. We all hovered and puffed and said, yes it is really important but nothing came of it. I wish then we had to use that particular opportunity. We do not want this to be a missed opportunity. Some young people are ready but many are not. If you look at the figures of those young people who are not in care, are not fostered, Lord Watson mentioned 24, but sometime we hear figures of people staying in their 30s in their parents home.

What happens in those families should happen right throughout our societies, sometimes young people are not emotionally ready. Sometimes, we heard packing the bag and go, that I can tell you the opposite where foster parents, at their own cost, their own time, are prepared to keep on their foster children afterwards. That is amazing. Turning to the Bishop of Manchester's amendment, it seems such an obvious thing to do. Each local authority can publish what is national care offer should be.

I hope the government will seize this opportunity and do that.

15:04

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

I rise to speak to amendments... I am going to copy my noble friend and go to the wrong group. I rise to speak to amendments 85, 89, 92 and 93 in my name. Clause 7 introduces new requirements for Local Authorities in England to assess whether certain care leavers aged under 25 need to stay in close support, where such support is deemed necessary, the local authority must provide it. The provision builds on the staying close pilot scheme, which gives the safe and secure accommodation, along with a trusted adult relationship for emotional and practical support.

for emotional and practical support. I'm grateful to the noble Lord, -- their charity, thousands of young people face a cliff edge when they leave the system. They are expected to leave home at around 18, often abruptly. I hope not always as abruptly as in the case you describe, losing vital relationships and support when they most need help transitioning to adulthood. Research shows the transition from care to independent living is often poorly planned and managed, leaving many young people feeling totally under supported.

The evidence from the pilots demonstrates improved outcomes for care experience young people, including better independent living skills, increase happiness, greater stability, more participation in education and employment and reduce risk of homelessness. Extending support to age 25 will benefit thousands of young people leaving care and we welcome that warmly. However, we do have concerns about how clause 7 is currently drafted, which could limit its impact. In relation to the assessment criteria, subsection 17 requires Local Authorities to assess whether staying close support serves the young person's welfare, but without specified criteria.

We worry that this could lead to the rationing of support or a postcode lottery. Our amendment 85 seeks to address that by explicitly setting out the factors that the local authority must have due regard to, including the wishes and preferences of the young person, their accommodation requirements, the emotional and practical needs and their existing support network. Our amendment 92, ever optimistic, gives the local authority flexibility to offer additional support where this is judged to be appropriate.

Current wording defines staying close support is providing advice, information or making representations to help with accommodation and services. The noble Baroness the Minister will know that making representations does not always translate into a service. This narrow definition does not reflect the comprehensive support that was offered in the pilots and so our worry is that it will not achieve the same very positive outcomes that the pilots did. The aim of our amendment 89 is to strengthen the voice of young people, and ensures a record is kept of their wishes.

The bill doesn't reference young pupils wishes and preferences. We believe their input, and has been a great leader in this, their input is vital when determining support. Finally, amendment 93 gives a strong opt out legal entitlement for all care leavers, ensuring young people's preferences guide decisions about their support and create consistent assessment criteria. I hope the noble Baroness the Minister agrees that these are reasonable and practical amendments that the government could go away and turn government could go away and turn into their own.

The noble Lord generously pointed out the response of the previous government and I think put the case for extended staying put support extremely ably. I am very sympathetic to the spirit of his amendments and indeed, I think he or perhaps one of the other noble Lords mentioned that 75 percent of children, when asked, would like to go on living with foster parents beyond the current limitations. I look forward to what the noble Baroness the Minister has to say on that. I'm also sympathetic to Lord Lucas's amendment 94, I think having clarity and good performance management data should lead to better outcomes.

In relation lead to better outcomes. In relation to amendment 164 in the name of The Lord Bishop of Manchester, I feel rather mealymouthed not to be more enthusiastic about it. But I suppose, I do not want to sound preachy, but I worry, of course it is extremely important that information is accessible and easily accessible, but I think some of that comes from, as we often discuss in your Lordships House, from the culture and the attitude to young people in care and the relationships that we have with them.

I suppose my only hesitation is information without relationships I do not think it is much further. But I know that all noble Lords know that.

15:11

Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)

- -

In responding to amendments in group 2, I would start again by re- emphasising that we all know care leavers have some of the worst long-term life outcomes in society. We know many have not received care as we would want and expect for them. We are committed to ensuring that young people leaving care have stable homes, access to health services, support to build lifelong loving relationships, engaged in employment and training, the ongoing work and improvements are to improving outcomes available and addressing any cliff edge they may face when leaving care.

Turning to amendments 86, 87, 90 and 91. Can I thank you for highlighting the issues and going through the background so thoroughly. Also for highlighting the very positive measures we announced in the spending review yesterday. We look forward to further detail in how this will feed through into supporting some of the most vulnerable children in our society. These amendments, together, would require Local Authorities to provide former relevant children under the age of 25 with staying put support where their welfare requires it.

They seek to probe why the bill makes provision for support for care leavers up to the age of 25 when the care leavers 1989 puts duty on authorities in supporting four Kelly the children and former foster parents in a staying put arrangement until the child reaches the age of 21. Can I acknowledge the example given by Baroness Bennett, it would not be appropriate to comment on an individual case but I'm sure many of us in this chamber could put our minds to similar extremely stressful and very difficult examples based on the real experience of some young people.

This is exactly why we have this bill before us and what we are this bill before us and what we are trying to do to achieve it. We fully recognise the importance of these duties and to remain strongly committed to the staying put arrangements. But in answer to the noble Lord Russell, as well as my noble friend, Lord Watson, we believe at this moment it is essential that we prioritise filling the gaps that exist in current support. In particular for those young people transitioning into independent living, including those who may have been in residential care, often with the most complex needs.

It is difficult to have two prioritise and focus, but I think this is the place we are in at the moment and we are doing this positive work where all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those in all who have left a staying put arrangement, will be provided with staying close support where their welfare requires it. Staying close support includes support to find and keep suitable accommodation and support to access wraparound services. Turning to speak to amendments 85, 92 and 93 tabled by Lady Barran, I would like to start by reassuring the noble Baroness that we do agree with the sentiment of the amendments and to reassure that clause 7 is already very much in the spirit of the amendments that she has proposed.

And we are very keen to make sure that everything we do link centrelines with the different opportunities, for example how we can bring pathway plans into the mix and make sure that their seamless direction of travel going forward. There will be more to discuss on Firstly, amendment 95 would require local authorities to have due regard to the persons oceans preferences, and accommodation requirements and existing network when assessing what support is required in the interests of that particular young person's welfare.

Close seven sets out staying close support is provided to form relevant child for the purpose of helping them to find and keep suitable accommodation, and keep is absolutely relevant here, and to access services relating to health and well, relationships, education and training, and participation in society. Alongside this, the new statutory guidance that will accommodate this duty will set out that the local authority will be expected to have due regard to the wishes of the developing person and to keep a record of that person's wishes.

Turning to amendment 92, this seeks to expand the definition of staying close support to include any other support the local authority deems appropriate. As stated the duties in this clause require the local authority to provide an supporter considers appropriate were the persons well requires it. This clause already allows for the inherent fax ability that local authority needs to assess the individual needs of the young person and provide bespoke support accordingly. Close seven makes clear that the new duties imposed on local authorities by this clause are in addition to other duties that already exist to support care leavers.

Again, her amendment 93 6 to make explicit that young people can opt out of receiving staying close support of the need to. We agree with the noble Baroness, essential principle of support from local authorities must consider the wishes and feelings of the Care Act lever and this includes support under the staying close duty. I will repeat again and I repeat on every occasion, the voice of the child and young person is absolutely fundamental in all of these areas and everything that we are striving to achieve.

Statutory guidance for the Children Act 99 outlines that local authorities must respect the right of young people is the decline support. This principle will also apply to staying to support and will be made explicit in the guidance produced. Turning to amendment 89, tabled by the noble Earl Lodge Effingham, this amendment also draws attention to the important principle that local authorities are always expected to consider the wishes and feelings of their eligible care leavers. In assessing what staying close support as required in the interests of that person's welfare, the local authority will be expected to have due regard to the wishes of the relevant person and to keep a record of that person's wishes.

I'm repeating this, but for a good purpose. We have to make sure that this message gets out there and is heard, and most importantly, is acted upon. The guidance will also cover how we expect staying close consideration to form part of the young persons pathway plan in developing and maintaining the plans for arrangements and within this again, the views of the young person are expected to be considered. The children's act 1980 provides for certain form relevant children under the age of 25 to have access to advocacy services.

This entitlement is not just for times when they wish to complain, it also offers situations where the young person might want to make representations about their care and com provided by the authority, where they have spotted gaps, where they have recognised that there are other things that need to be taken into account. And the way that local authorities bring young people with care experience together is a very rich area to get that sense of what is possible and what is required.

Turning to amendment 94, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness Baroness Aaron asking for clarity, seeking to make local authorities performance in relation to staying close support visible, so as to drive improvement, it is of course essential that we have the powers in place to ensure local authorities fully carry out their duties and ensure young people receive the best possible care and. In December 2022, Ofsted dated the inspecting local authority children's services framework to include a separate judgement on the experiences and progress of care leavers, and these began in January in January 2023.

We would expect Ofsted to review local authority performance in relation to the delivery of the support within their care lever inspection of local authority children's services. These inspections are published once complete. Turning to amendment 164, tabled by the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and one where the noble Lord Lord Russell refers to the postcode lottery, the amendment is asking for a consultation and publication of national offer setting out the minimum standards of information that local authorities must publish as part of their published local offer, for care leavers.

Care leavers legal entitlement are set out in the children's act 1980 and accompanying statutory guidance. The Department has also recently launched nationally accessible website which clearly sets out available support to care leavers. And just picking up on the points made by the noble Baroness Benjamin, I have a huge amount of respect for the work that she does, and for Barnardo's. And I think this is an example of where young people themselves have determined that this is how they get their information.

They don't get the information by ways that we might have thought appropriate. And very particularly, have asked that it's accessible, that it's online, that it's available, it's interactive. And this is an area where there is a huge potential to move forward. And through the young people themselves hold, those that aren't living up to the expectation to account. Through peer group pressure. Alongside this, close seven of the bill would require local authorities to offer staying close support to eligible care leavers under the age of 25, where their welfare requires it and clause 8 will require local authorities to publish information about the arrangements that local authority has in place, supporting and assisting Leavers in their transition to adulthood, and independent living.

Through clauses 21 to 25 of this film, we are introducing new corporate parenting, responsibilities on each Secretary of State and importantly relevant public bodies. These measures aim to ensure that policies and services that affect this cohort take account of the challenges they face, and provide opportunities for them to thrive. And a weight that I would express this is that it's time that everyone realised that working after children is everyone's business. Every single department has a role to play and everyone else, private sector, across the piece, has a contribution to make.

Lord Hampton makes comments of the internship model. Living by example. And also model. Living by example. And also the mental health offer. Which is something we will come back to pickup. These measures alongside wider work such as I've mentioned, the recently launched website, clearly setting out support for care leavers including support that is provided by central government, will signpost the support already available. And the purpose of this is to make sure that it's much more likely that the support available is accessed and used to its best ability.

And of course, local authorities, as the noble Lord Lord Lucas references, will have a significant part to play in the offer. And I would just urge noble Lords that we must be careful that we don't reduce the opportunity here by being too prescriptive and we must make sure that there is flexibly to take advantage of the very best that is available locally and let local determination actually set the bar and spread improvements on a much wider footing. Therefore, for the reasons I have my account, I kindly ask that these amendments be withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I asked about the 17-year-olds turning 18, the apparently 40% of them in unregulated or independent correlation, perhaps you can write correlation, perhaps you can write to me about that. Apologies, I knew to me about that. Apologies, I knew I'd missed your question. Of course I will write, and important point. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. She will notice the difference between the answer she gave last group and the answer she gave this group, to my amendment. The channelling, the reporting through guidance to the school head is doing something that is immediate and something that is immediate and current and present and it is going to affect the way in which local authority team conduct their authority team conduct their business. Something that may not appear in the death of an Ofsted report every three years is not at all as effective.

So I do encourage the noble Baroness, between now and report, to think on other it wouldn't actually be much better for the continual approved and of the the continual approved and of the stain to services if they were reported on so that it becomes much more visible and much more a current thing for them to keep improving it, then something that they hope will get lost in whatever else, Ofsted is about saying as a local authority as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a whole. I would like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this

15:28

Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)

- -

Lords who have taken part in this group. Particularly the noble Baroness Bennett and the noble Lord Lord Russell, both of whom spoke forcefully in support of the amendments which, it was surprisingly added their name for them which I also thank them for. The point Baroness Bennett raised about young people who are 16 and 17-year-olds in unregistered accommodation, there will be an opportunity to debate that in group A today if we get that far. I thank noble friend the Minister for her reply although it's disappointing.

I reply although it's disappointing. I noticed a nuanced difference in her response in which, if you forgive me, can be described in three words. We are staying put. Effectively what she said. But there was a slight difference, between what her opposite number in the other place had, she said the government is not in favour of extending staying put because they wanted to concentrate on young people in residential care, with the most complete need. My noble friend said today that they wanted to concentrate on filling the gaps in current provision.

Neither is unimportant but I think where there are gaps in current provision, yes they can be filled but that does not mean there are no gaps in the lack of provision, beyond the age of 21, for young people staying put. So I think there needs to be some consideration given to the fact that although again my noble friend said that when people reach the age of 21, first of care and leave for whatever reason, that they will have staying closer to fullback in certain situations.

Overall we are dealing with a relatively small number of people who want to stay in foster care beyond the age of 21, we are not talking about thousands and thousands. The costs in terms of additional resources required to do that is relatively modest. And I do have to come back to the point I started off with, there was a very positive statement yesterday in the Spending Review which they offer the opportunity to deal with this -- may offer the opportunity.

So it's disappointing, I think I would perhaps request that I have the opportunity of discussing with my ministerial colleagues before report, this issue a little bit further. But thanking everyone who has contributed in this debate at this stage and I would like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lord's pleasure the amendment withdrawn? The amendment is withdrawn. Amendment 85 not move. Amendment 86, 87, 88, not moved. Amendment 89, not moved. Amendment Amendment 89, not moved. Amendment 90 and 91, not moved. Baroness Barran, amendments 92 and 93, not Barran, amendments 92 and 93, not moved. Lord Lucas, 94, not moved. moved. Lord Lucas, 94, not moved. The question is clause 7 remain part

15:32

Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)

- -

of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content." Of the contrary, "Not content." The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I rise to speak to amendment 95

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 95 and 130 in my name. And in doing so I got attention to my interest in the register as a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission. This group of amendments is a very group of amendments is a very important group, looking in broad terms at the support that is terms at the support that is available to care leavers, I think an issue which we all understand is incredibly important. I am very supportive of all of the amendments supportive of all of the amendments in this group, I particularly mention amendment 99 in the name of Baroness Bennett which is talking about a national offer to care about a national offer to care leavers and how that relates to local authors.

No doubt we will come back to that. I would say that I had the privilege of attending an all- party group meeting very recently where we spoke to a large number of care leavers, I think Lord Watson was there as well, and I was very impressed with the presentations these care leavers gave. What one of the group of care leavers made their point that they would like to see a national offer for all care leavers to ensure consistency. I asked them to send me more details about it and to send me more details about it and exactly what it would entail.

I do think it is a really critical issue. My amendment 95 is a bit more specific, it would require Local Authorities to provide more clarity about the services they provide to care leavers to help them develop their financial literacy and thus to be able to access the financial entitlements. Young people leaving care are much more likely to leave home at an earlier age than other young people, and be forced to live independently before they are ready, managing bills, a tenancy, while juggling other responsibilities like starting employment, without any starting employment, without any financial safety net to fall back on, which many parents provide to their children.

There is no bank of mum and dad for these youngsters to fall back on. Too often care leavers are not aware of the financial entitlements and supports available to them from the local authority, things like health tax discounts, higher education bursary or through welfare benefits. This lack of information can lead to them facing unnecessary financial hardship or falling into rent arrears or debt. We know that once you start falling into debt, it is a vicious cycle, it is hard to get out.

All of this has a huge impact on their well-being and security. Care experienced young people often report that they feel when equipped, unprepared and unsupported to manage their financial responsibilities that come from living independently from such a young age. Primarily owing to the lack of support or opportunity to support the skills and knowledge they need on basic things such as budgeting, money management, broader financial understanding. That is why this amendment, which would introduce a requirement Local Authorities to publish information about the services they provide to support care leavers to develop their financial literacy, as part of their local offer for care leavers, we can come back later as to whether that should be part of a national offer, that's why I think it is so vital and could make such a difference to their life chances.

I think such a change would create more transparency for care experienced young people about the financial support available to them and would help to address one of the main challenges they face when moving into independent living. Turning to amendment 130, which is about, basically about extending staying put to the age of 25. We already had that discussion and I never quite understand the mysteries of grouping, while having it in a separate grouping as well. I thought Lord Watson set out the case very well.

I think all I want to add is well. I think all I want to add is to say that, as we heard in some of our earlier debates, young people leaving care often face a disproportionate risk of experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity and with care experienced young people being nine times more likely to experience homelessness than other young people and statutory homelessness rates for care leavers having increased by over 50 percent in the past five years, I think that underlines why I think extending staying put to the age of 25 is so important.

I think, as we heard in the previous group from Lord Watson, it does involve a pretty small number of care leavers. I think the cost of doing this are fairly modest. I am hoping there is some space opening up from what we heard in the spending review yesterday and today, what I'm doing is just asking ministers if they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will think again. Clause 8, page 13, line 7, at end, insert the words printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. I apologise for my earlier intervention, you know how intervention, you know how passionate I am. I rise to speak to amendments 97 and 99 in the name of

15:38

Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)

- -

Lord Farmer who cannot be here today. My support and my noble friend for this amendment is grounded in desire, which I am sure all noble Lords share, to see higher national standards of support, not just pockets of excellent practice in some Local Authorities. Having said that, requirement in the children's social work act 2017 for Local Authorities to publish their own offer for care leavers, which this would amend, is a very important one. But it needs to be built on.

Our high standard at a national level would not prevent innovative and exemplary councils from doing even better. But it would force any that are lagging behind to improve. I suspect those who are dedicated to their local care leavers course, working hard on the ground with higher national standards, as these would help them argue successfully for enhanced leadership and financial support required to lift their offering. Another reason local offer is an important part of primary legislation is it includes services relating to relationships, the primary need for children coming into care, whilst they are in care and when they exit.

Lord Farmer, Lady Tyler and Lord Mackay, now retired, laid amendments in the children and social work act 2017, that was eventually accepted by the government, which included this one important word, relationships. Amendment 97, this bill presents an important, timely opportunity, to embed relationships more deeply into councils relationships to support those into their transition to adulthood and independent living. We should do all we can to enable care leavers to maintain, strengthen and build family and social relationships.

Family group decision-making provisions in this bill need to be built on. Having gone to all of the effort to bring together families and friends who are committed to a child, potentially leaving their parents care, these relationships cannot fall through the cracks in their care pathway. The family rights group who forged family group conferencing into a British model over many years by working with children and families have similarly refined the lifelong links model, which has findings in Orange County California.

It ensures children in care have a lasting support network of relatives and others who care about them, trained coordinator works with the child or young person to identify and safely reconnect with important people in their lives, such as relatives they may have lost contact with, former foster carers, teachers or sports coaches. The family group decision- making becoming standard practice, many such people will, or should, have been involved in that process. Keeping these contacts going is a sensible and straightforward next step.

The lifelong links approach has demonstrated significant benefits including more positive and healthy connections in the child's life and better mental health instead of isolation and depression, or worse. Knowing that the matter as an individual to people who are not professionals, who aren't paid to look after them, gives them a better sense of identity. The practical wisdom, guidance family and friends give, offer makes the care lever far more emotionally stable, with a knock-on effect on their ability to hold down accommodation and training or education.

This reduces the risk of homelessness and tries to make their way without goal or purpose. Without the motivation that positive relationships provide, that can be hard to persevere. If you do not matter to anyone, we can all think, what is the point of bothering? Lifelong learning links is currently available in over 40 Local Authorities across the UK with 22 receiving Department for Education funding. Lifelong links is not named funding. Lifelong links is not named in this amendment, but given all of the intervention and evidence building the government has already made, it should be included in regulations and guidance as an offer to all children in care and care

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leavers. In rising to speak to this group I'm going to be slightly unconventional and stop with the

15:43

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

unconventional and stop with the last group in this amendment -- start with the last group. I think it is so important it does not get buried in a large and diverse group. This amendment is seeking to deliver what was essentially the Private Members' Bill, which we debated a few months ago, in which our -- I spoke in favour. To make sure that spoke in favour. To make sure that care leavers turning 18 receive the same level of Universal Credit as anyone receives at the age of 25.

I think Baroness Tyler just said, these are young people who have no access to banking of mom and dad, they have no cushion. Expecting them to live on a level of Universal Credit that reflects what other people who probably have more support, not necessarily, but probably have. This is a modest measure, it is a humane, . Although it should not be the reason for it, I think it is clear that this will end up saving the state money by ensuring people have a little more support and do not fall through the cracks and fall a very long way, as we know the statistics show they often do.

In that debate in the second reading I spoke about the trial of universal basic income for care leavers, the only condition put on those care leavers was that they had to take one session of financial education, which is where I come back to Baroness Tyler's amendment 95, to which I attach my name. I have heard anecdotal reports, we have not had their written reports yet, I heard anecdotal reports that one of the offers was they could take more financial education, acknowledgement they did have significant amount of money available to them, but every person in this scheme took the extra financial education.

They may look specialised to have a particular amendment, it is such an important factor. This is a broader issue, care leavers are people in particular need of financial education. The 'Financial Times' Christmas appeal this year was to raise money to get financial education for British young people. It really is an indictment of failures across our whole system to educate young people, but very clear that care leavers are people who particularly need it and deserve to particularly need it and deserve to I counter the amendment 99, which calls for a publication of national offer.

-- I come to amendment 99. It's important to draw the lines between national and local offers. The national offer should be a foundation that no care leavers should fall below. That doesn't mean we might hope that local areas might be able to do more than that, if they have the resources or capacity or indeed that they may acknowledge a particular issue, particular problem, particular local circumstances, and the local offer will vary from the national but it shouldn't below the foundation of the national level that meets the basics that should be available to every care leaver.

So that's the intention of this. intention of this.

15:47

Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)

- -

I rise briefly to speak to the amendments in this group which were all excellent and very compelling but in particular, I would wish to support the amendments in the name support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Baroness Barran, 96 and 107, A. The noble Lady Baroness Tyler will remember that I Baroness Tyler will remember that I spoke at a very commendable member spell on mental health professionals which I think was about 18 months ago. And I raised the issue in particular of children with complex needs and specifically, the issue of children mainly in mainstream schooling who were diagnosed with Tourette's syndrome.

And I have supported direct action for a number of years in the other place. In terms of their research and profile raising and fundraising. For full transparency, my brother is a professor of cognitive neuropsychology specialising in human movement studies which includes threats. Now, I don't wish to detain your logic to house and discussing throughout. But I wanted to make the point that one of the key issues that affect children who have Tourette's as an act of collaboration and consistency across schooling, and primary care, and hospital settings.

Another words, often children behave badly in school because they are undiagnosed with threats and they are often excluded -- with threats. They don't get the clinical care they need. There isn't that work between the two parts of the stages -- children with Tourette's syndrome. I think it is similar for children with complex needs in the care sector. I think the advantage of my noble friend's amendment, and as I say again, all these amendments are excellent, but the specific advantage is it will impose an imperative on both the education sector but specifically the health sector, Grammy care and hospitals and other clinical settings -- primary care.

The focus on those children leaving care with specific and very important pressing needs. Of course, there were wide right of issues that affect young people in that situation, including their housing and the noble Lord their housing and the noble Lord bird and the noble Lord Young of Cookham have focused on those issues. The advantage of these particular two amendments is to put on the face of the bill that focus on primary care so that those young people, yes they are worried about education and is and training, and housing, but public the most important thing is the health and I think on that basis, to put that on the face of the bill is a positive move which will encourage different agencies, social care, people that wrote the statements for those children and young people, teachers etcetra, to start thinking about what the healthcare pathway will be as well as the other pathway.

I hope the Minister will look carefully upon all the amendments but those upon all the amendments but those two in position.

15:50

Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)

- -

I want to speak to amendment 100. It inserts a new clause of the bill. Giving all care leavers after the age of 25 priority status and homelessness legislation. To that extent that a subsection of the much broader debate about how we look after care leavers. This amendment would end an anomaly in the current law by care leavers up to the age of 21 are entitled to priority under the homeless legislation if they present is homeless to the local authorities but not those between the age of 21 and 25.

The amendment is supported by a range of charities, not least Barnardo's. All young people need a safe and stable home in which to start their adult life. And if you haven't got that, it's difficult to access education, employment and health services. As we heard from Baroness Tyler, care leavers are more likely to be homeless than Nong Khai leavers, research by the charity Become found they are nine times more likely to become homeless and also that threat does not stop at the age of 21.

As a result as we heard from Baroness Tyler, numbers of young care leavers presenting as home leaders has gone up by 50%. We heard Nong Khai leavers are staying at home much longer, the average age is now 24 which is up from 21 a decade ago. Over the years, the legislation has been gradually catching up with that trend, beginning problem with the children leaving Care Act in 2000, recognising that the state or local authorities need to support children beyond the age of 18.

And again as we heard earlier, Khalifa Sall have the same safety net of family to fullback on as others -- care leavers don't have the same safety net. A recent amendment, said that local authorities when they have corporate printing parenting duty, the experience people under 25 is being intentionally homeless. But the Lord needs to get little bit further. Under the current legislation, Khalifa Sall age of 21 who present as homeless are deemed to be in priority need -- young care leavers under the age of 21.

Under the current homeless legislation, they are required to prove that they are vulnerable, something that is not defined in legislation. That means they have to go around getting letters from their GP for -- and other letters from other services to prove that they are vulnerable and that their parent has no opposition to support them. There seems to be a problem with children place out of area. They are not apparently eligible for the usual care support in the local authority in which they are now living.

Even if they had been living there for many years. Whereas the local care leavers to have that entitlement. That seems an anomaly which the Minister may like to comment on. Finally, this amendment will bring the homeless legislation into line with the children and social care act 2017 which obliges local authorities to continue to provide support up to the age of 25. It won't be a panacea to the problems facing care leavers, but it will be an important step towards ensuring that when the worst does happen, help is available for a young person who may have few other places where they can turn to hell.

I would encourage the government to accept this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to support two amendments in this group in the names of Baroness Bennett, amendment 99, and Lord Young, amendment 100, 99, and Lord Young, amendment 100, both of which I have put my name to. both of which I have put my name to. With over 80,000 children in care, the highest figure on record, this bill represents an opportunity to strengthen support for all care strengthen support for all care leavers. One in three care leavers leavers.

One in three care leavers become homeless in the first two years after leaving care. Many years after leaving care. Many become drug users, and up with a criminal record. Some of the most effective care experience children effective care experience children are those from diverse backgrounds who suffer double dissemination. Research by Barnardo found nearly one in 10 black children in care received a custodial sentence by the time they turn 18. So when many finally leave care, they find themselves in prison, or with a criminal record, which makes it difficult to find a home, employment, or develop a secure, happy life.

And any hope of a prosperous existence. So they find themselves being part of a gang which becomes a family substitute, that leads to even more disaster. My Lords, as the noble Lord the Minister said in the earlier set of amendments, there is an urgent need to improve understanding across agencies and departments of the needs of children in care and care experienced young people as well as providing training on how to better address these needs. One example perhaps is the Department of education could extend corporate parenting principles to all bodies involved with care experienced young people.

We have heard, many young people can depend on their parents to support them long after they leave school or university, financially and with a roof over their heads. But support for care leavers across the country is piecemeal. A postcode lottery. The book by Ashley John backed East entitled "looked after, a childhood in care, ", which I recommend, illustrates how difficult it is for young people to navigate their lives after care without support especially if they want to go to university, its potlucks and it's almost an impossible task.

-- It is potluck. We should be doing more to ensure care leavers are supported into adulthood which is why I support the noble Baroness -- noble Lord Young of Cookham seeks to increase protection for care leavers facing homelessness. I fully support this. We need to support care leavers and give them the opportunity to forge out a happy, secure and hopeful life. It's our duty to do this. I hope the Minister will agree with me and other peers to support these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I intervene, if it's convenient. I haven't been put down convenient. I haven't been put down to talk on Lord Young's 100 amendment but I wanted to offer a amendment but I wanted to offer a little bit of big issue news. We did a survey in the early part of the century and we surveyed, I think it century and we surveyed, I think it was 150 to 200 geisha vendors, and was 150 to 200 geisha vendors, and most of those, I think it was 80%, had been through the care system.

I had been through the care system. I wrote an article about a because wrote an article about a because most of them had been in care for a period of 10 years at least. And I wrote an article, it upset a lot of people, because I said in order to produce a big issue vendor you had to spend over £1 million. And I think that's one of the really most frightening things to me, about how expensive it is to keep people poor.

And if we look at the fact that it cost £70,000 to keep somebody in foster care but it costs almost £200,000 to keep somebody in care, then we need to be looking at this problem. In spite of all that moral and all the outrage and all that, we have got to start looking at this as a bit of fiscal bad news. And we have got to start shifting resources towards moving children into foster as much as possible, so I'm going to be talking about this later.

But I just wanted to give you that little expensive.

16:00

Lord Bird (Crossbench)

- -

Amendment 98 is the same question as I have been asking in the two previous groups, and we get local authorities to publicise what they are doing, each year, to give them a benchmark to improve on each year.

16:00

Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)

- -

This group ranges quite widely but there is a common theme which are the things which are going wrong, which ideally should not be going wrong, and the question is how do you sort of get a handle on all of this. So there is a certain sort of symmetry between the amendment of the noble pilot the Bishop of Manchester asking for a review into the disparities that care leavers are facing which is fairly all embracing. I suspect quite a lot of that information is already available thanks to the McAllister review, and the Right Reverend Prelate's amendments suggest it could take up to 2 years, I hope and expect it could be done a great deal more quickly.

That would lend itself neatly into amendment 99 to which I put my name which is to actually trying to find a national offer for care leavers, so one could use one amendment to try and increase and full together the issues which were the disparities are, and then under amendment 99, try and put it together into a much clearer position of what needs to happen for it to work, and what the standards are, and as other noble Lords and ladies have said, clearly there is an should be room for local variation according to the local needs, local expertise at such.

It does appear to be that would seem a does appear to be that would seem a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I added my name to the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I added my name to the amendment 95 in the name of Baroness Tyler and 113. We heard 67 percent of care 113. We heard 67 percent of care leavers are anxious about money and given one of the Oral Questions, the given one of the Oral Questions, the second Oral Question today was on financial education for post-16, it financial education for post-16, it seems appropriate that we talk about this in this amendment. That is according to the study by the charity money ready.

80 percent of charity money ready. 80 percent of care leavers one more help managing their finances. Rent eviction, their finances. Rent eviction, homelessness, are the consequences of financial, poor financial of financial, poor financial literacy. In 2024, the report showed the care leavers that end up homeless, an increase of 54 percent in the last five years. Staying put have helped but most believe care on or before their 18th birthday. 55 percent of female and 59 percent of male 20-year-olds still left at home And 29 percent of women still live at home at the age of 25.

Most young people move out when they feel ready, have their financial capacity and literacy to live away from home. In contrast, care leavers need to be made to leave home at a younger age, and with tighter budgets. Easy for care leavers to have financial care leavers to have financial education to help care leavers with independent living for the first time. The avenues to reaching for support, applying for grants, mean that many struggle to access these resources.

47 percent of men and 29 percent of women still live at home at the age of 25. This is because of the nature of the job market and House prices, the cost of living are keeping people at home, care leavers should have the support also. The expansion of staying put scheme is supported by charities and evidence from the charity shows this would be a core way of mitigating against homelessness amongst care leavers. homelessness amongst care leavers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord said this was, I cannot remember the exact term, a cannot remember the exact term, a wide-ranging group. And as I was thinking about this group I think what pulls it together is I think it what pulls it together is I think it is a kind of Maslow's hierarchy of is a kind of Maslow's hierarchy of needs group. A lot of the amendments within it are the basic planks at within it are the basic planks at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid.

One the bottom of Maslow's pyramid. One of those planks is healthcare. My amendments 96 and 100 and 7A try to amendments 96 and 100 and 7A try to address -- 107, try to address some address -- 107, try to address some of the hardships of care leavers having worse mental and physical health outcomes than their peers. These disparities stem from the trauma they have suffered, the adverse childhood experiences and sadly, in some cases, the inability of their carers to meet their healthcare needs.

Of course, in the general population, children and young people do go more frequently than adults onto specialist clinic visits if they need them, and their growth and development this acetate regular adjustments to medication and treatment. In young adulthood, health needs typically stabilise, adults are expected to manage their own healthcare, work with GPs, other medical systems and self managed other health conditions. Parents in supportive family settings will guide their children through this transition, children and maybe even grandchildren, through this transition, but care leavers do not have that support, they often struggle to recognise that they need help, they do not know how to seek it and it can be often very difficult to navigate complex healthcare systems.

As a result, care experienced people on one hand have very poor uptake of physical and mental health support, but very high physical and mental health needs. These very clear and practical points were raised with me by the network of designated health professionals, I'm grateful for their briefing, their advice and the time they have taken talking me through these issues. So, my amendment 96 would require local areas to set out clearly the transition arrangements for health and primary care for care leavers.

It doesn't feel like it should be too much to expect that this could be available. As importantly, amendment 107 a would automatically schedule and extended GP appointment for care leavers who wish to use it is the simplest way to bridge this gap and empower them to talk about their health needs and understand what local services are available to them and how to access them easily. Through this they would receive support in navigating health systems, booking appointments, requesting repeat prescriptions to recognising when they need help.

It seems a very small ask and I hope the noble Baroness will say yes. Turning to the other amendments in this group, I think there is a coherence to them, they are the planks that all of us all to easily take for granted, whether it be to have the confidence and transparency about how money works, as the noble Lady ably argued, I thought it was interesting the example from Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, of the appetite for financial education she cited from care leavers who are part of the universal basic income pilot.

of the universal basic income pilot. I put the case for health, Baroness Tyler, for staying put, it was such a good idea we have had it twice. Possibly also on the national offer. And Lord Young of Cockerham highlighted simple human requests about how the housing system works for care leavers. The idea that a young person between 21 and 25 who has been through the care system has to yet again prove they are vulnerable, I think it's frankly shocking.

I hope the noble Lady can say something encouraging about that. We have a combination of the specific elements that would make a difference to care leavers lives. The data that Lord Lucas raised in terms of reporting the financial aspects highlighted by the noble Lord, and crucially, again as I mentioned in the earlier group, the importance of relationships, ably explained by Baroness Stedman-Scott behalf of Lord Farmer. I remember listening to the honourable member for Whitehaven and Workington talking about this issue.

I think you said every child is one or two relationships away from success or failure. Lady Benjamin's example of children going into gangs, they are seeking relationships, we would all do the same if we had no choice. But we want strong positive relationship such as life long links has been proven to create. I hope that when the noble Lady comes to sum up she

16:12

Gov. Spokes Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)

I like the description of the hierarchy of needs. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I jump Lords will forgive me if I jump around a bit as well in my summing up. It has been a very rich set of contributions to an incredibly contributions to an incredibly important part of the work that has been undertaken in bringing the bill been undertaken in bringing the bill before noble Lords. I am obviously rising to speak to amendments in rising to speak to amendments in group 3.

The first four amendments in this group seek to amend clause 8 in this group seek to amend clause 8 which will require Local Authorities to publish information on the support available to care leavers on support available to care leavers on their transition to independent -- living, as part of section 2 of the children and social Care Act 2018, the remaining amendments seeks to address the poor outcomes they face in many aspects of their lives. Improving support for care leavers is something the government is committed to do, both through the measures in this bill on staying close, local offer, corporate parenting and other programs such as the care lever government, also by other initiatives that seek to work across government and the fact that the government has set up the care lever ministerial board chaired by the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson, and Angela Rayner, top level commitment to bring all of the relevant departments together so they can most properly address the issues that I think have been raised here, but is probably beyond our ability through this bill to address the important issues that are being raised and spoken to so eloquently from across the House.

Of course, the basic principles are wanting to ensure young people leaving care with stable homes, access to health services, support to build lifelong loving relationships, engaged in education, employment and training. And just referring to Baroness Benjamin's comments, her comments are the reason this board has been set up, to bring everything together to address the complex needs of the young people that we are addressing. But just to reassure noble Lords, we But just to reassure noble Lords, we are funding a number of family finding, befriending and mentoring programs, to help the care leavers identify and connect with important people in their lives and create safe, stable, loving relationships.

The family finding, befriending and mentoring program is being evaluated and this will help to inform decisions about the future of the programme. From personal experience, -- the school that two of my grandchildren go to works in the restorative practice model, if laws have not come across it before, I would suggest having a look at how this works and how young people can learn at the youngest age how to learn at the youngest age how to form relationships and how to express their needs in a coherent and structured way which can inform all of the complex issues that they will reach going through their lives.

Turning to amendment 95, in the name of Lady Tyler, amendment 96 in the name of Baroness Barran and These amendment probed whether there are sufficient requirements to publish information about the services they offer to care leavers in relation to financial literacy and entitlements, health support and maintaining and strengthening family and social relationships, respectively. My noble friend actually had a on financial literacy earlier today, I'm not sure if noble members were in the House to hear that debate. But from personal experience, it is so often the first task, when young people, and particularly those on the edge of leaving care, are asked what eight that would make such a difference to your lives.

It is that whole issue of financial readiness awareness, education. And just to emphasise the point of other work that's happening, we oversee have the curriculum review taking place at the moment which will be reporting in the autumn and I understand that these matters will be picked up in terms of recommendations in that review going forward. And could I thank Baroness Stedman-Scott for bringing to life the lifelong links work in such an eloquent way. Linking to family group decision- making and all of those other areas that we have discussed.

Providing information on the support available to care leavers in all of these areas of course is important, financial literacy we have discussed and for those leaving care, without the family support around them, as we have heard, this can be absolutely fundamental to setting young people up to succeed and not to fail when they go, set off on the path towards independence. I have to say, I do not feel the amendments are necessary. Eligible care leavers are required to have the pathway plan prepared for them before they leave care which should include an assessment of the individual needs across domains including financial needs, capability, health and development and family and social relationships.

The fact that many of them do not feel that they, that this has affected them adequately is something that needs to be picked up by everyone who has involvement in this. And to help achieve this, we are funding 47 mentoring programs, and that across 44 local authorities. And we need to make sure that we look at those programs and assess the impact, making sure that the stone close duties actually have the impact on their welfare right up to the age of 25, including those who might be in stable arrangements.

Other provisions in the bill, to improve datasharing, and this is of course another vexed issue that we all face, hardly get all of the different relevant areas to actually share the data that they lovingly collect, and actually put it to good use and to inform their decisions to change the way that they were, if it's not working, it's not delivering, and through the single unique identifier, the proposal I believe will help improve looked after children and care leavers access health services by better enabling relevant information to be shared between agencies in a timely manner.

The measures also, I hope, will have a profound impact on safeguarding matters as well, in terms of the unique identifier staying with them for their lives, going forward. Measures to introduce corporate parenting responsibilities for government department and key public bodies including health services will help ensure those bodies consider the needs, circumstances and common barriers of looked after children, and care leavers, when providing their services. And of course, we are talking about health in its widest sense, the Department of Health, but also the local bodies, the ICBs, NHS Trusts and other areas.

And of course, we have to be mindful of who actually commissions GP services through their contracts. In addition, existing statutory guidance for local authorities on publishing their local care leavers already stipulates that the local offer could include details of the support that the local authority provides in relation to finances, health and well, and relationships. -- Health and well-being. I amendment 98 in the name of the Lord Lord Lucas which seeks to explore transparency again, of local authority's performance in relation to their local office for care leavers.

Clause 8 will require local authorities to publish the arrangements they have in place to support and assist care leavers in the transition to adulthood as part of the local offer for care leavers. This provision will improve transparency making information available so that care leavers can understand what support is available to them and access the support they to them and access the support they need. And I turn to amendment 99 in the name of noble Baroness Lady Bennett, which seeks to introduce a national offer for care leavers, and again, I just emphasise the local side of this that is going to actually deliver for those young people.

I think we really do need to bear in mind were delivering bespoke packages at a local level reflecting the local partners on the ground and the work they do is really important. Care leavers legal entitlements are set out in the children's act 1918 and campaigning, with accompanying sanitary guidance was beset at the support all local authorities must provide to care leavers irrespective of where they live. In addition to care leavers, local authorities might provide further discretionary support following consultation with care leavers on their local offer meaning that local authorities can take account of their views rather than A1 size.

As I mentioned in the previous group, the Department of education has recently launched nationally accessible website clearly setting out support, expectation and including support that is provided by central government, including for example the £3000 bursary that is available to certain care leavers who start an apprenticeship, picking up on the transitional, and of course we have that youth guarantee and the trailblazers that have been delivered through that programme. Turning to amendment 100, in the name of the noble Lord Lord Young, seeking to extend automatic priority, or care leavers, up to the age of 25, this is of course an absolutely fundamental and critical area.

Homelessness, poor housing accommodation, is one of the issues that young people, care leavers, ring up repeatedly in terms of the experience that they have. Priority needs status identifies households who circumstances make them significantly more vulnerable than others, if they become homeless. I don't think I need to reassure the noble Lord that the provisions within the homelessness legislation already ensure that all care leavers up to the age of 21 have priority need. This is also the case for care leavers aged 21 to 24, as you quite rightly point out, who are vulnerable due to the time in care.

I would suggest perhaps that this is one of the areas that the Secretary of State, with responsibility in this area, could who the new corporate parenting requirements that are going to come as a result of this bill will stop making sure that they have got very practical way of looking at some of the issues. But it's absolutely fundamental that we address the issue of how we better support young care leavers accessing social housing. And as a result of igniting this, the Prime Minister announced on 24 September last year and to better support young care leavers accessing social housing, and one of the important steps forward in this area is of course to remove the local connection barriers for care leavers which I believe is fundamental to enabling them to stay within the areas that they are being cared for.

That might not have family roots. And it ensures that local authorities won't be able to apply the local connection test, to any care leaver under the age of 25 who is eligible, or relevant child, who is eligible, or relevant child, or a former relevant child. But we obviously are aware that we need to do more work on this and as a result of this, NHC LG 's dedicated team of youth homelessness advisers engage regularly with local authorities to help support them in delivering their statutory duties.

The application of priority need for care leavers actually has not been raised, surprisingly, by local authorities, including the children's services and leaving care teams, as an area of local concern. This is something that might change, perhaps, as more awareness is put out there. But we need to make it clear that the issue of vulnerability is there, aged 21 to 24, and as the noble Lord suggests, making the definition of vulnerability clear is a fundamental way of assisting those young people when they pass the age of 21.

Picking up on the point about the cost of failure, if you like, and family breakdowns, can I just emphasise that as well as better outcomes for young people, the cost element of local authorities taking young people into care is one of the driving forces in terms of making sure that the full range of opportunities are offered to young people, so within their families they can be cared for with better outcomes against all of those awful indicators we have heard throughout the debate, and the money that is saved by those local authority should be able to be reinvested in early help, early intervention, family group conference in and venting the problems from developing in the first place.

Turning to amendment 106 in the name of the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeking to highlight the disparities between care leavers outcomes and those of their peers in the general population, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord that care leavers experienced deep disparities across all aspects of their lives. We have had examples today for stock care leavers are for example 3 times more likely than their peers to be not in education, employment and training stop nine times more likely to experience homelessness, nearly 3 times more likely to report they were struggling financially and most distressingly, 4 to 5 times smaller likely to attempt suicide.

That is why, as I've said, care leaver ministerial board, chaired at such a high level, has been established highlight these disparities identifying the cross governmental action that will need, that will be taken to improve support and hold ministers to account to deliver these actions. These disparities are also why this bill is introducing the wider corporate responsibilities not just for Department of government but right into all of the agencies and partners that we work with at a local level.

Turning to amendment 107, A, they will back the noble Baroness baron, seeking to place a duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of care leavers when negotiating public contracts in the future, I have something else to add. And that's the timing of appointments. Why are appointments so often held at times when it's very difficult for young people, with family support to get them, mind if they are on their own. The government has committed to introduce the duties through responding to the issues that have been raised in the group of amendments.

The well-being of looked after children and care leavers needs to be at the centre of the work that is done. As I have said, as well as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, NHS Trust, NHS England Integrated Care Boards will also be required to take up the responsibilities as corporate parents. Of course it will need extensive work to incorporate the statutory guidance that will help everyone to meet their corporate parenting responsibilities. I confirm to the noble Lady that this bill will help ensure that decisions taken by public bodies take the specific needs and vulnerabilities specific needs and vulnerabilities of care leavers into account.

Turning again, perhaps staying put

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with Baroness... I just was not clear, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just was not clear, the specific recommendation from the national network of designated healthcare professionals is to have healthcare professionals is to have this extended GP appointment she has now amended my amendment to make sure it is at a convenient time, I sure it is at a convenient time, I was not clear, she said it will take time to produce the statutory guidance that will underpin the guidance that will underpin the corporate parenting responsibilities, but putting something, I'm going to get the something, I'm going to get the terminology wrong, but into the agreement with general practitioners agreement with general practitioners part of their contract is to offer this extended appointment as this extended appointment as children leave or young people leave Local Authority care, I was not clear whether she thought that was a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear whether she thought that was a realistic option with the tweak of at a convenient time? Thank you for picking me up on that commitment. This is quite a that commitment. This is quite a detailed ask. But I think it is absolutely realistic that this is a absolutely realistic that this is a new departure going forward, they will need to be consultation and everyone coming together to make sure the statutory guidance is deliverable. But I'm happy to write to her with more specific detail on that area as we move forward.

Turning again to amendment 130 in Turning again to amendment 130 in the name of Lady Tyler, seeking to extend provision of staying put to extend provision of staying put to age 25, we have discussed this at age 25, we have discussed this at great length. I am no clearer as to why this is in this group of amendments than the others. Without repeating the arguments, I just do repeating the arguments, I just do want to say that the rationale, we cannot commit off the top of our heads to affecting fostering arrangements without recognising there will be a knock-on impact of change on the whole area of the foster care market.

Any changes in this area are sensitive and had to be taken in the round. But we have to address that too many young people who have come through their roots into independent living from residential care, often with the most complex needs, are going to be a priority area in terms of addressing the support they have not got because they have not entered the foster care route. Keeping an eye on all of this, through the introduction of statutory staying close duties, making sure all four relevant children under the age of 25, including those who still are in a staying put arrangement, is one of those who have left it, will be provided with staying close support where their welfare requires it.

Staining to amendment 153 -- turning to amendment 153, this would require public bodies when carrying out equality assessments to consider the needs of people who are or have been in Local Authority care. We know that looked after children and care leavers face stigma and discrimination, we are determined to tackle this. This has been effective, there has been effective and passionate campaigning with many local authorities taking positive action as a result. Moving on to amendment 183, tabled by the Bishop of Manchester, seeking to enable care leavers to claim the higher over 25 rate of Universal Credit, again, although he is not in his place, I think the fact he has tabled this amendment is an opportunity to revisit, I was at the despatch box for the Second Reading of the PNB on this subject.

Just to emphasise what we have already said, the government recognises the considerable challenges care leavers face and remains committed to supporting them, however we do not supporting them, however we do not believe this amendment is necessary. The government recently announced the first sustained increase to the Universal Credit standard allowance. While under 25 to receive a slightly lower rate, additional allowance are available, including for housing costs. Support to help them live independently and towards their living costs. They may also be eligible for Universal Credit elements, including four children, childcare costs, disability, under 25's single and renting in the private rented sector and claiming housing benefit will Universal Credit can claim towards their housing costs in the local rate of housing allowance, under 25 may qualify for the housing allowance.

Additional can be paid to those entitled to housing benefit or Universal Credit. The government extended the Household Support Fund by a further year from 1 April 2025 until 31 March 31 March 2023. I would emphasise the work that the DWP is doing in this area and their objective to help care leavers into long-term employment is the key to supporting that independent living. This is why we are focusing on providing the right skills and opportunity for sustained employment and career progression.

With all of those considerations, I would ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That was a really disappointing response to amendment 98. We started with response to amendment 78, which with response to amendment 78, which was excellent. A continuing... Of someone here was involved with what someone here was involved with what was going on. -- Someone that was involved with what was going on. Get involved with what was going on. Get to this and just the menu, no content of how it is being done or what is being done or the what is being done or the excitements.

I hope that the noble Baroness when she reviews this will Baroness when she reviews this will say that my first answer was the better one, and that that sort of relationship between the Local relationship between the Local Authority and its duties and the public produces a much better response than a Local Authority setting out what its offer is and making no comment whatsoever on how their performance has been. And offering no interaction to the public in general as to how that is going on.

I will talk to my noble friend on the Front Bench about that report. And give a more general look of how Local Authorities should relate to the public about what has happened this year, what we hope to do next year.

16:40

Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I would like to thank the noble Lady the Minister for a very comprehensive response. She used the word that I thought of, which it has been a very rich debate. Very wide- ranging and spoken with real passion and expertise and knowledge of the subject matter. We all agree there is a strong moral imperative that we do all we possibly can to support care leavers as they make their transition to independent lives. I welcome and recognise the number of measures in this bill to do that.

But I think the tenor of this debate is that there is scope for strengthening. I think so many things have been identified, specific planks, be that around health, housing, family relationships et cetera, there's a lot that could be reflected on in this debate, I was encouraged to hear their is a top level board looking at this, with cabinet ministers across government, I thought that was really positive. I wondered if this debate could be drawn to their attention so they could see what we have said and the suggestions we have made.

I think in terms of what the offer is that should be available to all care leavers, I think it was help or to have the distinction between some sort of national offer which is essentially the minimum standard that should be available everywhere, but quite recognising that it is their local offer by that is delivered but that can vary but there is a set of standards below which it really should not fall. That is something we could think about further, so rather than go back into any other issues again or any disappointment about responses, could I make the suggestion, would it be possible to have, with interested law to have spoken in this debate, before we get to report stage it will be possible to have a meeting with the Minister so we could look together at where we think it is realistic to do the strengthening which I feel came across very strongly from this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate, but on that basis I withdraw my amendment. Is it your logic pleasure this

16:43

Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your logic pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is by amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 96? Not move. Amendment 97, not move. Amendment 98, not move. The question is clause 8 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content." Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Amendment 89, not move. The question is clause 9 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content." Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it.

Amendment 100. Not moved. Amendments 101, 102, taken together, Baroness Tyler.

16:44

Amendment:101 Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)

I'm afraid it is me again. I rise to speak to amendment 101 and 102. I'm grateful to Lord Farmer for adding his name and Lord Storey. I'm sorry that Lord pharma cannot be in his place, because these are both about relationships, these are things he feels passionately about. -- Lord Farmer. The amendment is about promoting relationships with children in care. That is central to their well-being and therefore at the heart of this bill. This amendment would strengthen the duty on Local Authorities to support the well-being of children in the care system by promoting the child's family and social relationships alongside their educational achievement.

I think both are critical and interlinked. We all need people to turn to in our lives. Or, encouragement and love. Particularly when times get tough. Research from the care inquiry by voluntary organisations concluded that the greatest failure of the care and child welfare system is it too often breaks rather than builds relationships with children in and leaving care. Children often have to move to live far away from home, which means they have to change schools, they leave behind family members, friends, neighbours and other important relationships.

I think this is relevant to clause 11 of the bill which we will come to later about children who have been deprived of their liberty. But I will come back to that in a later grouping. The absence of positive relationships in children's lives I think increases the likelihood they experience longer term difficulties such as port mental health, we have already heard about that, at a time at school and homelessness. When young people leave care, their professional support network too often just disappears and they do not have the family or friends to turn to.

Charities such as the family rights group have developed programs of support to address this. Such is life long links. I was going to talk about that but Lady Stedman-Scott did that in the early group, so I do not need to. I am pleased to say. I think the crucial point I want to make is, these relationships should not be broken in the first place. Local Authority should be supporting children in care to maintain positive relationships with those who are most important to them.

I now turn briefly to amendment 102. This amendment would provide all children in the care system with the same right to reasonable contact with their brothers and sisters as they currently have with parents. Something often sorely lacking under current arrangements. I know from my time as chair of Cafcass when I used to talk to groups of children in care and who had left care, what sort of things really had been difficult for them to deal with emotionally. Time after time they told me about having the sibling On top of the trauma of being much away from brothers and sisters was something that left a major emotional scar on them.

One of the most significant ways in which, I think, the current care system is failing children in care is the high number of children who are separated from their siblings and that certainly underlined by research from the Children's Commissioner. As I've said many children have to change school or move away, and all of that can lead children in care feeling isolated and low. And again when they leave care, their professional support network away because they just don't have that family to fullback want. I would just like to end with one story which I think sort of sums this up.

It is Abbey's story. She lives in a Two sisters who were adopted. They had exchanged letters when they were younger but contact then broke down. Through lifelong links Abbey was able to reconnect with her sisters, they had kept the books of her things and had her birthday on the calendar all those years. They now text each other all the time, go shopping together and went bowling on Abbey's birthday. She feels more settled now she knows she has people who will be in her life forever.

It simply feels wrong, inhumane that children in care do not have a right to reasonable contact with their siblings and the way they do with their parents. Children are not always, and that they are not always supported to stay in touch with their siblings. Their lives are tough enough, while we making it tougher still when this small change could make it real difference. I very much hope that ministers can see their way to seeing how we can

16:49

Deputy Lords Speaker Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make some progress in this area. Men are proposed, Article 59 insert the following new clause, the words as printed in the marshalled

16:49

Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

words as printed in the marshalled list. -- Amendment proposed. Iritis be on amendment 101, 102, in my noble friend Baroness Tyler of Enfield's amendments. I thought without embarrassing Baroness Tyler I thought it was a very powerful and emotional speech. All of us in this chamber in our lives, one of the most portion thing for us it's the love of our family and our friends, and relationships with other people and those are the very missing things that often children in care have so we should do all we can to ensure that they do have relationships, relevant relationships, relationships they want, and I thought when again, Baroness Tyler rightly said, we all need people in our lives to give us love and support and positive relationships.

Here, here. Children and show people in care indicate it's not just relationships with professionals like teachers and health professionals but a range of other people provide an important support network. But the quality of the relationships are much more important than the quantity. Research suggests that the presence of one stable and significant adult in the life of a young person is more important than multiple relationships. Social care cases across the UK reference the benefits of promoting relationships with looked after children.

Those benefits will include children's resilience, promote physical and mental well-being, minimising the likelihood of forming alternative potentially dangerous relationships, help with therapeutic work, enhanced ability of placements. There are many barriers to ensuring such relationships, such as stable relationships -- such stable relationships. I found a teacher in case conferences, time after time, you know. The system, or maybe, one of the problems. The social work had moved on to another area of work. -- Social worker. So you build up a relationship with the social worker, the child will top relationship and then that social worker had to move on to another job, maybe because of shortage in social workers session.

It created your precious and changing workers and professionals not having time to build the trust with young people is essential. Exclusion of young people shaping contact plans, also previous secure attachments are broken through experience in care, children often struggle with trust issues with adults, something that is exacerbated and constantly changing the workers. And changing to come moving on to amendment 102, an estimated 37% of looked after children are separated from their siblings when they are placed into care, this is 20,000 children, as referenced by the Children's Commissioner.

For all the children placed into semi-independent accommodation, 93% are separated from their siblings. Once separated, from their siblings. Once separated, little support to maintain relationships is provided. Lots of research by social workers and charities emphasise the important of sibling relationships for looked after children, siblings provide the longest lasting relationships, often extending through their lifetime. Contact with siblings can. Positive identity development, provide emotional support through feelings of connectivity, through shared experiences, give priority to existing functional relationships, helping support the emotional needs of looked after children.

When children are going through court cases to be removed from the parents, often relations of direct contact are prohibitive through certain family members meaning siblings cannot continue their relationship, children are rarely consulted about such decisions. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says, no child should be subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her oversee, family or correspondence. Not unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation. When talking to children in care expressed the relationships with siblings, is essential.

The weight of responsibility for maintaining relationships with siblings is often placed on the looked after person will stop shouldn't have to. -- They shouldn't have to. shouldn't have to.

16:54

Lord Meston (Crossbench)

- -

I wish to speak in support of amendments, particularly one hundred and two for the strong organs which have been advanced. At every stage of a family's involvement with a local authority, efforts should be made to enable siblings to maintain contact with each other, and not to overlook the importance of the sibling relationship. It is now much better understood that when parents can no longer care for a child, the most important and significant relationship that child may have is with his or her siblings.

A relationship which is the noble Lord has just said can last a lifetime. Although local authorities and courts to strive to keep siblings together, it is not always possible, and they may have to be placed separately. They may have different and indeed sometimes conflicting needs. At a practical level, larger sibling groups can be more difficult to place together. If whatever reason they cannot be placed together, meaningful and workable contact arrangements are essential. There is a report which I think is correct of two sisters who were placed separately but five minutes apart.

That were not allowed to see each other. And one sister had to see her other sister at a distance, at the same school playground, playing with a foster sister. It's a desperately sad story. I recall myself having to deal with the case in which the siblings workshop distance apart from each other -- were a short distance apart but in different local authority areas and efforts were required to get the two local authorities to cooperate. It is for that reason I support the amendment, judicial encouragement is usually enough but not always and therefore court orders may be appropriate.

16:56

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

- -

Is the noble Lord Lord Maxton has highlighted, the problem of large sibling groups, and I would like to draw the attention to a very specific group which are bereaved children. Sometimes there are several children in a single-parent family and when that one parent dies, there will be children, many of them are half siblings, sometimes, several of them, and I think this amendment is incredibly important because for them, they are grieving for the parenting has died. They are then grieving for the sibling 1/2 sibling that they are separated from.

And as the noble Lady Baroness Tyler was saying, she reminded me of a family that I was involved with once whether mum died, the father had been abusive so had no contact at all with the children, and the oldest one is a few months away from being 16. But we managed with the help of the schoolteacher, and various other people, to keep these children together. And many years later, I have still had some contact with them. And all the children have done well.

And I'm absolutely convinced that if we had not had that struggle to keep them together, housed together, that actually one of them in particular, would have probably gone off the rails. And yet they have all pursued good careers and they have all done well. And so I think as an investment in the long-term, in the lives of all of these children, this amendment is really important and I do hope the government will adopted, because I can't see that it's going to cost anything, in financial terms, but to not adopted probably will because of the emotional trauma to the children who are separated and with whom they cannot share memories, with whom they cannot share remembrances about whoever it is they are separated from.

And the other thing with that group of children is sometimes there is a grandparent or an aunt or uncle or someone who can provide them with some stability but is not in a position to be able to provide kitchen care. By keeping all of those links going, and enabling them to link to cousins as well, that can really support them.

16:58

The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 101, and 102, in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Tyler. Which seek to promote familial relationships for looked after children. Amendment 101 6 to include a duty to promote a child's familial and social relationships alongside the existing duties for local authorities to promote the child's welfare and educational achievement. This amendment emphasises the importance of maintaining relationships for children in care which would absolutely have a positive contribution to their health and well.

It is vitally important that the success of children in care is both child led and child centric, and as such, ensures that local authorities to promote familial and social relationships. Amendment 102 focuses on the relationships between looked after children and their siblings. Currently, the relationship with parents is emphasised that the relationship with siblings does not receive the same focus. And as was highlighted by the noble Lord Lord Storey, and the noble Lord Lord Meston, establishing that bond between siblings which can be lifelong should be a top priority for looked after children, so whatever challenges they may hopefully may not be facing, they have someone to turn to with a contrast and confide in.

These appear to be sensible amendments. And we look forward to hearing the noble Baroness the minister's noble Baroness the minister's response to these important points. response to these important points.

17:01

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

- -

In rising to speak to amendments in group 4, can I have now is that I think there is an enormous consensus in this debate about the significance of family and social relationships, for looked after children and children in care, and actually of course for all of us which is why we feel so strongly that these are relationships that we need to protect as far as possible. For the children that are looked It must be key, as several laws have said, that we are able to maintain those strong relationships.

Perhaps at this point I should give a shout out to my two sisters who, after my mum, are the longest relationship by far I have had in my life. As noble Lords have said, when the going gets Lords have said, when the going gets Lords have said, when the going gets Who provide you with the support necessary, if you are as lucky as I am, with mine, to get through those times. We have a responsibility to help those children whose lives have been even more difficult, to be able, wherever possible, to maintain that relationship.

Where a child is in care, the Local Authority must allow reasonable contact with the child's parents, if consistent with the child's welfare. These amendments seek to place equal duties on Local Authorities to allow reasonable contact with siblings of children in care. They also seek to strengthen wider family and social relationships for looked after children. We very much agree that it is important for a looked after child's welfare two, wherever possible, have and maintain positive relationships with their parents, siblings, wider family and friends.

The importance placed on these relationships is echoed at all levels of a child's care journey. And is supported through current arrangements and statutory processes. We have heard in more than one debate today the excellent work that has been done by lifelong links, supported in 22 Local Authorities by funding from the government, I think operating more widely than that as well. And Lord Storey is right that when it comes to relationships we need to focus on quality as much as quantity and the sustainability of those relationships.

For Local Authorities there are existing duties in the Children Act 1989 to endeavour to promote contact between looked after children and their relatives. This includes siblings, friends and other connected people, unless it is not reasonably practical or consistent with their welfare. The Children Act is clear about that. Good social work practice would ensure that there was a strong understanding of those people who are important in a child's life, the nature of the relationships and then an ability to be able to plan for how those be able to plan for how those relationships can be sustained.

Equally, when determining an appropriate placement for a child, Local Authorities must, as far as Local Authorities must, as far as reasonably practical, ensure the child can live with their sibling, as far as that child is looked after. For those involved in care planning, regulations already make clear that arrangements to promote and maintain contact with siblings must be included in a child's care plan. And this prioritises consistency, stability and lifelong

17:06

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

loving relationships with those important to children and young people. If a child is concerned about the level of contact they are having with their sibling or other

17:06

Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lord Speaker)

- -

having with their sibling or other family members, they should be encouraged to speak to a trusted encouraged to speak to a trusted person about this, be that their social worker or the Independent reviewing officer who has a reviewing officer who has a responsibility to ensure the plans being made for the child or young person are appropriate, including in person are appropriate, including in terms of maintaining relationships terms of maintaining relationships or an advocate. In extreme circumstances, under current legislation, children in care can legislation, children in care can apply to the court for contact with any named person, which could include a sibling and siblings can include a sibling and siblings can also seek permission from the court to apply for a contact order.

As we

17:07

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the court should consider in making a care plan for those making a care plan for those children. For care homes, there is

17:07

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

- -

children. For care homes, there is statutory guidance on regulations to promote positive relationships between a child and their family and between a child and their family and friends. More broadly, a strong theme of this bill that we are theme of this bill that we are working to promote strong family networks in all areas of children's networks in all areas of children's social care, for our measures on family group decision-making we discussed right at the beginning of discussed right at the beginning of this Committee stage.

And that might this Committee stage. And that might be an appropriate way to address the issue Baroness Finlay raised about bereaved children. She is right that in those cases, it is particularly important that children would be able to maintain contact with those who they have left in their lives at the point at which they are believed. I hope what I have attempted to do is to recognise the really important arguments behind the amendments, both of these amendments.

But I hope to provide some reassurance to noble Lords that existing laws and regulations and guidance already strongly value and have an expectation around the importance of sibling relationships and other relationships while ensuring children's welfare. I suspect this is a place where the law and the regulations, the standards, are already in place. What we need to do is focus on the significance of this and the practice and good practice of social work in order to enable that to happen.

I believe there will be social workers around the country who will be focusing on it and I hope the ability for us to have had this debate will also make it more likely that that will be brought to the four in people's thinking. I hope the noble Lady will feel

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I would like to thank her for her response, a very empathetic response, a very empathetic response. I would like to give a shout out to my brother as well. We shout out to my brother as well. We have been through quite difficult times together and that is what leads to that enduring relationship. leads to that enduring relationship. I would like to thank all noble Lords who participated in this

17:09

Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Lords who participated in this debate. It is one of those debates that shows this House at its very best, that we can deal with issues like love and emotional issues. In terms of the Minister's response, I am grateful for it, I think my reaction is as follows, it may well be that it is currently written into existing bits of legislation and guidance, but I do know that far too often, I think this was a point made by Lord Weston, it simply does not have much impact on the ground.

I know that from all of the care leavers I used to speak to on a regular basis. One of my objectives in putting this amendment forward was to have something on the face of the bill that makes it absolutely obvious that this is a right, this sibling contact, and I think it would be really encouraging for children in care to know it was there. I think that perhaps between now and report stage it will be held to have further discussions about the extent to which the problem is that it is not clear enough that we would need to put something in, it would not have cost implications, or whether it is to do with social work practice on the ground.

I am a great believer in both. I think we may be believer in both. I think we may be returning to this at report stage. On that basis I beg to leave to withdraw.

17:10

Deputy Lords Speaker

Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 102, not move? Not me. Amendments 103 and 104, not moved. Amendment 105.

17:11

Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)

- -

Introducing a national for foster carers which produce many benefits, overall status, one of the resulting effects would be to attract more volunteers, beginning to breakdown the shortage of foster care is across England, currently at 5,000. That would improve the matching

17:12

Amendment:105 Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)

process that children in care are placed with foster families and increase foster carers. This would all increase the safeguarding of children in the care system. Last children in the care system. Last year the Commons education committee year the Commons education committee recommended the creation of a national register foster carers should be considered by the then should be considered by the then children's Minister. An inquiry was interrupted by the general election but new committees reactivated it and are still considering these and are still considering these issues.

It has been reported that the government is considering a the government is considering a national register and that would be appropriate because the Scottish and Welsh governments are consulting on the creation of such a register. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to clarify the current thinking on to clarify the current thinking on this. A register would safeguard children by keeping a central record of foster carers who have had their approval terminated for safeguarding reasons, ensuring they are not re- approved by another service and able to care for another child.

Currently services cannot always know this, particularly if foster carers are transferring between independent and local authority services. Introduction of a register will go hand-in-hand with an accredited pre-and post approval training framework and robust national standards of practice, improving the overall quality of care for children. The number of children in care in England who have moved out of the Local Authority area is an issue we have heard mentioned by several noble Lords in the groups we have debated today. The numbers increased by 41 percent in 2020 to 45 percent last year.

A register would allow services to make matters more quickly at a local level. Ultimately that would reduce out of area placements. This could be done through the new regional care cooperatives, we will debate in group 7 today, which will lead placement commissioning which the bill makes provision for. Local authority fostering services could be given access to information on the number of fostering households with vacancies for children in the local area, including those with independent fostering providers as well as neighbouring authorities.

This would require the government to establish a national register for foster carers, that would help better safeguard children and improve the status of foster carers with formal recognition of the role and allow services to match foster care placements, and more quickly at the local level. I hope you will acknowledge the register will bring the beneficial outcomes I outlined and assist in making significant dent in that shortfall of foster carers, which results in too many young people being denied the option of improving life chances by being able to find a loving foster family which will embrace them and nurture them.

I moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 9, insert the new clauses is printed on the marshalled list. I want to speak to amendment 143

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to speak to amendment 143 which seeks to promote the idea of a national foster care strategy. I

17:15

Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)

- -

national foster care strategy. I declare an interest in so doing, and on time ago my wife and I were registered as foster parents in the London Borough of Lambeth, nothing on the heroic scale of the Timson family, of whom we know of earlier. That involves looking after the children of a single mother while she went into hospital to have her baby and somebody needed to look after her children before she was discharged. The regime in those days was much more relaxed than it is today.

Since then, the relatively informal system has evolved into a much more structured and regulated part of the child welfare system, particularly in the children's act 1989, there is a much stronger emphasis on physical and appropriate stability of a child and also more awareness of the risks of inappropriate placement. Turning to the amendment, most children are better in their own home with two parents or one parent or a parent and a partner. Most of the challenges that confront their family can be met with normal support mechanism of families, friends, local authority and voluntary organisations.

But at times, children have to be taken into care by the Local Authority. In March 2024 there were 83,630 children in care in England, up from For those children there is a range of options, but for most, fostering children's homes, when we have good debate about kinship care and the role of local authority is a recurrent theme. I want to focus on fostering. The homes can be either provided by the local authority, fostering, either by the local authority or by an independent agency.

I admire all those who run children's homes, often dealing with children with a wide-ranging of difficulties. All the evidence is that fostering has the best long- term outcomes for children And that McAllister review makes the point well. Foster carers and their families are some of the most remarkable people in society. They open their hearts and their homes and share their lives with children who they may know have met before. Stories shared with the review demonstrate just how life changing fostering can be for children and foster carers themselves.

And at the time and local authority budgets are under pressure, as we heard from Lord Watson, an early debate, fostering comes at about 1/4 of the cost of a children's home. I make the point in asking the context of recent grooming scandals. Vulnerable people in children's homes are much more exposed to gangs hanging around the home and if those children were distributed evenly with a large range of. Parents. But given the financial benefits and welfare benefits for fostering, the statistics have been going the wrong way.

Although there are more children in care, over the past few years, there are now fewer foster carers. Local authority is an independent fostering agencies are struggling to recruit sufficient numbers of carers, and to replace those leaving foster care, and the number of mainstream fostering households continues to decline. During the last financial year, total of 4080 fostering households were approved 5130 stopped fostering, a lot of roundabout thousand households. There are also some reasons for the decline. The spare rooms that traditionally became available when children left home and now occupied by older children who are unable to rent or buy a home of their own.

But McAllister identified another. The failure to recruit. Not because of a shortage of applications, but because as MacAllister said, " the review has heard from many potential carers who were discouraged because of an offputting application experience. And in the year ending March 2021, OFSTED tells us that 160,000 families also came forward to express an interest in becoming a foster carer, but just 2165 were approved. That is an astonishing approved. That is an astonishing dropout rate.

Of course, we don't want vulnerable children to be exposed to risk. But many prospective foster carers dropout because of the time it takes, sometimes up to a year, by which time they have decided to follow other opportunities. And then some of the delay is due to the local authorities. Can Callister tells us that they appear to be struggling to provide for specialist support, that provide for specialist support, that foster carers need. A further reason is the allowances that foster carers get.

We don't want people to foster for money, the compensation must be adequate, not leave people out of pocket. Three quarters of a stick carers in a recent survey said the cost-of-living had had an impact on their fostering. And then there is the postcode lottery. 32% of local authorities are paying under the national minimum allowance and only 26% are paying at the anime rate for all age bands. -- The NMA rate. That can cause to differences in over .

Errors and feeling devalued and the social work turnover makes that worse. That has occasions for the children who need them. The increasingly being placed away from their home community, and sibling groups are separated. So all these factors should be addressed. The strategy proposed in the amendment, in my name, and that three of the noble Lords. I welcome much of what is in the bill and I welcome the Chancellor's Spring Statement the commitment of an additional 25 million for the fostering system but there is nothing in the bill to improve the development of foster carers and it doesn't implement key commitments from the stable homes built on love, published by the previous government.

What is proposed in the amendment fills a gap in the market. We had a national adoption strategy, set out in July 2020, the national kinship care strategy, set out in December the national kinship care strategy, set out in December 2023. The dedicated national fostering care strategy has proposed would fill the gap, enhancing good practice, improvements to policy and were gaps in knowledge is needed. Keeping children safe, helping families thrive, the policy paper, I have read what's in the bill before us.

But those are not the same as dedicated strategy for this specific and important group of carers, for some of the most vulnerable children. The continued decline of the numbers of foster carers over the past years suggests a national strategy is of the utmost importance. And as Josh MacAlister concluded, " there are many children living in children's homes today who would be better suited to living in a family environment with a foster carer, if we had in a foster carers, in the right places, with the right parenting skills, to make the varying and complex needs of children.

This will require a new children. This will require a new deal with foster carers. " that is exact what this amendment proposes. exact what this amendment proposes.

17:23

Lord Bird (Crossbench)

- -

And I second Lord Young's amendment. I'm very interested in foster caring, largely because when I was in care, as a young child, that was largely because I didn't really have a family. I had a mother and father and brothers who were taken away in one direction. And my parents were not very grown-up. They hadn't really got used to the idea of having six children when they capably only afford one of them. I find this amendment so interesting because what it does is it backs up my experience as a young boy because when our family did finally reconnect in Fulham, in south-west London, the place was littered with foster children.

It was very, very interesting. I got to know people who went to my school and they were fostered. They were not, they weren't blood brothers or blood sisters or related to the families. And I found that so interesting because most of those children, dare I say it, and I don't want to appear as a classist, ended up being quite middle-class. Which means they end up getting the education that a lot of us who had passed through care, being taken into care, so it was kind of interesting, but what you had in this area of Fulham, you had this great mixture, very kind of working class with a bit of middle- class, and yet the real children that excelled rather ones that had the Rand relationship, the all-round relationship.

I would love to see a strategy got behind those people who want to foster. I would like to see the shrinking of the local authorities homes, having been, I was in a Catholic one, and it was an awful lot different from any other kind. The idea of institutionally raising children is not good news. The idea of raising children who were separate from their loved ones, as we were, as I was, is bad news, and therefore I would like to suggest that we follow Lord Young's example and actually create a proper strategy so that we can share out the loving relationships that we need to share out to our children who are in the desperate need, especially at the time when their own kin cannot provide them with what they really need.

what they really need.

17:26

Baroness Spielman (Conservative)

- -

I'm writing to support amendments 134 and 107, A, and 143. Fostering is absolutely critical to the provision of good care for all the children who need it and its a really tough job. Something that not very much has been said about, in the committee days so far, is about the very large proportion of looked after children who do have significant special needs. It's more than 90% of all children in children's homes, it's over 70% of all looked after children.

Of course, many of those have problems that have arisen as a result of post birth experience but there was a lot where these are problems that children were born with and which will be with them for life. And some

17:28

Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)

- -

children are in foster care children are in foster care precisely because parents, their birth parents, haven't been able to cope with their significant needs so we ask a tremendous amount of foster carers and the measures to improve on the current position are very welcome. The government could go further and some very practical ways which is why I want to support my noble friend's amendments. Sharing isn't always appropriate, absolutely not, but for some children it will not, but for some children it will be suitable.

And similar, foster carers need more authority to make carers need more authority to make more of that decisions and to do more of that things, the everyday more of that things, the everyday things, that parents do. And I would

17:28

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

- -

things, that parents do. And I would also like to support the comments made about the need for streamline recruitment processes and for a foster care strategy that really thinks about the support services, the training, the respite, the wider services that help foster carers to do it well, to feel that they have got the capacity and they can sustain the period of support through the foster period. A sudden opportunity here. opportunity here.

17:28

Lord Hampton (Crossbench)

- -

I rise to speak to amendment 243, to which noble Lord Lord Bird speaks. I would also like to thank the National of fostering providers for their help on this one. As we have heard this amendment aims to ensure that the challenges within foster care services are both recognised and addressed. With the well-defined strategy in place to oversee necessary reforms to the system, which will ensure that local authorities are no longer burdened by the unstable expenses for children's social.

-- Social care. Many foster children feel their new home has given them a new chance and they feel like a genuine part of the family. Foster carers overwhelmingly say that being cost a cost foster parent has had a positive support on their lives. Independent agencies play a huge part in providing high quality for children, with 96% of IFA's rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. While the government was not -- while the commitment of foster care is a positive step, it is vital and interventions go beyond short- term fixes.

We need to see the introduction of a dedicated foster care strategy to provide strategic oversight to the tactical pledges made previously. There are welcome measures outlined in the bill to regulate and introduce oversight of independent fostering agencies. However, given the fact that these IFA's make up a significant proportion of the sector, without a dedicated foster care strategy, which provides insight into the government's ambitions for the sector, this already precarious sector is unable to effectively care sector is unable to effectively care for the future plan, plan for the future.

Ultimately, without addressing the underlying causes of pressure in children's social, such efforts risk falling short of delivering lasting impact. It's widely understood that one of the most significant drivers of cost of placement in delaying placing children in the right home is the lack of foster carers able to take children into their care. The number of households, as we have heard, willing to or able to foster a child is decreasing. At the same time, the number of children in care remains With 68% of looked after in foster care, demand is outstripping those available.

A reduction in fostering households means fewer options for the placement of children. 2024 OFSTED research found that 91% of local authorities that responded to their survey frequently have difficulty finding suitable homes for children with complex needs. The Government needs to act now and use this opportunity in the build resolve the crisis of foster care by creating and implementing dedicated foster care strategy which focuses on improving the recruitment of on improving the recruitment of foster carers, including those who wish to work for IFA's.

wish to work for IFA's.

17:32

Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I rise briefly to lend my support to amendment 143 in the name of the Noble Lord and I have indeed added my name to the amendment. Which, if I may say so, is a powerful need for the foster strategy, which I found the Noble Lord thank you for that. I thought the Noble Lord young did very well when he talked about a gap, we have strategies for other aspects of children's social care and not fostering and I think it is a gap that would be useful to full in the same way as the amendment I bought last time suggesting a strategy for neglect.

As we have heard, urgent action is needed to improve the crisis in foster care nationwide I think it has been calculated we have got it shortfall of around 6,000 care workers in the UK with 5,000 more needed in England and certainly more foster carers more likely to join up and I think that in terms of the reasons for this various surveys have shown that the three key reasons in adequate financial renumeration, lack of support from their fostering service and a lack of respect I think that last one is really sad.

And I did notice that in the 2024. Care survey that the number of foster carers who said that they would recommend fostering to others has decreased, indeed less than half. Carers said they would recommend fostering to others who may be considering it and it is for those reasons I do feel that we need a national strategy to lay out how fostering will be more sustainable in the long-term, not least to meet the needs of some of the children that the Noble Lord Hampton was just talking about, and just before I sit down I would say I also support amendment one or five in the name of the Noble Lord Watson because I think this is an important part of raising the status of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fostering. The context for my amendments 134 and 178 is, as we have heard in this and 178 is, as we have heard in this short debate, that we face a short debate, that we face a shortage of foster carers, and as other noble Lords have said, this

17:34

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

other noble Lords have said, this bill does feel like a huge missed opportunity to try and address this problem, and I do not really understand why the Government has not chosen to do more to address it, but may be the amendments in this group will offer the way. The Noble Lord Watson mentioned and the noble Baroness Tyler mentioned a shortage of 5,000 foster carers in England. That is 33 foster carers per local authority. It just does not feel like an insuperable problem to find 33 homes across the country in each local authority, although absolutely rightly my Noble Friend Baroness Spielman spoke of the very high prevalence of complex needs in the children that go into foster care and that, I think, speaks both to the amendment in the name of my Noble Friend of Crookham and others about a strategy that can also address the McAllister review that we need flexible models of fostering, but as we have heard out of just over 160,000 families expressed an interest in becoming foster carers in 2020/21, just over 2,000 were approved, so a conversion rate of 1.3%.

And I understand that many applicants apply to multiple agencies, so they get counted twice. There may be timing issues for potential carers, there are structural challenges, including the need for training, difficulties in the application. Process. As we have heard. But this is the most significant area for children in care of the roughly 83,000 children in care, I think I am right in saying that over 56,000 are in foster care, and roughly half of those with independent agencies and half in local authority foster care, but that is a very big and important number.

And it feels like this is absolutely fundamental to try to address it. I think that also it sits at the heart of what I called the children's homes problem in terms of cost and profits which we will come on to debate in subsequent groups, because if we had more foster carers, the pressure would come of children's homes. Prices would, I think, adjust. And we would be in a much better situation, particularly as other noble Lords have said, this puts so convincingly that wrap around.

Care, the fact that you have a family of relationships leads to vastly better outcomes for the child, so for all those reasons I think that this is an important group and amendment 143 is one that the noble Baroness the Minister I hope will take very seriously. My amendments are much smaller simple, so amendment 13 forward give more flexibility to allow young children over the age of three to share a room. My intention is this was applied to primary age children, although my drafting skills I think of come through yet again.

But certainly talking to children services in London and in children services in London and in other areas with high housing costs, the number of potential foster carers is several spare room is very limited and IMO whether some organisations in the sector see this as a safeguarding risk, but I would argue that we are really trusting the foster carer to care for a very vulnerable child, so I think that within that we should trust their judgement for the sleeping arrangements in their home, and of course, sadly, safeguarding risks are not confined to what happens in a child's bedroom.

This could potentially add several more places at little or no cost in areas with the greatest pressure to place children locally and, again, avoid what we have heard several times today. The children would get placed very far from home and far from their communities. Of course, this is not the only way to expand capacity. Another would be to invest in initiatives like the greater match maker scheme and growing this out which provides money for foster carers to renovate existing ones or build extensions to allow them to care for their children.

My amendment 1786 to clarify the delegated authority that foster carers have for children in their care, and this was tabled in The Other Place by the honourable member from North Herefordshire, and received positive response from the Minister, therefore I am seeing Pleat seeking further confirmation from the noble Baroness the Minister that Government still intends to consult on this point that she could update the House with a likely timeline consultation and for the secondary legislation to be amended.

But thinking more broadly and returning to amendment 143, I think it would help the House if the Minister would share other ideas that the Government is working on to improve recruitment and retention. I spoke recently to the organisation we now foster who are now developing weekenders that might not be the right term, but I think it is called Weekender scheme which offers regular weekend placements for children who might be either in kinship or foster care, giving much needed rest and space to both parties, but a consistency and a stability for the child or young person that could extend beyond the age of 18 and, crucially, also giving foster carers the chance for a slightly more, still substantial, but more modest commitment rather than taking in a child full-time with everything that entails.

I think that this idea, and, again, this came up in the review of having different options and different models of fostering is long overdue for more work. And my Noble Friend talked about the importance of a support network for. Carers and I visited an amazing group of foster carers, some brand-new to begin fostering for over 20 years who are part of an employee cooperative foster care in St John's in Somerset. And again and again they spoke so eloquently about the impact of that network.

On their ability to foster, to offer stability, to offer love, and to offer care about very vulnerable children. They also talked about and I think this ties in to the need for a really positive campaign, most people only hear about fostering when there is a case of severe neglect or worse, but across the House we have heard examples of many noble Lords saying they have either been foster carers or recognising the extraordinary and life changing work that foster carers do, and we need that message to get outside this chamber, and to people who might consider this and see this as a respected and important profession.

My Lords, we need more innovation in this area to unlock potential in our communities to provide this kind of support for children who need it and improve retention. I beg to move.

17:44

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

- -

My Lords, I think this has been a well-informed debate about this group of amendments concerning foster care, particularly informed by those that have had personal experience for the Noble Lord Young, of course, his experience of being a foster carer, and the Noble Lord bird who, I agree, made a very important contribution about the nature of what it feels like to be a Impacts that has. And I think there has been a consensus that, once again, foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society.

They provide love, stability, and compassion to children and young people when they need it most. And we very much share the concerns raised in this House about the falling numbers of fostering households. In fact, all of 9% since 2020, and the effect that this has on children. And, therefore, perhaps it was the late night that I had when I felt marginally grumpy, I have to say, about the noble Baroness barons suggestion that because there is not in this legislation more about fostering, that somehow that meant that this Government was not committed to writing the decline that we have seen over recent years.

And, therefore, I will take the opportunity to spell out exactly what the Government has been doing. I think there is a tendency in this House probably, understandable because we are legislators, to think that things only happen if they are put into legislation. I hope that I demonstrate that there is plenty happening in the area of fostering due to the actions and investment put in by this Government. We are prioritising fostering in our reform of children's social care, as evidenced by the Chancellor's recent announcement of an additional £25 million investment into foster care That's additional to the money we are investing during this financial year, that will bring efforts to thousands of fostered children.

Part thousands of fostered children. Part of that spending will be on regional recruitment hubs, I think Lord Young and others were right in talking about the way in which the process of recruitment and even the understanding of what it might mean to be a foster carer and what the opportunities are part of the reason why we don't convert, we don't find sufficient people showing an interest and then we don't convert sufficient people who shown an interest into foster carers.

Access for local authorities to regional recruitment hubs is an important part of what the additional investment will be spent on. We are already doing other things to support councils to recruit and retain foster carers. Investing in those regional recruitment hubs and also communication campaigns across over 60% of councils. Where I agree with the noble Baroness, this is an area where it feels as though thinking about innovative models will be important to help us achieve our objectives. That's why our investment includes an expansion of the mockingbird -- mockingbird family model which is an innovative evidence-based approach which brings six to 10 families grouped around a hub home carer, and in doing that therefore provides pierced support, respite and training.

And independent evaluation found that mockingbird substantially improved retention, with participating households 82% less likely to deregister than nonparticipating households. To support retention we will reform delegated authority and processes for handling allegations against foster carers. The chancellors additional £25 million in funding for fostering will help us to go further and faster. The Spending Review also set aside capital investment for innovative sector design programs to create more fostering placement by for example renovating and extending foster care homes in the way in which Baroness Barran mentioned with respect to Manchester.

Which will help to provide more placement for children in foster care. We intend to sit out -- set out more detail on this as well as our broader plans for fostering in due course. We also of course benefit from research carried out by a wide range of stakeholders including members of our fostering advisory board. Lord Young also raised the point about the financial recompense for foster carers is one of the reasons why they perhaps leave foster care.

Of course there is a national allowance for foster carers but beyond that councils and fostering agencies have got the flexibility to pay fees for foster carers that reflect their experience, skills and development, or to provide extras support for children with more complex needs and many fostering service providers do supplement that with local offers as well like council tax deductions or discounts for local child friendly attractions and services. Fostering service providers often also provide extra money for taking children on holiday or to celebrate a birthday or religious festival.

We do believe this is for fostering service providers to set their own payment structures for those additional things in accordance with local needs and the budgets available that do them. They are both happening I think probably are very helpful in addressing some of the issues noble Lords have raised with respect to recompense. Turning specifically then to amendment 143 I think regarding a foster care strategy I understand here as well, just as we quite often turn to legislation to demonstrate action I think we understand sometimes the need to turn strategy to demonstrate the significance that the government places on an issue and to ensure there is a wide-ranging set of action being taken.

But I hope that in outlining the action that has already been taken I can provide some reassurance about the emphasis that this government is already placing on...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just wanted to remind us of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just wanted to remind us of a little bit of history. Napoleon said that a battle plan strategy was the that a battle plan strategy was the most useless thing on earth, but you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

were lost without it. That is just good because I was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is just good because I was about to come to saying, I think you call this a battle plan I don't call this a battle plan I don't think Ghoddos a battle strategy. What I was going to say was that the What I was going to say was that the government will set out our plans for foster care in due course bringing together the range of activities that are already happening and taking on board the need to go further in the way that need to go further in the way that noble Lords have rightly pushed us to today.

Turning to amendment 105 introduced by my noble friend Lord Watson on the introduction of a national foster care register. As he has outlined fostering services currently maintain local registers of foster carers alongside records relating to prospective foster carers. National foster carers system would insert central government into the systems and processes of foster care oversight which are currently deployed locally but we are as he says and as my honourable friend outlined I think in the other place during the committee stage there, we are considering the possible benefits and costs of a national register of foster care as part of our wider reforms.

There are a range of proposals for such a register, it will require some careful consideration specifically of course I'm sure we all recognise the need to ensure that a national foster care register would also meet local care register would also meet local And that it would overcome some of the risks surrounding the security of sensitive data as well as imposing additional bureaucracy on the sector. But we do want to engage with fostering stakeholders on this issue to determine next steps and we can see some of the advantages of the national register that my noble friend outlined.

Turning to amendments 134 regarding the sharing of bedrooms for foster children to enable foster carers to look after more children in their home tabled by Baroness Barran. She the -- she did of course identify that one of the pushes for this comes back to one of the fundamental issues that will be discussing in upcoming clauses and which lies very much at the heart of the government's reforms, that is an insufficiency of high quality places fostering or otherwise for the children that need them.

A complete understand the belief that changing standards in this way might be, might enable us to increase capacity. I have already identified that the government will be investing money, for example in allowing extensions and other ways that foster carers might alter their homes in order to provide more space homes in order to provide more space and capacity for children. But it is also the case that our national minimums standards already allow foster children aged three or over to share bedroom subject to conditions being met which are in place to safeguard and protect children.

That means that foster children such as siblings can share bedroom where it is in the best interests of the child, provided that each child has their own area of the room. We can update those national minimums standards at any time, we don't require a change to section 23 of the Care Standards Act as suggested in this amendment to do so. The language in this amendment would change the tone of the national minimums standards. Can I say, I'm not averse to the point that is being made here, I think we need to be careful about the balance that we are setting here.

It would shift if you like the default position to present room sharing both as appropriate and in fact standard practice rather than the current tone where room sharing should be considered where it is not possible for each child to have their own room. I think we would all agree that children in foster care deserve to be treated as a good parent would treat their own children and to have the opportunity for us full and experience of family life and childhood as possible, of course I know that there are many good parents who will have children who share bedrooms, especially at a younger age, but I also know that for many children fostered or otherwise and for many parents, the gold standard would be to enable your child to have their own room.

If we add onto that the fact that children often enter foster care after experiencing neglect or abuse including sexual abuse and may have a greater need for their own personal space and for privacy, we can see the need to be perhaps careful about very much shifting the position to promoting sharing. We recognise that room sharing in foster care may be suitable as I have said, particularly for siblings, and we think it's right that Flex abilities are already in place but we are reluctant to suggest that room sharing should be promoted as standard practice.

Importantly we have seen no evidence from children and young people themselves to suggest that they want room sharing to become standard

**** Possible New Speaker ****

practice in foster care. I wonder she mentioned that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder she mentioned that the government is putting funding into extensions and so forth, I wonder if extensions and so forth, I wonder if she could write with the details of she could write with the details of how many additional places that funding is expected to secure, I don't mean precisely but to give a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sense. I'm happy to do that, of course that is just one part of the sufficiency work that the government is doing and that other elements of is doing and that other elements of this bill are aimed at making progress on, but I will write specifically on that project. specifically on that project. Turning to amendment 178 regarding delegated authority for foster carers to give foster carers more autonomy and flexibility also tabled by Baroness Barran. All foster carers should have delegated authority in relation to day-to-day parenting of the child in their care.

Such as routing decisions about health, hygiene, education and leisure activities. That is so they can support the child and having a normal ringing of the experiences and opportunities that any other child would have. Under the current system of delegated authority, if something is not listed on the child's placement plan and the foster carer does not have delegated authority they must check with their social worker before decisions can be made. Foster carers can only take decisions in line with the child's agreed placement plan and the law governing parental responsibility.

This amendment of course would change that current system of delegated authority. I have to say I got considerable sympathy with the idea that we are asking people to take on that crucial role of caring for children on a day-to-day basis and making them part of their families they also need the authority to be able to do that in the rounded way that any parent would expect to have. That is why we have begun conversations with foster carers and fostering services about proposed changes, ensuring that all foster carers should have delegated authority by default in relation to day-to-day parenting of the child in their care.

We think that reforming this policy area would benefit from a period of consultation with stakeholders to ensure that any change to delegated authority best reflects the interests of all parties, but following the consultation we are committed to implementing necessary amendments to secondary legislation and we don't believe that in order to do that we would need changes to primary legislation. Delegated authority as outlined in the care planning placement and Case review regulations 2010. I hope that provides some assurance to the noble Lady on that area we can very much see the case being made and want to make progress.

With all of the assurances and further information I provided I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their will feel able to withdraw their

18:01

Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)

- -

I think my Noble Friend the Minister for that comprehensive response and I thank the others that have contributed to the debate. One of the other things that always struck me about the success is the vast experience of those on all sides often emerges in debates and this evening in this particular group we have two further examples of personal experience and the Noble Lord Young as well, and that always informs the debate and gives us a depth and breadth that certainly when I was reading other legislations has not always been the case and that is very valuable.

I think in terms of Noble Friend said in response I heard what she said about the proposal for strategy. I think one of the strong points of amendment 143 from the Noble Lord young which would have had my name on it incidentally if it had not already when I went to add mine was that I think from memory he talks about how we can improve the quality of foster care. And it seems that is self-evident and I am sure the Government is doing that anyway or trying to do it anyway, but it seems to me that is important that however well we are doing we are not doing well enough because of the figures that have been quoted, not least in terms of the number of foster carers going forward, and the very high rejection rate to which the Noble Lord young referred is actually astounding and I have not heard that before, there must be some reason there that we could surely turn that around to get to the 5,000 shortfall if that is across the country, and that is what I wanted to talk about but before I go through that I want to refer to the Noble Lord as well and his comments around strategy and so on and I think it is important that whatever the Government is doing on this and in the broader social care feel that there is a strategy, whether it is written down as such, I do not know, and that they have strategies throughout his lengthy career and most of them went pretty well until it ended.

What I pretty well until it ended. What I might say is that London mainline railway station and I think it is important to have that strategy. I have gone on long enough but on my own particular point about the register, I was very curious what my Noble Friend said, although she did chuck a couple of balls into the pond by saying there could be an increase in bureaucracy. I think there has to be an effective bureaucracy because we are not bringing enough foster carer into the system.

I do not necessarily think that is bureaucracy but there has to be whatever takes to ensure that we involve more people. As far as the national vicious local is concerned I think that the two sit very neatly together, to make sure that you draw in the people in the areas where it is most needed, so I do not see them as mutually exclusive, but I am encouraged by what she said and I look forward to developments in the near future, but having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it should measure that the imminent be withdrawn? Amendment is, by deep, withdrawn. Amendment 106, not move. Amendment one or seven, Lord Storey, not moved. Amendment one of seven, Baroness Barran, not one of seven, Baroness Barran, not moved. Oh, I am so sorry, I do apologise, no wonder Lord Storey was apologise, no wonder Lord Storey was looking at me in a perplexed way. Amendment one seven after clause 9, Lord Storey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Storey. My Lords, I have to say is it

18:05

Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have to say is it local councillor I was once a week I did what I called my keeping in did what I called my keeping in touch where I approach people with a little form and ask them to fill out any particular concerns they have got in the area and I will, I have finished now and I can go home and the honourable lady opened the door and said we did not fitting is fine, we did not need to fill it out.

That is good news, goodbye. And as I walked on the path actually there is something you could help me with, what is it? She said I do not think you can help me. As it what is it? She said well I and my husband have adopted two children and we adopted them when they were two and a half years old. OK. And the boy, one is 11 now, one is 12, and the boy was severely traumatised as a two and a half year old also so much so that he has to have regular therapy sessions.

Yes? And she said the problem is the grant that we got has been cut by nearly £2000 and we now cannot afford the therapy sessions. I said OK, leave it with me. Let me think this through Stockwell, I will put a written questions down to the Minister, so we know how written questions work, don't we? Those that have the Ministers will know that often they try and not reveal all of the facts as they happen to be, so my written questions, goodness, I would not suggest that for one moment with the current the previous minister.

So, my Oral Questions said to ask her majesties Government what assessment they have made of the importance of the adoption and support fund. And the answer from Baroness Smith was that this Government fully recognises the importance of support for adoptive and kinship children and. The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund has been a valuable part of the support landscaper 10 years. This is why we have provided 50 million. This is why we have provided £50 million of funding for provided £50 million of funding for 25/26 alongside it .8 million for adoption England to complement the range of support available in local areas.

So, I did a little bit of further research because that seemed to tell me that everything was OK and this particular family needn't worry and they were not getting any cuts, so almost half of the ASGSF rewards last year exceeded the new £3000 in Allen's, so some children will receive cuts of almost 14%, therefore. Data shows that thousands of children will now go without their therapy needed as a result of this cut and alongside this cut has also gone separate allocation of up to £2500 per child per yer full special assessment.

This has been completely removed. Much fun support for children with an exceptional level of need has also been removed. Previously, the ASGSF F provided up to 50% of the funding for up to £30,000 per child and the rest provided by the local authority. Consequences of these changes are that any new specialist assessment must now be paid for from the £3000. Therapy care or support must also come in this budget, regardless of need. Support was given and made no longer change or exacerbate issues for the trauma -related needs forces regular support.

Building trust with a therapist takes time, continuity of care will now be harder, and children with the most complex needs now face a highly uncertain future, which may lead to increased exclusions due to behavioural issues that would traditionally be tackled with therapy. Increased issues like child to parent violence where they placed this further. The need so this family just cannot cope any more because the funding, as we have heard, has been cut. Now, whether that is the element from the local authority or the element from the Government, do not know, and I have not been able to look into that any further.

It is interesting the language that we sometimes use in cases like this, so the need for funding is now for demand, such language for the children that need the funding, and they have experienced significant trauma. I do not want to talk any longer on this. I just think that given that we had the statement yesterday from the Chancellor and there is a little bit, a bit extra, whatever it is for education, may be some of that, a small amount of that money, may be used in these particular cases.

In terms of fostering adoption, we all know the figures. And I think anybody that takes on a child, never mind two children, adopts two children into the family and brings them and supports them, needs all the help that we can give them. And I just feel that I was lucky because I have been to your Lordships house I can also use the opportunity to see if I can try and help those particular families, so I hope the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister might look sympathetically on my amendment. Thank you. Amendment proposed after clause 9 insert the new clause as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshall list. My Lords, I rise in support of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise in support of Lord Storey and also I speak to the amendment in the name of Lord Watson. As far as this fund is

18:11

Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)

- -

Watson. As far as this fund is concerned, I have been involved as an officer and I think occasionally co-chair of the parliamentary group on adoption and permanence for about the last seven or eight years and I do it with somebody that the Noble Lady minister will know which is richer from the York Central stop and I was just scrolling back on the groups website to see how many times we have had to launch a mini inquiry into this fund and to go through a process of appealing, yet again, to successive Governments to keep going.

And in the course of doing that we have amassed each time a large amount of evidence to show just how much good this fund has been doing and how frankly transformative it is to families that have adopted children, many of whom are expressing the medium and long-term effects of the trauma that they received in early life. And this fund is really a genuine lifesaver for those children. There is a parliamentary assistant who works for an MP who is an adoptive parent.

And I have sort of kept in touch with her and she has told me over the last few years of the intense challenges that she and her husband have been having with one of their adopted children. And how, frankly, without the support of this fund they were getting a crisis point and would have actually had to give up the election and the child would have lost there. If family. And it was the fund that enabled them to keep going. I do want to stress to the Noble Lady the Minister almost the disproportionate good that is done for these families by the expenditure of, in the great scheme of things, that relatively small amounts of money.

And the kind of quality support that is required and counselling to help these children with these levels of trauma is not cheap. It requires extremely dedicated professionals who are very focused in this particular area. And working with children who have experienced trauma is challenging. It is challenging for the practitioners as much as it is for the parents and the children. So, I would hate to think that over the next five years or four years of this Government that we are going to have a repeat of what we have experienced with the all-party group under previous Governments which is we have to go through this cycle every two or three years of the Government threatening to reduce the fund and we have to go out and get evidence to explain just how important this is and how life changing it is.

Along with other groups, clearly. And, in the end, the Government typically does listen to the argument, but, in each case, it has been a challenge to get her majesties Government to listen. I think that this group is an opportunity to try and remind the Noble Lady the Minister just how transformative this is for the parents who have children who have experienced trauma and many adopted children have had trauma, which leads me in to the next amendment, the one in the name of the Noble Lord to which I have added my name.

Adoption in terms of numbers is a relatively small part of looking after children who are unable to be with their birth parents. We have large numbers in kinship carers we large numbers in kinship carers we We have the large number, we wish it was a large number of children who are being fostered, then we have the extremely large and expensive and distressing amount of children who are in residential care. For adoption to work, adoption needs to be looked at and organised on an England wide basis.

One of the experiences with the regional adoption agencies that were set up by previous government is there is a high degree of variability in how effective they are, the nature of the relationship they have with the local authority, the local education authority, the local health agencies. It is all over the place. Children are suffering as a result of this. In addition, a decision by the previous government, and I had quite a run in with a certain minister Mr Nadhim Zahawi on this, he decided unilaterally to cancel the National adoption register for England which was working extraordinarily effectively not least because it was England wide and it was able to identify children and match them with prospective adoptive parents, sometimes way outside the immediate geography.

We have largely lost that by moving to the model that we have now so I think the time is right for a review to understand what is and isn't working, to look at the lessons of the past and pull that together and to try and make this work. I should declare an interest, I'm a governor of core realm and a trustee of the museum but especially with my Coram hat on the story of adoption and how it has been viewed and treated and financed over the last few years has been a bit of a rollercoaster and I do think that the children who are waiting to be adopted and the families who have been extraordinary enough to adopt do not deserve to be on a rollercoaster, they deserve to have a smooth progress as possible to enable them to be as effective as adoptive parents as they can be to give those children the life they deserve and to enable new adoptive parents to take on these children, many of whom have experienced trauma, many of whom are in sibling groups.

I salute those who take that on but I do think it but he was asked and our government -- it behoves us and our government to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make that a straight forward as possible. I'm grateful to follow Lord Storey in law Russell in this, I Storey in law Russell in this, I want to speak to amendment 145 in my

18:19

Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)

- -

name. To be honest I'm pleasantly surprised that the Public Bill Office accepted the amendments in this group as being within scope because the bill it seems to me studiously avoids adoption. The word search I carried out reveals that the word adoption only appears four times in the Bills 137 pages and three of them as part of legis my other legislation referred to. That's disappointing because the bill does offer an opportunity to improve outcomes for adopted children, some of whom are among the most vulnerable in society alongside measures for children and kinship care, foster care and care leavers.

That's a package, that's a jigsaw, I think all of the parts interact and for one part to be virtually absent frankly I don't understand. There is overwhelming evidence that adoptees are not getting the support they need to provide them with an equal chance to thrive and I think that's unfortunate. As Lord Russell said it's a relatively small number in the grand scheme of things, I still don't see why adoptive families are not given the credit they deserve the very important job they do.

The view mentioned in my amendment which considers the adequacy and effectiveness of adoption support and highlight current gaps in the system, every year around 4,000 children in the UK are placed in adoptive families and government data shows around 80% of adopted children in England last year will have suffered abuse, neglect or violence before adoption. Before being adopted children spend average of 15 months in care often moving through several foster families and many lose everything that is familiar to them along the way because of that process.

Meanwhile adoption gives the children a chance to build some stability as part of a loving, safe and nurturing home and evidence is quite clear that outcomes are better for children who are adopted than for those who grew up in residential care. The combination of early trauma they suffer may well be with them for the rest of their lives and it needs the support that can be provided by their adoptive families was that currently there is a duty under the adoption support services regulation for local authority to provide adoption services and provide adoption services and provide -- often that's failure that the adoptive families point out providing information about the support available to those adoptive families.

Individual agencies on behalf of the local authority typically give information on their websites about support they offer but it doesn't always work out that way in practice. The support and information varies and it's fair to be said that cuts to local authority budgets over the years and governments have result in a reduced support for adoptive families because local authority is simply not able to provide what they want to provide. There's adoption support services regulations require updating so they reflect the changes that have taken place in adoption over the last two decades they haven't been updated since 2005 those regulations.

That includes the regionalisation of adoption agencies in England. Charity adoption UK has produced evidence that out-of-date regulations can and in many cases do impact on family court proceedings and thus potentially the time it takes for an adoption order to be made. The agencies themselves are not Ofsted inspected meaning that a lack of accountability and consistency in the system. The inspection carried out by Ofsted on a handful of agencies highlighted some challenges for these agencies and the part that they play in the care provided, the Baroness will be aware of that I don't know whether she wants to contribute but she will be aware of the inspections.

Adoption UK evidence has consistently shown that there are gaps in support. Adoption barometer survey which Lord Storey referred to earlier reveals that the portion of adoption families facing severe challenges or recent pricing -- crisis point is up from 30% in 2020 to 38% in 2023. I was going to say something about the adoption special guardianship support fund are not going to do that, the noble Lords have covered that perfectly adequately full stop I want to say enclosing that without the effective Adopted children Mike adoptive children are high risk of returning to the care system with a lack of ongoing support leading to placement too often breaking down full stop the impact of such breakdowns is fairly obvious in terms of the cost to the Treasury.

I don't think it's right that adoption should be pushed to the margins in this way, when adoptive families play such a vital role in a comeback to the point when I started, it's a bit of a mystery to me as to why adoption is not much more prominent in this bill. The review that I am advocating this amendment would consider whether the services provided by the adoption agencies and the existing regulations and guidance covering adoption off it for purpose. I don't expect this review to be on the face of the bill but I would like to think that my noble friend will consider carrying it out as Anish as an initiative of the Department everyone accepts there are gaps in the provision that need to be filled.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I very briefly support what both Lord Russell and Lord Watson both Lord Russell and Lord Watson have just been saying. On the basis of my experience as an adoption of my experience as an adoption judge. First of all in respect of what Lord Russell said about the variability as it has now emerged of variability as it has now emerged of regional adoption agency, agencies, I do suggest that is something which the government should be reviewing the government should be reviewing carefully.

Secondly, to emphasise the point he made about the sheer the point he made about the sheer awfulness of disrupted and failed

18:25

Lord Meston (Crossbench)

- -

awfulness of disrupted and failed adoptions, particularly in cases when so many hopes have been pinned on the adoption and so much trouble has apparently been made in preparing the child and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adopters. I am delighted to add my name to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am delighted to add my name to amendment 107 in the name of Lord amendment 107 in the name of Lord Storey and I would like to commend him and his colleagues in the other place, particularly the honourable place, particularly the honourable member for talking for their concerted -- member for Twickenham concerted -- member for Twickenham for their concerted effort to bring attention to this fund that provides support to about 20,000 very vulnerable children who have

18:26

Baroness Barran (Conservative)

- -

vulnerable children who have suffered great trauma. I thought the anecdote he gave of the family he met brought this issue very vividly to life and I would also like to thank other noble Lords who have spoken in the short debate all of whom have brought great experience. I thank particularly Lord Russell for his remarks and expertise in the work of the APPG that he co-chairs. I won't go into detail of the rather unusual set of announcements that the government made about the fund on April 1 and then very shortly after, when on 22 April when it was announced that their access limit or funding per child would as Lord Storey explained be cut from £5000 per child to £3000 per year.

And per child to £3000 per year. And that the £2500 limit for specialist assessment which as I understand it was in addition to the £5000 had been abolished, so now this has to cover both the assessment, judged I assume by the Department to cost to £2500 per child and the therapy. If we were to say that the assessment cost around £1500 thing the Department the benefits of the gap -- doubt that leaves very generously about six sessions of funded therapy per year which for these children is simply insufficient.

Those are the real numbers those are my back of the envelope just to give the House a sense of what is happening here. Hence the importance of this amendment which focuses on the per child funding level and seeks to bring some clarity to the amount needed. In the written ministerial statement the Minister said the ASG F will still, new acronym for me, will still enable those eligible to access a significant package of therapeutic support tailored to meet their individual needs.

I just wondered whether the Minister can give the House some examples of what the Department considers to be a significant package of therapeutic support that could be funded from £3000, including the assessments. The issue of therapeutic support is of course broader than just this fund. Again on my visit to Capstone foster care I learned of the difficulty of receiving funding for therapeutic work and the bureaucracy involved in retaining it. This just feels so shortsighted as local authorities search for a sound placement which is defined as I understand it in the sector as standard placement which doesn't have additional therapeutic support funding attached to it which then perhaps predictably breaks down and needs to be substituted, potentially with a placement in a children's home at many times the cost.

This is at a time when we hear funding from integrated care boards for safeguarding work will be cut by about 50% and the threshold for health involvement is simply too high to be useful. The cuts to the fund will result in a loss of adopters and special guardians who find as we heard very powerfully from noble Lords who spoke earlier that without the support they simply can't take on these responsibilities. The very late announcement has led to a backlog and will require almost half of applicants to reapply as their application, their original application does not meet the new threshold.

I wondered what estimate, what cost benefit analysis, I appreciate the human cost is far more important than the financial, but I wondered what analysis the Department has done about the savings from the cuts to the fund set against the cost of potential breakdowns. If the noble Lady doesn't have those figures with her perhaps you could write to me with them. As other noble Lords have said, this decision feels like an error and I hope the Minister will urge her ministerial colleagues to For the amendment 145 in the name of the Noble Lord Watson particularly as he pointed out it is 20 years since we have had a review of those regulations in that time a number of children being adopted has stagnated in some areas and declined in others, despite this being the most permanent and secure solution for them.

Maybe when he comes to close, perhaps I have misunderstood his amendment, but I was puzzled by the focus it seems to be exclusively on local authority adoption services when, as the Noble Lord knows, many voluntary sector organisations also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do great work in this area. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments in group 6 and this is the second group of amendments in a the second group of amendments in a role where I think, quite rightly, in this House, we will recognise the

18:32

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

- -

in this House, we will recognise the enormously important contribution made by those people willing to take children in to their homes and children in to their homes and families as a result of adoption. And as other noble Lords have said, this is, I notice something from having spoken to people who have adopted children, I know it is something that can bring enormous pleasure and satisfaction and completion to some families, and is something that is very often much wished for by families.

But I also understand that it may well, because of the nature of the experiences that children have gone through, it may well also be something where it is necessary, notwithstanding a family, of course, when they adopt a child to take on the responsibility for the child, it becomes part of their family, but given the history, sometimes, of those children, I completely understand the need for there to be ongoing support for children in those circumstances. And I think, in fact, without going too far into the history, one of the very first pieces of legislation that I did the last time around when I was a minister was the adoption act which I think became the adoption act of 2002.

At which point, actually, there was, still, quite a lot of discussion and debate about whether or not it was legitimate to provide any support for children in adoptive families. And so I think notwithstanding the concerns that have been expressed as a result of these amendments, it is the case that I think considerable progress has been made in understanding both the nature of both the challenge and the report that comes from adoption. The types of experiences that children may well have had before they go in to adoption.

The impact that that therefore has on families. And the requirement, therefore, to provide support on an ongoing basis for children who are adopted. And I recognise that the amendments in this group cover the issue of support for and kinship children as well as how we can ensure and review the quality of adoption support that is being provided. This is significant as an area to which the Government is committed. And whilst there are some difficult elements of these amendments, I am nevertheless pleased that the Noble Lord story and my Noble Friend Lord Watson have tabled these amendments and enabled us to talk about adoption.

I would just, I suppose, reiterate the point that I made with respect to fostering previously. The fact that something is not covered in this particular piece of legislation should not be taken as some sort of statement about the significance of that issue for this Government or its importance for children and families. The point of legislation is to address those areas where there are shortcomings in the legislative framework. And our view is that certainly at this moment in time the adoption legislation framework is fit for purpose, and actually our focus needs to be on supporting adoption England and on supporting regional adoption agencies to improve local practice and to set national standards so that there are high quality adoption services across this country.

That needs to be a priority, rather than thinking about how and when we need to change legislation. Adoption is a priority for this Government and it will remain so, and, of course, most importantly, it is an enormously important permanent option for some children. But turning to points made about the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund, I note that points made by the noble Earl that points made by the noble Earl Lord Russell of the history of the adoption, sorry, I do not know if it counts as a promotion.

The Noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Russell. I have told the

18:38

Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)

- -

House this once, but in 1959, my grandfather and Bertrand Russell, Earl Russell, jointly wrote a letter to the editor of The Times saying that Dias are, we would like to point out that neither of us is the other, Russell of Liverpool.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am glad to know that I cannot the only person that has made that the only person that has made that mistake. I apologise to the chamber and I apologise to the Noble Lord and I apologise to the Noble Lord Russell. And the point I was coming Russell. And the point I was coming to was that the Noble Lord has talked about the important work done talked about the important work done by the all-party group and also and by the all-party group and also and also part of that history for ensuring there is sufficient focus through Government activity in order through Government activity in order to provide the support necessary for adopted families.

And, in fact, the adoption that support fund has given that valuable support to over 53,000 individual children over the 10 years that it has been in place. And many actually have received support for multiple yes which is a point I for multiple yes which is a point I will return to in the criteria. And to support the G8 SF, which is why we provided £50 million for 2025 we provided £50 million for 2025 /26. But there has been an increase in demand, an increase in, I think, some noble Lords argued an increase in need.

And, therefore, then you are faced with a challenge, aren't you? Regardless of how much money is allocated, as to whether or not you provide more support for fewer children and family, or whether or not you ensure a level of support for a large number of children and families. And the revised funding criteria effective from April of this year will continue to enable children to receive an excellent level of support. Many at similar levels to before. £3000 worth of therapy does remain substantial as an amount of support, and on the point raised by the Noble Lady Baroness Barran about the assessment, of course the point about the fact that children and received the support over several years is that yes, that £3000, I think I am right in saying, would include the assessment.

Then, perhaps, the next year and the year after that, of course, it is not necessary to redo the assessment. And £3000 with of therapy would actually fund 19 to 20 hours of therapy on current average costings. And, as I say, there are many children and who are receiving similar levels of support as before, although I do recognise the case brought to the attention of this House by the Noble Lord story where families have seen that as a cut in the provision that they have been able to receive.

Local authorities can continue to supplement available funding locally through the mainstream children's services budget. And, if assessments deemed this necessary, and the revised criteria will ensure, as I have said, that all children can continue to receive support. And given the significance and the contribution that support provides, I think it is important to recognise that even if in some cases that does not feel as if it is enough support in order to respond to these simple challenges of families, and for that reason I recognise, and the Government recognise, that recent changes to funding levels came unexpectedly, and therefore local areas had limited time to plan.

I hope I can provide some reassurance that applications under the revised criteria are now not only been received, but I processed as speedily as possible so that children can receive therapy that they need. And that the Government will continue to assess the implementation of adoption support arrangements, including the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund fund. And we will be taking forward discussions on the delivery and management of funds on future years. And I am sure that not only in this House but across the department we have heard the concerns that have been expressed here in this House this evening and, most importantly, that have come from the families affected.

The ASGSF, like other Government expenditure, is subject to business planning decisions following the Spending Review. And these decisions will, obviously, need to take into account the full range of Government priorities. The ASGSF is not a statutory arrangement. We do believe that it should remain flexible to provide an effective service. And no, of course, would it be helpful, as has been proposed in these amendments, for decisions on funding levels to be made in isolation from consideration of other budgets, however, as I said, we recognise the strength of feeling expressed today and by others outside Parliament.

Yes. Yes.

18:44

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

- -

I think she mentioned that with the £3000 the average number of sessions that would be allowed is about 12, 19, sorry. So, the range of applications, typically, for the support fund over the last few yes has been between 20 and 50 sessions per annum, so it is right on the margin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I did say that would from 19

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I did say that would from 19 to 20 hours. And, of course, the point I also made was that this is point I also made was that this is something that does not only happen within one year. It is something that can continue in order to provide support. But, I was also saying that I recognise the strength saying that I recognise the strength of feeling expressed today by others outside Parliament. We would, of course, take these in to account when making decisions about how to allocate from the budget for the allocate from the budget for the future years.

I hope this will future years. I hope this will assure noble Lords that we are considering these issues very considering these issues very carefully. Turning to amendment 145 in the name of my Noble Friend Lord Watson, I do agree with my Noble Friend that adoption support should be high quality. Of course. OFSTED already reviews how well authorities are delivering adoption services, and publishes reports on its authority at every three years. The Secretary of State has powers up to the education and inspections act 2006 to require OFSTED to provide information or to conduct an inspection at any specified function of the local authority that is within their remit.

And, of course, that may include adoption support OFSTED does report regularly on adoption support in local authorities, children's care, inspection reports and adoption agencies. The more the Secretary of State I think as I have suggested can direct OFSTED to provide information on adoption support services or to conduct an inspection. In fact OFSTED's recent the Matic inspection -- thematic covered adoption support including Ford birth families and adopted adults and it's worth noting here that changes to regulations in 2023 removed some barriers to adults receiving services.

By removing the OFSTED registration requirement under certain conditions. Adoption England is working with regional adoption agencies to develop national standards for adoption support including a new core offer of support for the first 12 to 18 months of placement, obviously at a time that is particularly difficult in terms of the family adjusting to their life as adoptive parents and the children adjusting to their new adoptive arrangements. Also support for birth family contact arrangements which whilst important potentially for children can also be quite difficult and challenging for families to work through.

And for adult adoptees, because I think noble Lords have made the case very strongly that given the experiences that some children may have faced prior to adoption it is likely that the impacts of that may well go through to the adult life. All of their work adoption England is based on best practice in order to drive consistency across agencies. I have a feeling that I will not have completely reassured noble Lords about the fund, I hope I have gone further to reassure my noble friend about the ability to be able to review and inspect the quality of adoption support services, but on those basis I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank Lord Russell and Lord Watson and Lord Meston and Baroness Watson and Lord Meston and Baroness Barran and also my honourable friend Barran and also my honourable friend the nearer Wilson in the other place for raising this issue. The Minister

18:49

Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

for raising this issue. The Minister is right. My father was adopted and surprisingly he was adopted by a single woman. No support in those days was given at all. But now we recognise the contribution that parents who adopt children give and we should be giving them all the support we possibly can because every failed adoption as a failure for us. When I look at the particular case that I encountered, to have that young boy 2.5 who had been seriously traumatised, I won't tell you how he was traumatised although I know, and to have therapy and then for that therapy to have to stop just seems to me to be unbelievable.

He presumably will regress, I just don't know. The Minister has given me some crumbs of comfort and perhaps we will hope that not just this boy but any child who is adopted to needs that kind of therapy we can as a caring, tolerant

**** Possible New Speaker ****

society support them. The noble Lord is withdrawing his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord is withdrawing his Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 107 a Baroness Barran not Amendment 107 a Baroness Barran not moved. Amendment 107B Lord Watson not moved. Amendment 107C Lord Storey not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Storey not moved. I beg to move that the House do now resume. The question is that the House is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House is resumed. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

"Not content". The "Contents" have I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. now adjourn.

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page