Lords Chamber

Tuesday 17th June 2025

(began 5 months, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:10
None Portrait Oral questions: Funding for international vaccine programmes, such as GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance
-

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:23
None Portrait Bill do now pass Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

A bid to move that this bill do now past. now past. It's my great privilege to steer this bill through the rose. I thank noble Lords who have taken so much time to scrutinise the bill. I hope I have demonstrated my personal commitment through my engagement with noble Lords on all sides of the House. The government is moving a step closer to delivering on the long-standing commitment to build a National Holocaust memorial and learning centre next to Parliament where it rightly belongs.

This commitment has cross-party support and endorsement of every living pro Minister as well as the support of leading representatives of the Jewish community, other faith and community leaders, survivors and the wider public. The most important group of supporters is without doubt the Holocaust survivors who have dedicated their lives to sharing the testimony so that the truth of what happened in the darkest, most appalling period of history is understood and remembered. I was delighted to see a Holocaust survivor who I met in February who was a firm supporter of the memorial to receive an MBE on the King's birthday.

We must ensure there is a permanent memorial to honour the men, women and children murdered during the Holocaust so that there testimony can live on for decades and centuries to come. I will be brief. The bill has been amended to include a new clause on the purpose of the learning centre. As I said at report stage, I'm sympathetic to the intentions of this amendment but it will now be for the other place to consider the amendment and respond. I'd like to thank Ernest -- Baroness got -- Baroness Scott.

Noble Lords have spoken beautifully through the passage of the bill. I'd like to thank Lord Pickles for his unwavering support. I can't mention every single civil servant but I'd like to thank everyone by the scene. like to thank everyone by the scene. I would like to finish by quoting a Holocaust survivor. I quote. " With education comes remembrance. This memorial will give people something to remove. When we no longer have survivors among us, this memorial will help to ensure that their experiences are never forgotten.

We can create the next generation of witnesses. Lily has since sadly passed in October 2024 at the age of 100. We now need to get this memorial and learning centre built so we can indeed create the next generation of witnesses." A bid to move.
15:26
15:26
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
centre and expressed hope that our reflection -- upon reflection, the government might make a different

**** Possible New Speaker ****

choice over time. One has to congratulate the Minister and Department on their patience and persistence, and indeed patience and persistence, and indeed perhaps on the record. Rarely can a bill achieve so much damage. To bill achieve so much damage. To security, conservation etc. Damage security, conservation etc. Damage to the beauty of the locality and to the understanding of anti-Semitism the understanding of anti-Semitism and Jewish history, to interrupt and Jewish history, to interrupt community relations.

Once we are free of the fears of this government that any alternative are somehow giving in to the anti-Semitism which the party was accused of a few years ago, and this is simply not the case, we will go forward with the planning process that might yet rescue this botched plan. It is not too late to tweak it. It is not too late to build not a monument of death but one that preserves and understands Jewish life. At a time when a new version of desire to destroy Jewish life in the Middle East and elsewhere is playing out as we speak, we could have a learning centre that extended the achievement of survivors of the Holocaust in building what was a safe haven for Jews, a land of their own.

It is ironic that this government is so respectful of 6 million deaths but so cavalier for the fate of 7 million of their descendants in Israel right now. There is indeed much to be learned not just close to Parliament but inside our debates. We who understand what is at stake will continue to press our case. The fight is not over.
15:28
15:31
15:32
15:34
15:35
15:35
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, it is a pleasure to rise at the third reading of this important bill. I will not restate our position at length. But the Official Opposition supports the bill. Which will take us another step closer to delivering on might noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton's historic commitment to build a lasting national memorial to the Holocaust. We have made a solemn commitment never to forget the horrors of the Holocaust. To work to make sure that it will never happen again.

Holocaust education is an essential part of our efforts to make good on those promises. It has been the policy of successive Conservative governments that we need a National Holocaust Memorial and learning centre. This has the support of the education organisations, including the Holocaust Centre North, the National Holocaust Museum, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and D educational trust. We were very pleased that the noble Lord 's amendments were successful at report stage. We do feel strongly that the amendment not only improves the bill but actually it is helpful to the government.

It is designed to ensure intentions of successive governments are honoured once the memorial and learning centre has been est. We hope the noble Lord the Minister can reassure us today, though we have heard no reassurance, that the government will carefully consider the amendment. Can the noble Lord perhaps go further and tell the House whether he will be making a case to his colleagues in government that this amendment should be accepted? Finally, I would like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for his continued engagement throughout the progress of this bill.

It is a controversial piece of legislation. I am grateful to him for his approach when working with the Official Opposition of the frontbench. I would also like to thank his officials, the House authorities who have supported an extremely long report stage on this bill and all noble lords who have contributed to the scrutiny process of this legislation. And on something very personal, I thank the
15:37
15:39
None Portrait Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - committee stage (day 5) - part one
-

contents have it. The children's
15:40
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the House again

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the House again resolved itself into a committee upon the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 10, amendment 107, my lord. I rise to speak to the amendment in my name and opened this important group of amendments on regional group of amendments on regional care. We are hearing about the care. We are hearing about the stresses and pressures on local authorities in relation to the cost authorities in relation to the cost of children's services. The establishment of regional care was a key recommendation of the independent review into social care, carried out by the honourable member for Workington, Josh MacAlister.

I To the MP for the work he did on this review, which in many ways was groundbreaking and he put a huge amount of effort into it. He is to be applauded for that. I look forward to hearing the amendments from other noble lords, who I am sure are keen to raise important issues related to the RCC. My amendment is straightforward. It seeks to clarify the role of the independent care boards, the ICB, in the RCC arrangements. In my experience as an MP for a number of years, and visiting many care homes and talking to many practitioners in this field, every child in residential care will almost certainly have mental health needs and very often physical health needs as well.

The Minister will be aware
15:42
None Portrait Amendment:107D Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-

of the serious concerns that have been expressed by a number of organisations that the reform of ICBs will lead to changes in the ICBs will lead to changes in the funding allocations and this could in turn compromise and undermine in turn compromise and undermine their effectiveness. My amendment has made it crystal clear that ICBs has made it crystal clear that ICBs must be included in the development and delivery and governance of the and delivery and governance of the ICC -- of the arrangements.

Members will be aware of the concerns expressed by the national network of designated healthcare professions, designated healthcare professions, including NHS England, regarding the health workforce in their ability to health workforce in their ability to implement the clauses in this bill. Indeed in March NHS he reported all current caseload reviews suggest child safeguarding expertise is already fully committed and at full capacity. I very much hope that the Minister will take that on board. Because these concerns certainly have intensified following recent announcements and as well as the abolition of NHS England, ICBs will be required to reduce operating costs by 50%.

Furthermore, all NHS providers are being asked to reduce corporate costs by the same percentage. I support that in principle as I am sure everyone on these benches do because we want to eliminate waste and have more effective management and we want to see efficiencies. What I would ask the Minister is a simple question. Surely safeguarding is a frontline service. Safeguarding at the moment typically sits within corporate services of most NHS provider trusts. Furthermore, and the Minister is aware of this, the model blueprint actually asks ICBs to test and explore options to streamline and transfer some of the safeguarding activities away from the boards.

These changes in accountability, do they require Secondary Legislation in the future? Can I ask the Minister, why when this is such an important frontline this is such an important frontline Why is it categorised as part of corporate services? Maybe we should ask that question because it does not make sense to me. I would also like to raise a number of points as well because we are talking about local authorities and in particular about county councils and putting more responsibilities into their hands.

I think many of us find that to be a positive move. But there is a great deal of change going on in local government. The Minister will be aware of this because I mentioned this the other day that in Norfolk for example, there is a debate going on about government reorganisation and there is every possibility we will go from the current county council and the district to maybe one unitary authority with the county council carrying out all competencies throughout the district or maybe two or three unitary authorities in Norfolk.

I suggest to the Minister that although reorganisation is going to make savings in the longer term and drive efficiencies and cost reductions, in the short term there will be a lot of disruption, dislocation and a lot of redundancies of key staff which What measures will the government take to ensure that local authorities can cope with these changes coming down very fast, many changes contained in this bill? I would like to put it to the Minister that there may well be because of these changes in the bill, be significant implications for staffing across these different areas.

I would like the Minister to reassure the house that there will be the capacity for funding of ICBs to be full participants. I beg to move.
15:46
None Portrait
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Line 45. Amendment proposed,
15:46
Baroness Longfield Portrait Baroness Longfield (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Line 45. Amendment proposed, clause 10, line 32, insert words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled List. I rise to speak to amendments 108

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments 108 1082 116 in my name -- 108 to 116 in 1082 116 in my name -- 108 to 116 in 1082 116 in my name -- 108 to 116 in my name. I welcome the significant increase in investment in children's social care. The social care. The distance social care. The distance from social care. The distance from home that some children are being placed that some children are being placed in in care has been an issue of in in care has been an issue of concern of mine for some time.

Local authorities are facing challenges in delivering places close to home in recent years due to increase in demand, rising costs, cards to early intervention, funding, workforce challenges, leading to what can only be seen as a broken care market. Children are too often moved to homes unable to meet all their needs homes unable to meet all their needs or far away from those who matter the most to them due to a shortage of appropriate options. Between 2013 and 2024, the number of children living 20 miles from home increased living 20 miles from home increased by 60%.

In 2024, more than a fifth of children in care and half of those living in residential care were living more than 20 miles from home. Research from the charity highlighted that children living in private children's home where 2.5 private children's home where 2.5 times more likely to be living a fair distance from their communities. We talked about the negative impact of being separated from communities and what that can bring. And exacerbating adversity in a whole range of different issues.

The move to regional care cooperatives is one I think is welcome and it's an opportunity for better planning, but there is a risk that without effective mitigation, the proposal to regionalise the delivery of children's homes in care could lead to children being referred from their support networks but within the region. I know that is not what anyone wants. That's why I'm tabling these amendments which would provide an important mitigation to stop children from being moved far away from their support networks, but still within the region.

I would be grateful if the Minister would consider these changes to provide children in care the surety they can stay close to those they have relationships with and support networks when this is in their best interest.
15:50
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, following on from that, I would like to wish to support those amendments directed specifically at ensuring placement of children close to home, both in this group and in the next group. Simply, state intervention in the life of a family should if possible make things better, not worse. Recent figures from the Department of Education show that one in 10 children looked after experience three or more placements in a year, described as high placement instability.

There is already in a section 22C in the children's act and accommodation for children. -- And accommodation for children. When a child is accommodated away from home and away from parents and away from a familiar area, some parents become unable or unwilling to provide further support and they disengage, or at least they give up on active engagement. However, there will still remain a need for interaction between the local authority and parents. Parents who retain parental responsibility.

Even if they do not do so, they should be encouraged to remain involved and see themselves as able to remain involved. That is likely to be reassuring for the child. However, parents and wider family members cannot be expected to maintain involvement unless the placement of the child is reasonably accessible to them. Phone and digital contact are no real substitute. I suspect the Minister might say that the obligation under section 22 C is already referred to in the bill. I would support the suggestion that it should be emphasised and reinforced by these amendments.

I also support amendment 170B, that of the noble Baroness Cash to ensure the bill does not detract from the duty in section 22C7 of the Children Act. section 22C7 of the Children Act.
15:52
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 116B, 177B, C and D in this group tabled in my name. I'm grateful to Lady Longfield and two noble Lords who have already spoken. I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said so far. The intention behind these amendments is to address the issues of attachment and trauma -- attachment disruption and trauma that can ensue from children being housed too far from home. Those who have spoken have addressed this also.

We know we can immunise -- minimise the damage. In a probing manner, I have tabled amendments to invite the noble Baroness the Minister to reflect on whether there is some way in which these concerns, as expressed today in the House, could be accommodated in this legislation. 116B Is a duty to collect sufficiency data. It addresses the basic idea that you cannot plan what you can't measure. We know from the McAllister Review and from many other organisations which support RCCs that there are concerns about current provision already and we need to think about making sure there is strategic visibility so that RCCs working together know how many foster carers, residential carers and emergency places are needed and emergency places are needed and where investment is urgent.

Josh McAllister was clear that the data should urge government is to consider that viewpoint of their own. This amendment would give legislative force to his recommendation and it would allow available, readily available data to be collected so we can target spending wisely, empower local leaders who are responsible for assigning the places and avoid waste. 117 B builds on the previous proposal requiring the RCCs to publish an annual report. Really basic governance issue of transparency and accountability, but allowing the local authorities, providers, Parliament and most importantly children and their families to know whether the system is in fact working.

In placement decisions we know because there has been a lot of coverage of this, which are currently shaped by what is available at the moment. Many of us have concerns about supply driven situation by various commercial providers. This amendment would help reverse some of that by making the data transparent. It will also ensure that RCCs are open and responsive to their stakeholders and to Ofsted ensuring that young people and foster carers are accommodated rather than commercial providers.

This would be a public report that would really encourage good governance. This is a follow-on from previous provisions. I've said it already, I support the amendments proposed by fellow noble Lords today, and these proposals are to invite the government to consider what way the best accommodation what way the best accommodation takes place. This would help RCCs to invest early and local provision and reduce worry about responsive private options which have been driving children to be accommodated out of their local areas and all the concerns raised in relation to that.

Parties in this house want reliable care for children. Finally, 117D puts focus on outcomes for children. On this one, I would really emphasise, because it ties with the stated objectives of this bill, which is entitled Children's Well- being. It cannot be right that RCCs would be introduced without the requirement to use the data showing whether or not they are working for the children, the very children they are intended to provide for. MedConnect to critical questions.

-- MedConnect to critical questions. -- two. Did we have enough places? What really matters and what's going to make a difference is whether those children are safe, settled and supported to thrive, hopefully in proximity to their own families or kinship that may be available to them. And this amendment would allow the RCCs to link their planning with real-world results, help local government and local leaders to learn what works so there can be continuous improvement. I believe that these amendments are proportionate and sensible measures which meet the state and purpose of which meet the state and purpose of the bill and about -- and I beg for government support.

government support.
15:59
Baroness Tyler of Enfield Portrait Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 170 in my name. I'd like to thank my noble friends Baroness Bennett and Lord Russell for adding their names to my amendment. I think this is a very important group. So many times in discussions on this bill and merge generally we have talked about the dangers of children being placed far away from home -- more generally. This is why this is such a critical group of amendments. I'm supportive of everything that has been said so far in the amendments that have been put forward in relation to trying to prevent children from being placed far from home when there are any other viable alternatives.

My amendment, the intentions are quite simple. Is to ensure that those making decisions take into account the wishes and feelings of children. I do very much welcome the government was my ambition to be a child-centred government and I support the important steps taking -- taking in this bill to strengthen the system. I do think there is a more this bill could do to be truly child -centred. I think at the moment needs to do more to embed real consideration of children's wishes and feelings, hence this amendment and indeed my amendment, which was discussed on an earlier occasion around children's wishes and feelings being respected in relation to family decision- making.

In 1991, the UK ratified the United Nations conventions on -- United Nations Convention on the right of the child. It recognises that children's -- children are experts in their own lives. And gives the opportunity to express their views which is a critical factor in building trust and keeping

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Specifically on the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Specifically on the amendment about the care system related to accommodation for children in care, accommodation for children in care, particularly in the context of Regional Care Cooperatives that we are talking about, I know many local are talking about, I know many local authorities recognise the value of experience when making strategic experience when making strategic decisions and that the government has already taken steps to engage with children as it thinks about with children as it thinks about future policies.

But surely it cannot be right that children and, their voices are consigned to "such their voices are consigned to "such other persons " that the Secretary of State considers appropriate, as of State considers appropriate, as those most directly affected, surely Should be named on the face of the bill? That is what this is about. I think it is a modest request. I hope the government will look sympathetically on this amendment. I do believe that every child should be confident that they will be be confident that they will be involved in decisions that affect their lives.
16:02
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
I welcome this bill. It was a cause of great sadness that the late Baroness Massey wasn't here to participate. It is a cause of sadness that if she had been here, she would have had her name on this amendment rather than me, with more power and justification behind it. Indeed at the time of her passing, she was working with a group of us in this House to try to find ways of having the voices of children heard more regularly in the day to day work of this house, in particular with some of our committees.

That is work which has yet to be completed. We must carry that on. I think what the Josh MacAlister review showed is while we have a plethora of different organisations trying to look after the needs of the young people we are talking about, in a variety of different ways, with an enormous amount of data about what they are doing and not doing, the fact that we had to have a large- scale review, which required tremendous resources and was carried out very effectively in order to collate and understand the data, and spend as much time understanding what it wasn't telling us as what it was telling us is telling in itself.

I particularly support the amendments of the noble Baroness amendments of the noble Baroness Cash. In order to try to improve a situation which has developed over the last 20, 30 years, which at the moment is causing local government across the country huge difficulties, because of the statutory duties which we have heaped upon it in legislation after legislation, with the best of intent, what we have got is a system which really is not working. We do have in this bill an opportunity to try to learn the lessons of trying to do the right thing, but clearly going about it in the wrong way.

We have a chance in this bill to try to learn from that and do it in a better way. I particularly took the point about the needs of the first of all children being listened to, but second that in trying to provide the right services for these young people, that we are actually driven by the demand they require to make their lives better. Rather than the inadequacy of the current range of supply which is hugely varied, both in terms of coverage, but also in terms of the type of delivery and indeed the good or bad effect of the delivery.

For all those reasons I do support this group of amendments. I implore the government and all of us to learn the lessons of the past and try to do better in the future.
16:05
16:07
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
I will stand up now, my lord. Having attached might name to the amendment, I will focus chiefly on amendment, I will focus chiefly on that. The noble Baroness has stolen my starting line as my final line, nothing about us without us. I think I first used that phrase in a debate on similar amendments in the Health on similar amendments in the Health House and the country is coming to realise we have to listen to children far more. I will just in this context the site an interesting court case in the last week.

The Court of Appeal decided a 14-year- old who had been tricked by his parents after appearing to be going to Ghana, he took his parents to court and the Court of Appeal ruled he should have the right to come back to Britain as he wanted to do. I think that is an interesting court case. It shows generally how the legal system is starting to listen more to children. I think it is important the legislation does and that it is on the face of the bill.

I think it is clear this will raise issues I will come back to in a later group of amendments. But the basic point about the Regional Care Cooperatives is they are going to take decision-making further away from local authorities. Indeed some of the people that have been looking at this, studying this, the Care Review evidence group for example said care will need to be taken that these structural reforms do not dilute local accountability mechanisms. I think making sure that the children are heard in the making of regulations is in some way a counterbalance to that risk which quite a lot of experts identified by the taking of this approach.

the taking of this approach. the taking of this approach.
16:09
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak, if I can find the right page 2 amendments 116 and 117 in my name. As we have heard the proposals to create Regional Care Cooperatives came from the Independent Review into children's social care. They are the ones that we support. However we are also aware that there are a number of regions already using informal cooperation agreements. So I do question whether we actually need more legislation to make this happen.

Maybe the noble Baroness the Minister when she is summarising can comment on this. The Secretary of State is taking the power to direct areas to create one of three models of cooperation. It is important that we understand how this will work in practice. Because presumably if areas are not adopted in this approach voluntarily, there would be significant barriers and potentially good reasons for doing so. Could the Minister clarify a few points when she closes? The Local Government Association has stated its support for the more narrow requirements of the Regional Care Cooperatives as being used by the Pathfinder areas, namely on "strategic planning and placement for children with more complex needs ".

However the bill has stated that Regional Care Cooperatives will be responsible for commissioning the provision of accommodation for children being looked after by the local authority. There is a worry about mission creep and a confusion over responsibilities which I have tried to address through my amendment. And my noble friend through her amendment. Could the noble lady also comment on some of the concerns expressed by organisations such as Barnardos that this model will squeeze out some of the smaller providers, increasing even further the dependence on independent providers, many of whom in the private sector as we know have a combination of very high profitability and high debt level? Can she also confirm the data for the Pathfinders and when they will be publicly available either by evaluation or any other data? Does the Department have an idea that they can share in public of the likely size of each of the areas? The two pilot sites, Greater Manchester and the south-east, are both very large with about 3 million people within them.

Is this the size that the government expects to be typical? Amendment 116 removes a power equivalent to a Henry VIII power from the bill. A subsection of clause 10 defines strategic accommodation functions as assessing current and future requirements for the accommodation of children being looked after by the local authority. Developing and publishing strategies for meeting those requirements, commissioning the provision of accommodation for children being looked after by the local authority, recruiting local authority foster parents and supporting them, developing or facilitating the development of new provision for the accommodation of children being looked after by the local authority, and any other functions related to a local authority in their duties under sections 22 a, C and G under the recommendations of the Secretary of State.

A new section gives the Secretary of State a power akin to a Henry VIII power to add to the above list of strategic accommodation functions by regulations. In justifying the power of the Department has said the department has tried to retrieve the right balance between confining the scope of the powers through primary provisions and leaving necessary matters of detail to regulations. This is the first time the Secretary of State has sought to bring local authorities together to collaborate in the delivery of strategic accommodation functions.

Regional cooperation arrangements, known as care cooperatives, are currently being tested by Pathfinders in two local authority regions. This is my emphasis and not that of the Department. When the Pathfinders are evaluated, the Secretary of State may need to prescribe additional functions. There may also be a need for additional functions to be specified in the future, depending on the needs of a particular area and to keep pace with the change in and to keep pace with the change in social care placement in the market.

The power has been limited to one that enables additional functions to be added to the list in the future. It does not enable the Secretary of State to amend or remove any of the functions already listed in the clause and so it is not a Henry VIII

**** Possible New Speaker ****

power. My amendment is a probing amendment as this feels like another example of the government example of the government introducing legislation before it is ready. Why not wait until the Pathfinders are evaluated to be clear what additional strategic functions might be needed? Maybe the functions might be needed? Maybe the noble Baroness can inform the House if the department is aware of any gaps in the current strategic powers, which have been identified powers, which have been identified in areas using this approach in areas using this approach already.

It would be good to understand whether the government understand whether the government had any particular powers in mind that might be needed, or whether this is a belt and braces just in case power, without anything case power, without anything It's obviously important that we have an independent assessment of their effectiveness and impact, and whether they are achieving the goals of the government. And perhaps even more importantly the needs of children. There may be other ways of achieving this and if so, it would be helpful to understand what those are.

More specifically, my amendment aims to bring -- bring a spotlight to use of unregistered provision. It will anticipate and commission capacity in a more effective and cost-effective way. One outcome of this would be a drop or complete removal of the use of unregistered provision, something which I know the local authorities are keen to see, as are many noble Lords across the house. My amendment 119 ZA 1196 to test the government's appetite for a more radical overhaul of the way children's spaces are commissioned.

At its heart, it seeks to align the interests of children with the interests of the provider and indeed the Commissioner, which is not the case today, and I think this is at the root of many problems we face in this area. I know this has been adopted in at least one local authority, so I have some confidence it can work in practice. I won't go through every point in the list of principles, but it is worth clarifying a few of them.

Firstly, point A is key. The provider knows the revenue is secure, they can accept a lower average cost per placement because effectively they will always have 100% utilisation of their capacity. And I apologise for talking about accommodation for children in these terms. This also gives clarity to the local authority of their cost. It removes the incentive for the provider to hang onto a child who might be ready to leave the home, for financial reasons. This feels like a really fundamental shift.

It avoids what must be -- might be described as price gouging when local authorities need a placement local authorities need a placement in a hurry. It is also clear about the need for children to be placed close to home when it is safe to do so. Something which has obviously got widespread support across the house. It builds on capacity for sadly inevitable emergency placement, and it embeds provision of speech and language and clinical of speech and language and clinical psychology provision.

It creates flexibility to require the provider to offer edge of care support as an alternative to residential provision. Unless we can align the incentive for providers with what is best for children and in a way that gives visibility and control back to the local authority, I fear that regional care cooperatives will not deliver on their promise. The noble Baroness the Minister may say that this level prescription is not needed on the face of the bill, but if that is the case and she agrees with these principles, can she set out how the government plans to implement them and hold to account those local authorities who don't follow this good practice two turning to the amendments 108 to 116, these rightly emphasise the importance of children being placed importance of children being placed as close to their roots as possible.

We know that where this does not happen, it's more distressing for children, more likely for a placement to break down, and for a child to go missing. This problem is particularly acute for children in London and other major cities, where London and other major cities, where property costs may create a provision prohibitive. Amendments in the name of Baroness Cash ring clarity and rigour to all partners in the regional cooperative to ensure that the act in the best interests of the child in terms of retaining important relationships in their lives.

As the noble Lady set out so ably, the combination of a duty to collect sufficiency data, to publish it, to use it, and to have a focus on outcomes all seem to me a minimum that we should expect in these situations. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness lady Tyler's amendment 117 about the importance of the voice of the child, I theme I will return to several times during the clauses that we debated today. Finally, turning to my noble friend Lord Bellingham's amendment 107 D, I absolutely support this and the important concerns he raised about how the restructuring of the Integrated Care Boards will impact their capacity to contribute fully to the regional care cooperatives which are so vital for their success.

To move amendments 116 A, 117A and 119ZA. 117A and 119ZA.
16:21
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, turning to the amendments in group 1, before I do that, I just want to be clear, as many noble Lords have recognised, that the measures in clause 10, together with those we will be coming to later in clauses 12 to 18 are part of an overarching strategy to fix the market for placements for looked after children. The review conducted by my Honourable friend Josh McAllister which quite rightly several noble Lords have referenced together with the report from the Competition And Markets Authority were explicit that the placement market is dysfunctional, and that some private providers are making excessive profits for placements for our most vulnerable children.

We are now taking concerted action to address this, including through measures in this bill but also a wide range of non-legislative measures as well, to deliver a broader range of providers in the market so that local authorities have more options when finding the right place for children in their care. The right homes in the right parts of the country so that children don't have to move miles from their communities and support networks, which many noble Lords have referenced in this debate already.

And that these homes are delivered at sustainable cost to the taxpayer by providers who are no longer making excessive profits. It's been a failure to address the dysfunction in the system, which has led to many of the issues that noble Lords are rightly identifying today. We will respond to these more broadly in the action we are taking to fix that dysfunctional market, hopefully. Turning to speak to amendments 108 to 116 in the name of my noble friend Baroness Laing field which seek to amend the definition of strategic accommodation functions to ensure it meets the current and future needs of looked after children.

Of course, this and the contribution of my noble friend exactly get to the crux of the problems, which we are trying to solve here. My noble friend is solve here. My noble friend is Children being too far away from home, to because pressures, inappropriate placements - those are all things that this provision and the other elements of strategy are aimed at addressing. And I will also address amendments -- amendment 119A from the noble Lady Baroness Barran which sets out precedents that would have to be adhered to when commissioning accommodation for looked after children.

She is right that the provisions in this clause relate to the direction powers for the Secretary of State. In circumstances where local authorities either refuse to take part in regional arrangements or perhaps were regional arrangements have been set up and there are local authorities that might not have managed to be part of any of those regional arrangements, because I certainly think that it is already the case that authorities are trying to bring themselves together into regional arrangements precisely to be able to solve some of the issues that we have outlined.

The government completely agrees there must be sufficient accommodation for all children who are looked after by all children who are looked after by their local authority, and in the future that this accommodation must meet their needs and provide appropriate support and that it should allow them to live as close to home as possible when that is in their interest. That is precisely the reason for trying to ensure that the market operates more effectively. But it is also the case that there are existing legal requirements on local authorities to the effect of some of the understandable calls made in these amendments.

Local authorities already have a general statutory duty under section 22 G of the children act 1989 to take steps so far as is reasonable to ensure there is sufficient accommodation within the area to meet the needs of looked after children. There are also under a duty via sections 22 and 22C of the same act to look after the needs of looked after children to ensure it is consistent with the child's welfare and with due consideration to the child's age and understanding, as well as their wishes and feelings.

Finally, they also have a statutory duty under sections of the 99 -- 1989 act to provide for children to live close to their home unless it is against the child's welfare or not reasonably practical. The problem is not that there is not legal recognition of these issues and the need for them to be taken into consideration in providing sufficient accommodation and placements for children. Is that the market has prevented local authorities from being able to do that and from being able to fulfil their statutory requirements.

And that is why regional care cooperatives, which in the legislation echoed regional care cooperation arrangements -- are called... These are responsible for recruiting foster parents and commissioning care places. As recommended by both the review conducted by Josh McAllister and the report from the Competition and Markets Authority, they will support local authorities to carry out their strategic accommodation functions, but as I've suggested, these functions are not new and they are already in law, including the duty to take steps as is reasonably practical to ensure sufficient accommodation for looked after children.

Any decision-making responsibility for where individual children are placed, however, will continue to rest with local authorities. Turning now to amendment 116A in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Barran which would prevent the Secretary of State adding to a local authority 's strategic accommodation functions for regional care cooperatives, I would like to reassure the noble Lady of the safeguards in place regarding the power to add to the list of strategic accommodation functions to be exercised through regional care cooperatives.

I've lost track of whether or not she was accusing the government of currently having a Henry VIII power within current legislation. I will go back

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and check. I thank the noble Lady for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lady for giving way. I was aware that my remarks may way. I was aware that my remarks may not have been clear. In that department's own memorandum, describes this power as being akin describes this power as being akin to a Henry VIII power.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to a Henry VIII power. , well I will certainly take advice and look carefully at that. I advice and look carefully at that. I advice and look carefully at that. I can assure Your Lordships' House the appropriate committee, whose name appropriate committee, whose name currently escapes me, has of course looked in detail at the dedicated looked in detail at the dedicated provisions within the legislation. We will be responding to the Committee in covering of any issues that might be of the sort of concern that the noble Lady raises.

But I hope to provide some further reassurance on that. Firstly, the scope of regulations is limited to those local authorities functions covered by specific sections of the Children Act 1989. Namely, section 22A, the duty to do the duty to accommodate looked after children. Section 22G, the duty to ensure sufficient accommodation for the coveted and. The Secretary of State cannot add to strategic accommodation functions without first consulting local authorities and other appropriate persons.

Further, if relations were to be made, this would be done via the affirmative procedure providing This is far from the fears around the open ended ability to have you and to the scope, but I do think that, in these circumstances, it probably does make sense to be able, subject to the consultation and the affirmative procedure, to be able to change those regulations in the future. Not least dependent on the evaluation, which I will come to a bit later.

Turning to amendment 116B, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Cass, which would require regional care cooperative to assess sufficiency of placements in the area and publish and implement a plan to address this, as I explained earlier, regional care cooperatives will assist local authorities precisely by adding future accommodation needs full of looked after children across the region by publishing sufficiency strategies, by recruiting commissioners as set out in this clause, but I do take her point about data, and later, I will come to a bit more detail as to what data the Department is collecting and what data there will be an expectation of local authorities collecting and using to inform the regional care cooperatives.

Individual local authorities will retain, as I said earlier, their statutory duty to take steps to ensure there is sufficient accommodation for looked after accommodation within the area, so far as is reasonably practical. There are already legal requirements for local authorities to promote cooperation with relevant partners, including health in relation to improving children's well-being, and further, there are already duties on local authorities to promote contact between looked after children and their relatives including siblings, friends, and other connected people unless it is not reasonably practical or consistent with welfare.

Turning to amendment 117, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Tyler and supported by other noble Lords, it seeks to ensure that children who are or who have been looked after our consulted by the Secretary of State before making regulations under this provision. I can wholly understand the reason why the noble Lady and other noble Lords wanted to ensure that the consistent theme that we needed to have in this bill about listening to the voices of children and young people are considered in relation to these provisions.

I think we can all agree that, when young people's perspectives are heard, decision- making is more meaningful and it is more effective. Whether or not that is in relation to strategic decision-making or whether or not, absolutely crucially, it is into decisions being made about that child and where they might be placed. This clause does already require the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities and, as the noble Lady pointed out, the rather legal term any other person they consider appropriate for making regulations under this provision.

That of course can include looked after and previously looked after children, and perhaps I could commit to the noble Lady to ensuring that the consultation that will precede the making of regulations under this provision, we will ensure that children and young people's voices are heard as part of that consultation because I think it is a very fair expectation that that should happen. Also, of course, as I have suggested, local authorities to retain the responsibility of individual children here must ascertain the wishes and feelings of a looked after child before making a decision in relation to them.

Of course, the challenge here is to make sure that, in ascertaining those wishes, it isn't just about the very narrow options for placement or, in some cases, practically no options for placement, but the current market has driven us to. It is enabling a real choice, both for local authorities and for children and young people about the range of appropriate placements that might be available for them. We are therefore confident that the news of children in care and children previously looked after our already considered under this provision, and as I say, I will commit to ensuring that we make that a reality in the consultation.

Turning now to amendment 1178 tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Barran which would require Ofsted to include regional care cooperatives within local authority inspections. Firstly, it is important to be clear as I have already said twice that local authorities already have legal responsibility for strategic accommodation functions for looked after children. Regional care cooperatives will be there to bring those local authorities with their legal functions together for the purpose of providing a more strategic and strong countervailing power potentially to enable the dysfunction currently on the market to be addressed for the benefit of children and the sufficiency of the placements that are available to them.

But local authorities will ultimately remain accountable for those functions. And that is why Ofsted already expect local authority children's services and these functions, and as the legal and practical responsibilities remain with local authorities, we don't believe it is necessary for Ofsted to inspect regional care cooperatives separately. There is an issue here about whether or not how we make inspection as appropriate and focused as possible without reverting to simply seeing inspection as a way to cover all the issues all the organisations that might be delivering or assisting the delivery of functions.

The government believes that this is an appropriate and focused way to ensure that Ofsted has a view and inability to inspect these functions without duplicating that through another inspection of regional care cooperatives. Registered provision is inspected separately by Ofsted in line with the enforcement policy for they will issue to providers that are operating unlawfully and can also visit services that they believe to be operating without registration, but by its nature, and registered provision cannot be inspected, and I think there are other provisions in this bill and other things that the government is doing to help overcome that particular issue, but I think there is the appropriate coverage for provision by Ofsted in this bill.

Turning to amendment 117B which states that the introduction of regional care cooperatives doesn't affect local authorities duties under the children act 1989, I just want to reassure the lady again that nothing measures the duties placed on those local authorities in that act. As I said earlier, the role of cooperatives is about assisting local authorities by analysing future accommodation needs, by publishing sufficiency strategies, recruiting and supporting foster parents and by commissioning care places for children.

They have no role in deciding on placements for individual children. That duty will continue to be on local authorities, and this measure would not allow this placement duty to be given to regional care cooperatives through violations in the future. Turning to amendment 117D, also tabled by the noble Lady Baroness cash, these amendments would require regional care cooperatives to report various data at least quarterly and require that they assure the noble Lady. There are important requirements upon local authorities to report data on looked after children.

Those will be unaffected by the legislation. I do take her point about improving data collection, but also, the Department collect a variety of data relating to children looked after. That includes numbers of children looked after by local authority, their characteristics including gender age and ethnicity, the reasons why they are looked after, the legal status, the type of placement they are in, the distance that they are placed in, and their stability. On the important point about outcomes, the department also publishes data on their vending rates and health outcomes, data on missing children and why children cease to be looked after, as well as data on unaccounted asylum seeking children, and of course, we do also have data about the educational

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well. I thank the noble Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Minister for giving way. I had actually looked at all the data currently collected, and I am grateful to the summary and I am grateful to the summary given to the house just now, but the amendments tabled around understanding where these children understanding where these children are going and how those placements are going and how those placements work out, the specific placement with the need and planning for with the need and planning for future needs can be made.

It is also specifically directed at the numbers of places and the children who go of places and the children who go into those, and I appreciate that into those, and I appreciate that burdening any party with more data collection is never attractive, but given that this is about children given that this is about children being taken from home, placed with strangers which, even as an adult, that doesn't bear thinking about, waking in the morning and coming downstairs in a strange home.

I really implore the government to give some consideration to the basic humanity of this. This has been supported by numerous charities and cross-party support in this house. The honourable Labour MP has an independent review, and there is a consensus that what I'm not hearing, and perhaps I am missing it, around why wouldn't we seek this data so that we can improve the outcomes for these children?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I am always willing to allow noble Lords to intervene but I was actually coming to another paragraph in my speaking note which paragraph in my speaking note which I hope addresses the point that she makes. The government is not makes. The government is not suggesting that the current analysis or collection of data is sufficient. or collection of data is sufficient. That is where we intend to improve our data on placements as we set out in keeping children safe, helping in keeping children safe, helping families thrive.

This will give families thrive. This will give local authorities better information as she suggests to assess needs and as she suggests to assess needs and the longer term demand for placements, and you support the delivery of the functions that we are asking regional care are asking regional care cooperatives to do under clause 10, and it will also be published on.uk, so I don't know whether a knot that assures her that the government does have some humanity, but I take her point, and that is why I was suggesting that I come to the reassurance, I hope, that the government does want to ensure that we have better data, including to be able to address the issues around outcomes that she identified, and that is why also, we will be bringing forward a national data programme that will address the gap in national and regional data, particularly around the underlying costs of children social care placements, but we will continue to think about how we can improve the data that is available to us.

Turning now to 107D in the name of the noble Lord Lord Bellingham which would require local authorities to perform regional care cooperative to include local Integrated Care Boards in the development and governance of in the development and governance of In fact, the noble Lord was rather more concerned in proposing this amendment about the ongoing role of Integrated Care Boards in respect of safeguarding. I will come to that in safeguarding. I will come to that in a moment.

The response to the specifics of his amendment, I will say that the Government understands the importance to include health partners, in regional cooperation arrangements, to improve looked after children's outcomes. Regional cooperation arrangements are arrangements between local authorities to assist with discharging the existing specific functions towards looked after children. Local authorities, as part of those regional cooperation arrangements must continue to adhere to the duties. There is an existing legal requirement, section 10 of the children at 2004, which specifies that local authorities must make arrangements to promote the cooperation with relevant partners, including local Integrated Care Boards, to improve the well-being of children within its area.

So far as is reasonably practicable. That will apply to regional care cooperatives when carrying out functions, on behalf of local authorities. We do think it is important that ICBs, in their important role with respect to safeguarding are included in this way. The noble Lord raised specific questions about the reorganisation questions about the reorganisation A crucial statutory role in safeguarding children, protecting vulnerable children from harm and supporting the welfare of all children through vital strategic and expert interventions. The children at 2004 sets out the role of ICBs, the role of police and local authorities, statutory safeguarding partners.

These partners are under a legal duty to work together, to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area, through multiagency safeguarding arrangements. The statutory guidance working together to provide greater clarity on roles, responsibilities and expectations of safeguarding arrangements. There is, in the changes that have been proposed for in Integrated Care Boards, no change to this duty. We are currently working across government and with sector organisations to understand the impact of the proposed health reforms and we will continue to work, with local areas as they transform children's local, children's social care system.

We will continue to work with our colleagues in health in order to ensure that children's interests are and safeguarding in particular is maintained during the course of those changes. Finally, I tend to amendment 506 C, in the name of the noble Lord, which seeks to delay the commencement of these clauses until the Secretary of State has published an evaluation of the current regional care cooperative, Pathfinders. And he also raises a point about local government, reorganisation. I can assure the noble Lord and I think he raised this in a previous question, as well.

My colleagues, in the well. My colleagues, in the Department, in the MHCLG assured me that there are important transitional arrangements in place during local government reorganisation, to enable key functions, such as with respect to children to continue. I would also point out that the whole point of that regional care call to live is that they aim to make things easier for local authorities, by calling some of the arrangements, necessary. On the point about evaluating the regional care cooperatives though.

Raised by the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, the department has commissioned an independent evaluation of the Pathfinders macro. In partnership with the University of Oxford, research and practice Dr Clare Baker are expecting their first full draft report, in June, so, now. The evaluation aim is to assess the implementation and delivery of the regional care Pathfinders and to assess their long-term impact on improving the commissioning and placement of children and their outcomes. Regular findings will be used to ensure that future investment is targeted correctly and policies are developed in the most effective way.

Regular outputs from findings will be published in the gov.uk, including mandatory reports. A final report will be published at the end of the evaluation in March 2029. There will be regular learning, dissemination of findings, two key stakeholders to feed into the development of the program. Given the nature of that evaluation I'm not convinced that waiting until the end of what will be a lengthy evaluation, the most appropriate way to address the issues that currently face the care issues that currently face the care market.

Although it is the case that in clause 66. Four, we are clear that the bill will come into force on such a day as appointed by the Secretary of State may by regulations and clause 66. Five allows different commencement dates for different areas and different purposes. There are already provisions in the bill which would permit the Secretary of State to delay implementation of this clause, on regional cooperation arrangements. I do however very much hope that that won't be necessary. I think as all noble Lords have outlined, there are very considerable reasons we will need to improve the sufficiency of placements.

We need to fix a market that is broken and in order to ensure that children who are so desperately needing appropriate placements and sufficient placements are able to get them. I hope for all of those reasons noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
16:52
16:53
16:54
16:55
16:56
16:56
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Duncan of Springbank (Conservative)
-

They shouldn't be. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They shouldn't be. I beg to move. The question is, 118, after clause 10 insert the new clause as
16:56
Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the marshalled List. ... I want to speak on the same subject that he did about and subject that he did about and registered accommodation. Caught me unawares. I got the wrong notes. On amendment 114, in my name, in this group. I felt it was appropriate to group. I felt it was appropriate to make the point, in that amendment, because it really is nothing short of a scandal. Some of the most of a scandal.

Some of the most vulnerable children are regularly placed in illegal, unregistered children homes. In these settings had the least amount of scrutiny and of course, as a result, children are at increased risk of harm. Children living, in registered children's homes, benefit from the safeguarding of that regulation brings. Ofsted inspected at least once a year and an independent person every month, to check that children are kept safe. As anybody has a right to expect. Children living in unregistered children's homes do not have the safety nets.

There is also no process for assessing the quality of their care, or the suitability of the adult providing that care. As my noble friend the Minister said, in the last group of amendments, unregistered means no inspections and surely this is a situation that can't be allowed to continue. Children aged 16 to 17 in residential care are treated very differently from their slightly younger peers. In 2021 the previous government introduced provisions through secondary legislation to prohibit unregulated accommodation, for children in care, age 15 and under, but not for those aged 16 or under, but not for those aged 16 or 17.

Two years later, the previous government introduced what they deemed the public standards of a supported accommodation for children in care and care leavers. These statutory instruments are to some extent encouraged and increasingly shameful practice of keeping children in unsafe hostels, bed and breakfast, shared homes and in some cases caravan parks. All of those settings leave them without the support they need and leave them vulnerable to habitual criminals, drug gangs and sexual exploitation. An issue you have been hearing all An issue you have been hearing all too much about in the last two days.

The changes that followed in 2023, three supported accommodation, for 16 and 17-year-olds, included no requirement to provide these children, in care, with any care at all. It is important to remember they are still children. Up to the age of 18. How many parents, I would ask, would be unconcerned that their own 16 or 17 year old, leaving home, never mind moving to such totally unacceptable accommodation. I think it is appropriate to ask, why do they even exist, such places are as unregistered. No requirement for qualified staff, or managers to be trained, or even present in the accommodation.

No requirement for monthly obligations, as with registered homes. The statistics from March last year show that after 50% of 16 and 17-year-olds, in care, in England, above 800,000 were living in this what might be described as careless, often accommodation. Many North have argued against this lack of care for 16 or 17-year-olds. The changes were introduced in 2021, telling me it was one of the recommendations of the Mac Allister report, that the use of unregistered home should be brought to an end.

It hasn't happened and perhaps other noble Baroness Barran, who was the Minister responsible at the time ought to have something to say why she regarded such accommodation for 16 and 17-year-olds to be appropriate. Too often and for too long, a 16 and 17-year-olds, in care have been left to feel abandoned. This amendment would give them support and the care that they so desperately need. I suggest absolutely deserve, delivering the state as their coparent. While the bill introduces a new enforcement powers, from legal providers.

These alone are unlikely to drive the systemic change that is urgently needed. Without the national strategy to limit these illegal settings, I suggest children will remain a serious risk. This is not only a safeguarding failure, it is a financial and moral failure. Without a clear commitment from government to phase out unregistered provision, children will continue to be placed in these unsafe, inappropriate settings. Wells has already taken steps to end the use of unregistered accommodation. I suggest there is no justification for England to be left justification for England to be left
17:02
Lord Agnew of Oulton Portrait Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to support amendment 119 to look after children or those on the edge of care to have access to boarding school places where appropriate. The principles of this amendment are pretty much exactly the same as my amendment 82 for children going into care. The difference between them is that the financial benefits are possibly stronger for non-kinship care, for example, kinship carers who care for children under special guardianship orders and child amendment orders and are not entitled to the same financial support as foster carers.

I don't want to repeat word for word everything I said before on amendment 82, particularly as both noble ministers opposite were in their seats at the time, but I will give a very brief summary. Noble Lords participating in this bill know what a huge task to confront carers when taking on children more often than not from broken homes and carrying the emotional scars of the unhappiness that has emanated from this breakdown. This is why I am keen to give so much more oxygen to the prospect of offering boarding school places to children on the edge of care.

I gave the example of the report was carried out by the local authority when I was a minister responsible for this area. I think one of the most important pieces of data that came from this was that the 52 children were trapped during the three or so years this study was carried out over, 33 of them came off the at risk register, which is the most tremendous results, and I suspect not many other examples and particular types of care delivering such a significant improvement on the welfare of those children.

There are two other advantages, which one is the financial advantage because the costs are substantially lower than that of the foster care or care home route, and also, the educational outcomes were better for the children in the study than the national figures. So, this is one of those rare moments when a policy can actually deal with three problems at once and not cost any more money. That is why I am very hopeful that the government will consider the amendment. We heard also in amendment 82 the experience in Liverpool, and North story has that his career has been spent on education, and again, I am very keen to bring cross-party support to this so I was very encouraged that he was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supported. I thank the Lord for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Lord for giving way. With cross-party support, he indicates support but I did want to indicates support but I did want to clarify a point he makes in his amendment. He said a political state amendment. He said a political state in the local authority area. Can he tell us that those schools exist in every local authority area, and if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

every local authority area, and if they don't, how then would this be put into practice? There are around 35 state

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are around 35 state boarding schools in the country, but there are also a number of private boarding schools who were also ready to support, which is why I mention to support, which is why I mention the real springboard scholarships and bursaries that remain, so I completely accept the noble Lords intervention that children need to intervention that children need to be kept, wherever possible, near their original homes, but I think this was where we need some flexibility actually. We mustn't make the perfect enemy of the good, and if there is a good boarding school place which is reasonably accessible to the child, but more particularly to the foster care or kinship carer, then that is what matters, but I take on board what the noble Lord says.

At the time, the noble Baroness, when summing up on amendment 82 did speak particularly around the ability of setting, and the noble Lord is right, and in that Norfolk study, it showed that there was a very strong correlation between the improvements in the child's well-being and the length of tenure in the study. It showed 10 years of continuity made a tremendous difference. So, I do hope that you will consider this amendment, and I beg to me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 129 in my name and to which the noble in my name and to which the noble Lord has had his name, and first of all, I wanted to add my very strong
17:06
Baroness Tyler of Enfield Portrait Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
all, I wanted to add my very strong support to amendment 144 in the name of the noble Lord and to say I am sorry that I didn't manage to add my name to it. It is such an important issue. I was shocked, to be honest, when I read a report from the Children's Commissioner which said that, on last September, there were 775 children in unregistered homes, including children under the age of 10, children who had spent over 10 years in these homes, and children in entirely and appropriate settings, such as caravans, and staggeringly, the average cost was over 1500 today with an estimated total annual cost to authorities of over 400 million.

As the Children's Commissioner said, and I very much agree with her, the use of these homes is an absolute national scandal. It is vulnerable children which are being failed. We wouldn't allow it for our own children and we shouldn't allow it for those whom the state is the corporate parent, so I strongly support the phasing out of unregistered accommodation. My amendment 129 is very closely linked to the discussion we had in group one about children being placed far from home.

It is to amend the duty to prevent children in care being moved far from home and that is not in their best interests. And of course, we have heard a lot of the argument in the previous grouping, but I want to plant a few specifics. In recent years, there has been a shocking rise in the number of children in care who are moved far away from their support networks and communities. Last year, more than 1/5 of all children living more than 20 miles away from home.

It may not sound that far, but that is a very long way away from people's local support family and support networks. And in addition, more than 3000 children in care were living more than 100 miles from home. That is 4% of all children in care, and while over 800 children and the care of English local authorities were living in Scotland and Wales, and while I said there may be reasons why children have safeguarding reasons to prevent them from exploitation or harm, or to move them to wider family networks, far too often, it is simply because of a lack of appropriate local options, and as highlighted by the charity in the campaign gone too far, being moved far from their family schools can have a really significant and long-term adverse impact on their relationships, mental health, well-being, sense of identity and things we were discussing in our last session on relationships.

Clearly local authorities have recent charities, and that is why we have had a discussion we have had about reasonable care cooperatives, but particularly ensuring there is a right number and type of homes to meet the needs of children in care. So, in my view, the current sufficiency duty is not fit for purpose, and there is a lack of accountability and oversight about the extent to which sufficiency has been fulfilled, and that is the reason for bringing this amendment which seeks to strengthen this duty by requiring local authorities to plan and deliver provision and take all reasonable steps to ensure that children in care remain living within or near to the noble authority and why that is so important.

It does build on the Welsh government and I think it is something that we would really very much benefit from taking forward.
17:11
17:12
Baroness Sanderson of Welton Portrait Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to speak to amendment 130 4B in my name and to support a number of amendments in this group. This is an amendment as I appreciate that the government has an agenda in terms of planning, so it may be that this bill isn't the right vehicle, but I did just want to pick up on the proposal from the government's policy statements green paper keeping children safe and helping families thrive, that the Minister has all ready mentioned.

In here, it states that there are providers to set up homes more easily and where they are most needed. Specifically, it will consider legislative options or further changes to support the delivery of small children's homes. We know that we have seen them move away from larger homes with statistics showing that homes registered within the previous year were three places on average, and for places was the average for suspended children's homes as of suspended children's homes as of March 2024.

It has been demonstrated that we need more capacity and the children are being placed in unsuitable accommodation, and I very much support the amendment and amendment 114 which tries to deal with regulated homes, and as was said, it is quite hard to believe that these claims exist, but exist they do, and that is a capacity issue and is something that we will have to deal with. So, I appreciate that the government announced investment into the children's Home Estates last week, and that is welcome and a good thing, but there are additional measures that could deal with capacity and that relates to planning regulations.

The CMA 2022 study which has already been mentioned found that one of the main barriers to open new homes is planning permission. The authors heard they repeated concerns about failed planning applications often due to local opposition which, in their words, appears to be based on inaccurate assumptions about children's homes and children, and because we have now moved into smaller homes, the issue was further, cater by the fact that these are the exact same type of properties that families are searching for, so as a result, when providers face delays due to the planning process, even if they have been successful in getting permission, they very often lose the property because planning isn't a consideration.

So, consequently, the CMA suggested that the government should review planning requirements and consider whether smaller children's homes which can accommodate less than a specified number of residents at any one time should be required to go through the planning system. They believe that this could be a helpful corrective to the market by increasing the number of children's homes being opened, so really, my straightforward question to the Minister is whether this is something the government is still considering as suggested by the policy statement of last year, and if so, would it be possible to give any guidance as to what other legislation they think might be more The CMO predicted that using planning restrictions that were not only lead to an increase but the spread of homes.

On that note I Support for Baroness Cash's amendments and other amendments which would help tackle the problem of regional inequalities. And ensure that children's placements are more evenly distributed throughout the country. Just to reiterate what others have said, there is that very particular cruelty to taking children away from their support networks. And everything and everyone and I think as Baroness Tyler said in last week's debate, life is hard enough for these kids and stacking the cards seems grossly unfair.

Finally on this group, amendment 165 seems eminently sensible. And that will help children to stop them falling through the cracks. It is so sensible it is one of those things you are quite surprised to learn that it hasn't happened already. that it hasn't happened already.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I put my name to amendment 129, I'm very happy to do. Baroness Tyler I'm very happy to do. Baroness Tyler has made a very strong case for the sensitivity of doing something similar to make it clear that putting children beyond a certain putting children beyond a certain geographic distance from normal base geographic distance from normal base is detrimental to the well-being and health in every way possible. I put health in every way possible. I put my name to amendment 144 in the name of Lord Watson.

I think all of us agree and have heard that what is agree and have heard that what is going on is unconscionable. And I think the question, as was put very think the question, as was put very aptly is what action are we going to take to do something about it. The take to do something about it. The fact that it exists is bad enough. I think we do need to have a clear think we do need to have a clear plan to do something about it.

I will focus my remarks primarily on 165 in my name. I thank the noble Lord Young for putting this down and
17:18
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Bennett. This is to do with temporary accommodation and the effect that being moved into temporary accommodation has on young temporary accommodation has on young children. And this is a topic which the All-Party Parliamentary Group for temporary accommodation, which for temporary accommodation, which is headed by Dame Siobhan McDonagh has long campaigned for. And in has long campaigned for. And in fact, on 13 May, they met with Minister Daly from the Department of Minister Daly from the Department of education, and other Ministers from education, and other Ministers from local government, specifically to explore what can be done about this issue.

The issue, as it says are very clearly, the exclamatory statement to this amendment, this clause will identify a notification system, requiring local authorities to alert schools and GPs when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. And in order to explain why is that important, this is a direct quote from a teacher in Lewisham, about this phenomenon. " On the ground, the impact of temporary accommodation, and children,. We only hear by accident, only by us of being nosy and in the morning, being late, tired or hungry.

That is how we find out and then we do our best to support them. " We have a situation at the moment where there is a lot of inconsistency on what is happening when a child is removed with their family into temporary accommodation. Sometimes, in a very different area to where they were before, which clearly is disruptive to both education and to their health. And I education and to their health. And I understand that the upshot of that meeting was positive.

I think we still need to get colleagues in the Department of Health on side. Because there are some complications in several different levels to try to get this to work. I think there are three particular areas which, if this amendment is to be successful need to be done better. The first is a local authorities. I think there is a sort of move within the LGA, to acknowledge further councils to be compassionate councils. And there is agreement that in principle local authorities should be doing this notification, on behalf of the child.

They should be sending the receiving authority the notification, a point that was raised by the noble Baroness, Butler-Sloss, in the last group. That often takes place but it is not always taken place, which clearly it should. The LGA does actually have a very good and clear guidance on this. However, their guidance does not mention schools or general practices specifically, at all. So perhaps this is an area that could be looked at. The second is to do with technology. While government, in all forms, including a local government can spend vast amounts of money on technology.

Technology doesn't always do what you think it should be able to do. And many local authorities and naturally do not have the ability, in their current systems to send notifications easily. For example Manchester, which you would have thought is one of the larger and more sophisticated metropolitan authorities actually has to do this individually, by email. There is no way of pushing a Button and are just getting this done. And, in the previous government, the central government did ensure that the providers of technology, to local government, were able to change their data systems, so that they included rough sleeper assessment.

Where there is a will there is a way. This can be done. We hope that his Majesty's government can do something to ensure that the housing system has a notification system embedded within it, to make this notification are much more straightforward than it currently is. And the last point is to do with getting to guidance implemented. At the moment, training across schools and primary care provision is a very varied and I do not think there is necessarily an understanding, either by the schools from which the children are being moved, or the schools to which they are being moved to of the importance of having that dialogue and the same is true of the GP practices.

So for all those reasons, my Lords, I do hope that the Minister will be able to give some indication whether the initial impression that was given and the meeting with the two Ministers in May of the government being receptive to this is still the case and perhaps the noble Lady the case and perhaps the noble Lady the Minister will be able to update us Minister will be able to update us Happened since then.
17:23
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
Is a boarding school, I do think a boarding school can be a very sensible place to send children. I would not want to to be required for all children, I think that would be most unsuitable. I do think boarding school should be inside the thoughts of those wondering where to put a child. It might be it would be possible to keep the child with a particular member of the family if that family did not have that child 12 months of the year.

Which for anybody who is been a mother, everybody understands that situation, indeed father's as well. I feel particularly strongly about the amendments 144, 165, particularly strongly about unregulated accommodation. If one reads a section 17 of the Children Act 1989 there is an obligation on the local authority under 16, 17, to promote the welfare of the child. I cannot believe that local authorities who send children to unregulated places are actually complying appropriately with the law. I wonder if any local authority has ever thought about it.

Unregulated accommodation, which is being set out so well, already, isn't in fact checked. And that is extraordinary. The idea that 16, 17-year-olds are not being checked, as to how they are getting on, bearing in mind it has already been said, that they are still technically children. They are certainly at a very vulnerable age, particularly if they are in care. The other point is even adult accommodation seems to be very unsuitable. Who are they going to meet in adult accommodation. And although they may be checked, do not know how much checking there is.

I do hope the Minister will listen to these particular matters very strongly.
17:25
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to the amendment 170 tabled in my name and also to express my support. My support to the other sensible amendments in the other sensible amendments in this group. They are all individual, why wouldn't we, in my view. I do implore the Government to consider these gaps that have been so carefully thought through and proposed, before the House, today. If committee stage serves any purpose it must be to collaborate and work for the benefit of the children we are talking about.

And I won't pass the points I made in the first group, today. Data point under amendment 170 drives at the same point. I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, to think carefully. I almost had anticipated that the previous answer would address the data required already, under the Children Act. I very carefully focused this amendment on the gaps, where the data isn't already required. That is to address efficiency in care homes, over all. I've just added it seems to me that there is a body of science, around attachment and trauma which now supports emphatically supports the case for providing secure and stable environments for young people, including young adults, actually.

Because the brain isn't fully developed until well into the '20s. We know from the very timely in this debate, in the wake of the Greening gang story and the report, the Casey report, just published, that when children haven't been securely attached, have been moved in and out of care, they are at their most vulnerable. They are the most susceptible and vulnerable to being preyed on. The most easily seduced by any kindness, whatsoever and the wolf in sheep's clothing, is particularly dangerous scenario.

I do think it is really time that we found and dispense with unregulated accommodation. Very grateful to the Baroness for her comments, her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

extensive experience on that. I speak to amendment 165, to which I've added my name. In the which I've added my name. In the spirit of brevity, Lord Lucas I spirit of brevity, Lord Lucas I would also like to support 118, 144
17:28
17:28
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment one six five, which replicates an amendment that was taken in the other place which got very safe strong support. The background is that there are more and more homeless people being accepted under the homeless legislation and placed in temporary accommodation. By the nature of that legislation, most have families and have children. A child in temporary accommodation is obviously NLS advertises position than a child coming from a stable background. We need to make sure that child gets access to the services that he or she is entitled to, before hopefully, not too long they are placed in a suitable long-term accommodation.

The amendment simply requires the local authority to notify the GP and the school of the child's circumstances. As I think Baroness Anderson said, it should be good practice. If I was the head of a primary school, I would actually want to know which of my pupils were integral accommodation. If I was a GP, I would also want to know which of my chocolate patients were integral accommodation. A GP is meant to treat the patient, as well as the illness. There are real risks of children being offloaded by the school, because the head simply didn't know that that child was in a temporary accommodation.

They had decided to stay at the same school from which they were moved and the bus just takes longer to get there. Likewise if they are not registered with a GP, they may decide on prescriptions and all the other universal services that they are universal services that they are entitled to. It simply seeks the establishment as Lord Russell said, before notification protocol. After the debate, Lord Russell referred to this, admitting that the Minister is concerned. Looking at the record of that meeting, it did seem there were game changers at the simply couldn't happen.

Yes, there are some temp technical issues that need addressing. Addressing the technology used by local authorities, rather than manually. Given the title of the bill will be the children's Bill, it does seem to be that this is something the Minister could smile upon and perhaps agree to. If necessary with
17:31
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
I will be really brief, but just to declare my involvement with the contemporary accommodation. Just one stat to feed into our debate here, in the year to September 2024, 80 children who were in temporary accommodation died, and if you look at the figures going back to the database from 2019 to 2024, children who died in temporary accommodation was listed as a causal factor in their death in 74 cases. That obviously speaks to the GP issue, but also, many awards, and I can feel a few in that chamber take part in the learn with the Lord's education's programme, and I know we have many new members of the house and I want to take this chance to commend to those members about what a great product it is, and we are taking news about the House of Lords around the country into schools, but it is also a chance to speak to Head Teachers, sharing with them about what we are doing in their Lordships house and get a reaction, and I haven't got permission so I won't identify this too clearly, but in the Midlands, I was speaking to a Head Teacher at a school in a deprived area and I told her about this amendment and she went yes! I think that many people might think that the school will already know, but children and parents may well feel that this is a cause of shame, and it may go to great lengths to try to actually hide that fact, so it is really important that the school, as well as the GP, is notified.

Since we have in having an outbreak of agreement, I want to briefly comment on amendment 119 about the boarding school places and expressed my reservations about that amendment. It was only last month that Joyce ovarian, the therapist who wrote the trauma of the privileged child reflected on the impact of boarding schools on British society, and we might all reflect on its impact on politics on another day, but she identified issues with bereavement, captivity and Association with boarding schools.

I am sure the boarding schools today will say it is different now to what it was like in the old days, but what I would say is that we are talking about an institutional environment, which is what a boarding school is by definition. It's not a home environment. I wouldn't say that there would never be a case where a boarding school might be inappropriate for a child. There may be cases where that is the best option available, given the overall circumstances, but I think I have trouble with the idea of offering it to all looked after children at secondary age.

I don't think that is the appropriate approach. the appropriate approach.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support amendment 180 4B in the name of Baroness Anderson which builds on the government's own commitment in keeping children safe, helping families thrive, to look at options to reform the process, to
17:35
17:36
17:37
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
planning. I have to declare my interest as a former chief of state where I spoke repeatedly about the issues with sufficiency in many parts of taking action to enable homes in the places where they were needed. I support my noble friend Baroness Evans just said, so I won't need to cover the same points around planning. I will say that the most acute need is partly around the most expensive areas for obvious reasons, and partly around the children with the highest needs for whom it is most difficult to configure, to recruit, train, to get open where we need it when children are there, so that planning for high needs, and I would stress that the capacity planning should pay attention to the high needs children whose care accounts for a startlingly large proportion of the total spend on care.

And whose needs in the main predictable, if not from birth but from very early in life. There is a high level of certainty of that being needed all the way through their childhood, many of them will sadly also be in care homes in their adult lives. So, that focus, that urgency of doing everything that can be done to think intelligently far in advance to enable homes to open so that, at the point, at the age that children need them, we have to move within a reasonable distance of home.

I also have to re-ensure the noble Lady that the existence of children in unregistered accommodation is a serious concern for OFSTED and we spent a significant amount of our resource on putting pressure on those accepting placements to register as children's homes as they should. And I will speak very briefly on a couple of other points. The boarding proposal, I do support that for those for whom it is genuinely the right place. It is a way to create stability and a strong partnership with foster parents to make something more stable and enduring in certain cases.

The principle that it should be considered is an important one. And I will also support amendment 165 which, as others have said, it seems so obvious that one can't imagine that it isn't happening absolutely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

everywhere already. I rose to support the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rose to support the amendment 119 in the name of my friend Lord Agnew in relation to the availability of important places, and I do so to former South London boys he was rather unexpectedly sent boys he was rather unexpectedly sent away to a boarding school without
17:40
17:41
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree that all these amendments would enhance the life chances and life opportunities of looked after life opportunities of looked after children and should be seriously considered. I don't think, in the 21st-century, the word unregistered or unregulated should ever enter into our dialogue, into our vocabulary. It is not acceptable for our schools, for our children, whether it is an unregulated school or unregulated home, it should not exist, and I agree entirely, I wish I had signed the amendment.

He is actually right to call it scandalous. Have a look at the BBC panorama programme of two or three years ago where they looked after children in unregulated schools. Never mind caravans, some of them were being housed in barges. Imagine that in the winter. An unregulated provision is never inspected, anything can go on in them, the children aren't safe, and we just should not allow that to happen. And of course, OFSTED don't inspect them either. We are to our children to give them something better than that, and I agree with my friend Baroness Tyler.

We can't do that overnight, but we can make a stand and say we are not going to have children in unregistered provision and we will phase it out, and that will be a testimony to the current government. I turned to Baroness Tyler which I signed, I gave my name to, and everything she says that amendment ties into the amendment, they are very similar to what they say. I want to turn to the amendment of 119. I think that Baroness Meacher and Baroness Bennett are looking at a stereotypical view of boarding schools.

I would like to take you both to Liverpool College which was an independent school, is now an academy where the local authority by inlet after children places, and those children not only get accommodation of high quality, they get adults who properly look after them. They get sport, they get clubs, they get activities, they get outdoor pursuits, and what's more, they go to the school and get fantastic results. Now, I do agree that not every boarding school would be suitable, but if it is a choice between being on a barge or a caravan or some other damp some of the unregistered schools are, and I think a boarding school might be a better prospect not might be, would be a better prospect.

I really hadn't thought about the link between schools and GPs and looked after children moving into a particular area, and presumably, any digital age, we are about to move to a new registration system linked to NHS numbers. That has a real opportunity for us to be very joint up, and when children move into those areas, the doctor will be notified, the school will be notified, and it can only benefit the child as well. I like the idea from Baroness Cass about a national plan to ensure that we get to the same position we are in currently, so I hope the Minister, we can't wave a magic wand and expect this to happen overnight, but I think all of us in this chamber want the same things, we want the best possible opportunities for children.

Registered schools, proper provision, properly inspected and we also want our children to be as close to their local county and their family and friends as
17:45
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
This has been an excellent debate on a range of specific amendments, all of which either seek to improve the residential provision for young people, or in the case of amendment 165 require notification if a child is placed in temporary accommodation. I think this group has been named the why wouldn't we has been named the why wouldn't we group? Starting with amendment 165, I would absolutely agree with those in noble Lords who put their name to that amendment and others who spoke on it.

But in ensuring that the school and the GP are notified of the household, including a child being placed in temporary accommodation is vital. I remember speaking, I visited a primary school, in Oldham, where they had a child in temporary accommodation and discovered that she had a three-hour journey, each way, with several buses to get to school, because they did not want to change the school that they were acts. In fact, the description that my noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham gave of children being at risk of being off old, sounded exactly like what might have happened with this child, had the school not known, because all too often buses did not run, on time.

Being off rolled. They need to The parents and the child's best efforts, they might be late, or they might be very tired in class. And to think about how they can best support them. I had thought less about the GP side of things, but the examples that the noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle gave were very stark reminders of just how important those things are too. I'm very much looking forward to the Minister's response to the amendment, in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Anderson, the planning regulations in relation to small children's homes.

There is very little in practice to distinguish them from many family homes and this could unblock some of their capacity and cost constraints that local authorities face today and which are a block to achieving some of the crucial aspirations that we all have, for children in care. I am also very supportive of amendment 119, in the name of Lord Agnew. My noble friend set out the difference in outcomes, for children in care who benefited from a boarding school place.

And I hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will give this amendment serious consideration. Also I thought a very constructive proposal, very practical way forward, my noble friend, Lord Farmer offered. My noble friend Baroness Cash, with the hair amendment 170 rightly proposes that there should be a national capacity plan and was clear that her amendment needs to address gaps that exist, in the legislation, currently. With a real focus on which actions could be taken centrally, to avoid the need to place children, far from home.

Something which of course the amendment 129 in the name of Baroness Tyler also addresses. I will also be interested in the noble Baroness of the Ministers response to my noble friend, Lord Lucas is amendment, that children should not be placed in adult homes, or hostels, for all of the reasons that my noble friend resisted setting out, but which we can all imagine. I also look forward to the Minister's reply in amendments 144 in the name of her noble friend Lord Watson of Ivor Gary regarding the use of unregulated provision provision for 1716 and 17-year-olds.

The noble Lady would have heard the strength of feeling across the House on this point. Of course, underlying this is the need to create more capacity, which is why my noble friend of Baroness Sanderson's amendment and that of my noble friend, Lord Agnew are so important. Can I close, just by congratulating and agreeing with the noble Lady, Baron of in it for slipping in and amendment, which I did not know was in the scope of the legislation. But which I put my name to.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments, new clauses tabled on accommodation capacity insurance residential care, capacity insurance residential care, seeking to improve the capacity and of course most importantly the quality of provision for children quality of provision for children and young people. I really do welcome this debate. It has been a breach debate. Time constraints will breach debate. Time constraints will be put upon us, there have been a be put upon us, there have been a lot of excellent points made.

Trying to pick out the main ones that hold the whole group. Together. First of all, speaking to amendment 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, venting local authorities from accommodating looked after children in homes or hostels where children in homes or hostels where young people are over the age of 18 Orsola. The placement of children under 16, in settings other than children's homes and foster care, or other limited regulatory settings as, as we have heard, has been 21.

In April 2023 regulations were introduced for supported accommodation, the 16 and 17-year- olds, setting national standards and registration requirements for providers. These regulations have been put in place to ensure 16 and 17-year-olds can be placed in Ofsted regulated good quality accommodation. If a provider is registered, local authorities and accommodate these older children that, in the accommodation, which may also be used for over 18's. The local authority will consider this when deciding on the suitability of accommodation for the child.

Looked
17:52
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
after 16 to 17-year-olds will continue, of course, to reside in foster placements of children's homes, if this best suits their homes, if this best suits their needs. I will come back to that point, with further amendments. Turning to amendment 119,-I thank the noble Lord, Lord Agnew for tabling this amendment, on boarding school places. I can recognise he is school places. I can recognise he is determined to put more oxygen into determined to put more oxygen into this space.

This is obviously the second time in just a few days that second time in just a few days that we have been discussing this. And of course at the Government wants to ensure that all children are given the best possible opportunities to succeed. It recognises how succeed. It recognises how transformational, for some young people boarding schools have been and can be in the future. We do not believe, as I lead up before that they should be the default for all looked after children. Stable, I will impress us again, stable educational placements are crucial for ensuring consistency in their lives and for their well-being and educational outcomes.

It is absolutely critical that we treat the children individually and listen to their expressions of what they would like to happen. We must minimise disruption, but having said that, where a boarding school placement is in the best interest of the child, we want to make sure that we have that opportunity. Can I just repeat, this is why the government continues to support the Royal National children's Springboard foundations, broadening educational pathways program. Which provides placement matching and brokerage services to Children In Need and looked after children, in a state boarding and independent schools.

It is a discussion, I know we will continue to have, but I do acknowledge the comments from noble Lords and Lady Bennett and in particular, that the sum young people this may not be appropriate and we have to make sure that we are honest and in that assessment when looking at the best provision. Can I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Farmer that Baroness Berridge did do an honourable job in your absence, on the last committee day.

Turning to amendment one two nine tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler -- 129. Local authority sufficiency duty to include consideration as well as the include consideration as well as the Aryan spoken to by Lord Storey and this runs throughout the theme of these amendments, in this group. The amendments implicitly support the government's focus on sufficiency, including regional cooperation is welcome. However, the existing duties are local in providing accommodation for looked after children already include consideration for proximity to the child's home.

And so an amendment, for this purpose is not deemed to be The amendment could lead to increased use of out of area placements, ironically, because the duty to ensure sufficiency of placement is no longer focused on that area. Of course this will not align with the local authority's duty to provide accommodation, within their area, where this is within their area, where this is , we have heard this in the previous group. The amendment is not necessary to facilitate greater collaborative partnership working, or to improve sufficiency.

The government reforms around the measure and cooperatives we have heard. Establishing effective, regional partnerships are going to be so important. And of course the aim is always to assist local authorities, with their work, in this area. To ensure that they keep working with individual children, not conflicting with their needs. Can I turn to amendment 144, tabled by my noble friend, Lord Watson. I have huge respect for the comments made by my noble friend, but also by all of the other contributions to the discussions, this afternoon.

We re-acknowledge that there is still inappropriate, unregulated placements, out there and they are still being used. And what we have to do and why the Government is so focused on investing in this area, is to make sure that we come to a point where we end these practices and that can lead to so many unfavourable outcomes for young people. By way of trying to reassure, of course we know that practice isn't necessarily keeping up.

Placement of under 16's informally, unregulated accommodation was banned in September 21. In 2023, the regulations were introduced and set out, setting national standards and registration requirements for supported accommodation, which is an option for 16 to 17-year-olds. All looked after children under the age of 18 are now required to be in Ofsted, or otherwise regulated accommodation. In the majority of all looked after children continued to reside in foster placements, or children's homes. Where this is the best option to meet their needs.

The amendment actually removes the opportunity for 16 to 17-year-olds to develop their independence in a safe and supportive environment, which we believe is not appropriate. I base those comments, from talking to young people, in my local authority area who have come into the care system very late, in their childhood and where the accommodation is appropriate, regulated, they believe that this is the appropriate place for them to be. I think we need to respect that voice, coming from a young people, themselves.

I do want to stress that this is the basis of clause 13. In the bill. Believing the Ofsted needs additional enforcement powers and measures to help bring this into being. Giving Ofsted the power to impose monetary penalties, for breaches of the Care Standards Act, including four persons not registering their children's social care establishment, is absolutely paramount. Registration is vital and ensures that children are safe and staff are checked. They have the right level of oversight, through regular inspections.

There are far too many vulnerable children living in settings where there is no oversight and between April 2023 between April 2020 3 March 2024, Ofsted investigated 1,000 unregistered settings which gives us the scale of the problem, indeed we have to deal with. Ofsted can already prosecute people who run unregistered children's services. However, this is a resource intensive process and can take a very long time. The changes in legislation that we are seeking to bring in give Ofsted alternative faster enforcement powers, to tackle unregistered settings.

This power also extends to new provider oversight legislation, with Ofsted being able to find provider groups who do not comply and improve who do not comply and improve We understand that some local authorities need to place a child quickly, and we are often talking about crisis situations. Too often, crises that seem to come to a head on a Friday afternoon from experience. This leads to some very difficult decisions being made. And we have to be clear that all providers of accommodation for children should be registered with Ofsted to avoid the unfortunate Ofsted to avoid the unfortunate circumstances we have heard, and we are helping local authorities meet their sufficiency's in fostering hubs and providing additional funding for children's homes.

So, I hope I have given some reassurance around that, but we are not complacent in anyway, shape or form about this vital area that we are seeking to address through the bill. Amendment 165 table by Lord Russell concerning the notification system for when a child is placed into temporary accommodation and supported by Lord Young, Lord Hampton and Baroness Bennett, it is fair to say as has been outlined that the government is supportive of the principles behind this amendment, and I want to assure the noble Lord the government is considering options for notification system can work legally and operationally.

As we have heard, the responsible ministers across the Department have met with Dame Siobhan to discuss the design of the protocol and the list of public bodies, and officials are currently working through these matters in detail. I can't be more specific about that, but I do want to ensure about that, but I do want to ensure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that this has been taken seriously. With Minister Georgia Gould, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With Minister Georgia Gould, the pursestrings will be looser. pursestrings will be looser.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You may say that. But from personal experience again, there is personal experience again, there is no reason why local areas cannot put these arrangements in place, and if I tell you about circumstances with agencies, and I'm sure this doesn't agencies, and I'm sure this doesn't happen now, where police have gone into a situation of domestic into a situation of domestic violence and not even known that there were children hiding under the beds upstairs. This is the sort of beds upstairs.

This is the sort of shocking results of lack of joined up this of agencies not speaking to each other, and I think provisions in this bill will go a long way to making sure this becomes normal. The culture shift is normal to tell school if one of the young people has a change of circumstances that could affect them in so many different ways, so I am delighted that government ministers are coming together and we await the outcome with interest. Amendment 170 tabled by lady cash concerns the publication of a national capacity plan for children's homes intending to highlight the issue of distance placements.

I would like to begin by highlighting the government's commitment to supporting local authorities to meet duties through a range of reforms that will boost the capacity and better meet the needs capacity and better meet the needs of children in their areas, and we have added to the discussions around this amendment. Whilst the amendment would require the Secretary of State's manual, it would also take significant local authority resource to collect, collate and submit additional information on an annual basis to inform the plan, all at a time when the resources for children's services are rightly focused on implementing reforms to actively improve services.

There are a range of complex contributing factors across the sector and social care system that can lead to the use of distant placements which the government is addressing through those reforms in the bill, an investment in fostering kinship care and local authority children's homes. And absolutely paramount in these decisions is the issue of risk. Risk to the safety of a young person, and distance is a necessary factor when considering their placements. Finally, I turned to amendment 130 4B, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Sanderson, seeking to introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to carry out a review on the distinction and the planning regime between children's homes and domestic dwelling houses and consider whether this should be removed.

I would like to reassure the noble Lady the Department for Education and the Minister for Housing and local government continue to work together in this important area. In the last two years, it has been clarified by a joint Ministerial statements that planning should not restrict the timely delivery of children's homes, and we have changed the National Planning Policy Framework to make it explicit that planning authorities must plan to meet the needs of looked after children. In terms of keeping children safe, helping funds thrive, we will continue to make progress on further changes that support the delivery of children's homes where they are needed, and this includes data protection and analysis in terms of translating the data and working out how it needs to be used which is often overlooked, but from experience, dealing with an application for a small home in the water used to represent, and we went out for intensive consultation with residents living around that home, and I am pleased to say that after some scepticism and reservation, when we went through it carefully, when they met the people in the home and understood how many children would be there, it went through and it was an enormous success, and they came and asked how they could actually help support the children in the home through their local connections.

So, there are reasons to be optimistic. But there is a great deal to do which is why, as I have said before, we had this bill before us, and I thank everyone for their comments, but I hope the reasons I have outlined in these remarks that noble Lords and Baronesses will withdraw the amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that comprehensive reply. I do think the most important reply. I do think the most important amendment in this group was 144. As Lord Storey said, we should not be
18:09
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Storey said, we should not be looking at placing children in unregulated accommodation. We are taking powers in this bill to deal with unregulated schools. I hope we do that a great deal better than we have in the past. The idea that we are putting children into unregulated homes or as we address later, unregulated alternative provisions is really not acceptable. And the same local authorities that are making these placements, we are giving power to override parental judgement as to the best interests of the child.

We really need to get our thinking straight in this area. Unregulated accommodation is not acceptable. Particularly when we talk about children charging at the level that they are, and we ought to be doing something in this bill to do something clear about that. I am glad that the government says there is name to end this practice, and that it should be something that is done away with. I think we need a stronger commitment than that. I was glad to hear the support for boarding schools.

I had a miserable time at my boarding school, and I would rather have been in bell march frankly in terms of the quality of accommodation. But I have seen the hugely transformational effect it can have when it works well in terms of choosing the right child for the right school. I hope my noble friend will pursue her campaign when it comes to the planning Bill. Yes, we comes to the planning Bill. Yes, we need to be sharper than we are.

And I hope that Lord Russell will pursue 165. It is so clearly achievable, so we are moving towards a consistent thing for people because it ought to have been done, and my noble friend lady cash was told that it would be a burden on local authorities to collect the data. I do hope that the Department for Education will wander down the road to her friends at the science department. And look what they are doing with AI because that sort of function and data collection is so much quicker, so much cheaper, so much easier if you design the right systems.

And it oughtn't be a matter of cost. It ought to be a matter of course. Lastly, the response which was disappointing to response which was disappointing to my own amendment, I can't personally see that it is ever going to be right to place a 17-year-old in an adult hostel. Children take a long time to grow up. The 17-year-old is not in a position to be with trouble 25-year-olds as their principal companions, so I will look again at the noble Baronesses reply, but for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. The amendment is not moved. 119

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is not moved. 119 ZA. Not moved. Clause 11, amendment 119 A.
18:14
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

119 A. Clause 11 epitomises both the responsibility and the privilege responsibility and the privilege that we all share as lawmakers in ensuring that the law works as well as possible for those children who are extraordinarily vulnerable through no fault of their own, and I would just like to put on record my gratitude to the family justice observatory and the foundation for their expertise and their meticulous work in this area. And also, to homes to inspire the Shaw trust and Somerset county council for allowing me to visit a home where up to 2 children deprived of their liberty can live so that I could understand these issues better.

Children deprived of their liberty is face severe and immediate risks from their own actions or the actions of others. They typically face six different types of restrictions, are under constant supervision, and two thirds experience restraint. The majority live on their own. Currently, under section 25 of the children active 1989, children in care can be placed in registered secure accommodation. And when this isn't possible, local authorities can apply to the High Court for a deprivation of liberty order through their inherent jurisdiction.

This often leaves to crisis driven placements in unsuitable settings and does not address the harmful effects of restraint and isolation and is clearly intended as a measure Deprivation of liberty cases through the courts have increased from 102 in 2017, to 1280 in 2024. Recent data shows that applications to deprive a child of their liberty through the High Court are 10 times more common now than through secure accommodation orders. Worryingly, over 10% of children attend the hearing. Some aren't even aware of the reason they are deprived of their liberty, because they have deprivation of liberty order, an 89% of parents have no legal representation at any hearing at the deprivation of liberty hearing order place.

These are children who are silent. Two thirds of children deprived of their liberty in July and August of Two thirds of children deprived of their liberty in July and August 2022 was still subject to a deprivation of to order, almost 6 months later. So not only are they silent and silenced, but they are for a long time. The bill amends the section allowing children to be deprived of their liberty, other than the secure children's home.

The intention is that this will eventually reduce reliance through the High Court's and jurisdiction as local authorities lack a better option for children. This alternative accommodation could allow children to have access to placements which can provide care and treatment, while depriving them of their liberty. And of course these are children require high quality care, from a range of professionals, to have long-term stable and lasting relationships, in order to recover and thrive. But there is a risk that children will not end up receiving high quality care and treatment unless there are strong safeguards about the standard of their care.

My amendment seeks to introduce safeguards ensuring that children are deprived of their liberty, really only as a last resort. And the focus remains on their long-term outcomes. They also seek to address recommendations are made by the delegated powers for regulatory reform committee in relation to the regulatory powers in this act. Amendments of 121 and 122, in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester would ensure only registered children's homes can be used as relevant accommodation.

And that this is reflected in the establishment statement of purpose. We heard rightly, in the last group, the pressure to remove the use of unregistered children's homes. Here we have children deprived of their liberty, placed in unregistered homes. And this would clarify the government's attention, which I would applaud, only to place children in accommodation which is suitable, to provide them with a good standard of care. So it is crucial that these are children, in particular are not placed in unregistered accommodation, which we know it happens all too often, because of the need for many of them or the perception that many of them must be held on their own.

I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that governments intention, in this regard and the impact that it might have on other children, with the risk that actually pushes more of those children into our registered homes. Amendment 123, in my name, seeks to bring regular oversight, from the director of children's services, to children subject, a deprivation of liberty order. To avoid children being deprived of their liberty, for a day longer than is necessary. As I noted in my opening remarks, about two thirds of children are still deprived of their liberty, six months after an order was seared.

This amendment 123 seeks to put a bit of grit in the system to make sure these children do not get forgotten and there is an intentional decision to keep them deprived of their liberty. Amendment 124, again in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, introduces additional protections, for all looked after children, in deprived liberty. In the existing act 1989 provisions in section 1, 22 C and 31 eight A, the children's homes regulations will clearly set principles of care and this bill is an opportunity to update these principles, drawing on the family justice observatory principles of care, developed by experts of child and add a wealth of welfare, to form a guiding framework, for how to meet the needs of children with complex needs and circumstances.

So could the noble Baroness the Minister say what the government's plans are to update the principles of care, in the children's homes regulations. The separate parts of the amendment aims to achieve the following. Two K and my amendment 120, also in the name of my noble friend, Lord Farmer relate to the children secure accommodation regulations of 1991. And currently include important safeguards, which apply to children being deprived of their liberty, through section 25 of the children's act, in secure accommodation.

The safeguards include the requirement for the Secretary of State to authorise the placement of a child, authorise the placement of a child, under 13. The youngest child placed last year, in receipt of a deprivation of liberty order was seven. So the Secretary of State would have to authorise placement of a child, under 13, maximum period for orders, would need to be authorised. And requirements for people and there will be requirements for people to be appointed to review the keeping of the child, for the purposes of their welfare.

This amendment ensures that the 1991 regulations will apply to children deprived of their liberty, through the government scheme. It ensures that the regulations will first be consulted on, to update standards and requirements, in line with the latest evidence and research. Given that the youngest child deprived of their liberty, last year, was only seven years old, it does seem reasonable that the same scrutiny by the Secretary of State should apply to these children, as those health and secure accommodation, as well as the wider points, in relation to the maximum period that a child can be held and the review.

Two B ensures that they are only used as a last resort. There are concerns that these orders could unintentionally make it easier for local authorities to deprive children of their liberty, as they , for this to be granted. Every effort should be made to avoid the use of deprivation of liberty orders, whenever a child, with the better supported, cared for by family and in the community. Two C ensures the children placed only in high quality accommodation.

This will take into account how close accommodation is, to the child's home and the presence of other children, both of which combat isolation. The average distance from home, the children subject to a deprivation of liberty order is currently 56 miles. Two D makes it Is to enable recovery. Receiving high quality care gives children a better chance of having a sustained improvement in their circumstances, in the long term. Ensuring that local authorities prepare a recovery plan helps to prevent children being deprived of their liberty, only for the purposes of short-term risk management.

So again, perhaps the noble Lady the Minister can set out the government's intentions, in this area and reflect on these amendments. My amendment 127 and stresses the imperative of providing a therapeutic treatment, for a child is subject to a deprivation of liberty order. We understand that these children might need a multidisciplinary therapy and support and not meet the standard offer. So joint funding agreements would be needed to ensure appropriate, timely access, to Amendment Amendment 132, Amendment 132, in Amendment 132, in my Amendment 132, in my name, Amendment 132, in my name, that Amendment 132, in my name, that of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Storey seek to improve the oversight of the children are deprived of their liberty.

This new clause expands the legal duties of the Independent reviewing Officer, building upon a section 25 B of the Children Act 1989 and regulation 45. Three of the care planning placement and case review England regulations of 2010. Independent reviewing officers are required, overseeing and scrutinise the care plan, for the child. The aim is to ensure there is sufficient oversight, which is independent of local authority and these orders. Reporting to the children and families Court advisory and support service, would add a further level of scrutiny and a systemwide picture of implementation.

The noble Lady the Minister agree that we need robust mechanisms for oversight of these orders and if so, will she accept this amendment? Turning to amendment 119 A in my name. This seeks to establish the principle that children should always be held in the least restrictive environment There are children with complex learning disabilities and mental health problems, that are currently in residential special schools. If residential special schools were allowed to deprive a child in their care of their liberty, it would allow them to stay in that setting, rather than being moved miles away to a secure children's home, or an assessment and treatment unit, outcomes are much poorer.

Of course, any application for a deprivation of liberty order would still need the approval of the courts and the same criteria would apply. Amendment 119 B is a probing amendment to understand that the government's definition of likely to injure themselves, or others and how this threshold is applied. Amendment 120 A simply clarifies the child's right to access to education, while deprived of their liberty. Can the noble Baroness the Minister confirmed this is the case and how the legislation currently addresses this.

She will be aware that this is a core element of the Nuffield family principle of care. The current legislation doesn't include this, perhaps the government would accept my amendment. Finally, in my amendment 143 C, reflects the recommendation of the DPRRC, the extension of the powers deferred by section 2 and seven of the children act, relevant accommodation, should be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. The department has argued that it has apply the negative resolution procedure to its extended powers, to be consistent with the original legislation.

This was of course passed before the creation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory It is worth considering that in contrast the regulations relating to agency workers, agency social workers, that we were debating clause 19 are subject to the draft affirmative procedure stop surely the issues here are more worthy of parliamentary scrutiny. These powers cover the maximum length of time that a child may be deprived of their liberty, with or without the intervention of the courts. In the words of the DPRRC, this, "Seems to us to be an issue that merits a high level of parliamentary scrutiny, particularly as there is nothing on the face of the primary legislation to limit the length and period which may be specified, in regulations.

" The powers extend to the specific types of accommodation that can be used. The descriptions of the children to whom this legislation can be applied and how it may be applied. If we were starting afresh, there is no way the government would be recommending that in these regulations and be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The DPRRC wrote that in our view, a power to extend the descriptions of children to whom this section applies is equivalent to a Henry VIII power and therefore merit the level of parliamentary scrutiny, appropriate to such a power.

A much overused phrase is the most vulnerable in our society, but I think children deprived of their liberty warrant that label. I am going to move the amendments standing in my name.
18:30
18:30
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 131 in my name and I won't quite say it is a pleasure to follow and terribly important contribution of Baroness Barran, it was a terribly important contribution. I very much agree with what the noble Lady said. I think the issue she has outlined, children as young as seven, two thirds continuing at six months. It is usually disturbing. My amendment addresses a particular issue concerning children's deprivation of liberty orders and children in care.

As I said to the noble ladies, the Ministers, when we had, they kindly had a briefing on the bill. This actually arises from a campaign in 2023, called the home instead of Hancox campaign. And this really had come from a small group of people, an operator of provision of transport for children, secure transport for children, secure Who were calling for a ban on the automatic use of handcuffs, the automatic use of handcuffs. Some privatised providers of transport were using on children subject to liberty orders or it was described as on the edges of care, they were being put in handcuffs to be transported.

These are not children who have been accused of any crime, these are very vulnerable children who are being subjected to something that I think any of us would find traumatic. And this reflects testimony that was given in 2021 to the Human Rights Committee in both houses, the inquiry on protecting the rights in care settings, the welfare beam testified as I have just said many providers of secure transportation services for children on the edge of care were using handcuffs as standard and I quote from their testimony the practice is unregulated.

There is no obligation on these providers to report the use of those handcuffs and as a result of that campaign I and a number of other people, members of both houses wrote to the Government inquiring what was happening and the response we got was we will look into it and this has progressed since then and so I particularly wanted to put down this amendment to draw attention to this amendment to draw attention to the issue. I have not adjusted the transport because I really want to know what is happening in other settings for these children as well, not just transport, which is why I have seen in all of these settings I put the amendment down.

This is perhaps much more limited and I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government is planning to do something about this, it feels there is no reason to doubt this is continuing and to stop it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 126 which is in my name on this group. which is in my name on this group. This amendment would later issue for children who are under a High Court children who are under a High Court deprivation of order but who are not also looked after children under the
18:34
Baroness Berridge Portrait Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-
Children Act. 96% approximately of those children under the High Court deprivation of order are also looked after under the Children Act. And they may end about the High Court as there is a shortage of section 25 secure accommodation, only in section 25 accommodation under the Children Act can a looked after child be stripped of their liberty and that is currently a secure children's home, so they are also under that High Court .for the local authority to restrict their liberty in non-section 25 type accommodation and it seems by the move to this it may be relevant accommodation they will regularise in law their situation.

Which is 96% of the young people currently under that inherent jurisdiction deprivation of order, but there are currently 4% of children under a High Court deprivation of order who are not also looked after under the Children Act and I do want to thank the president of the family division because I believe it is his work in the family Justice Observatory when the High Court dolls as we called them started being used as a jurisdiction and I think it is only due to that work that we know that within that group we have this little group, the 4%, who are not also looked after at, so even an amended section 25 of the Children Act only refers to looked after having their liberty being restricted from what will now be known as relevant accommodation.

They would still I believe be left under the High Court jurisdiction with fewer safeguarding is. This is the whole purpose of clause 11 from a statutory system of protections and safeguards. This 4% of around about 1280 children last year are often children coming out of the mental health estate. And they have been taken into hospital for their own protection and for treatment and they are discharged and for health reasons their home is no longer suitable. In my view they are not going to pass the threshold test under the Children Act 1989 to be a looked after child.

The threshold test, philosophically, and in practice, is about harm either care or neglect of the adults or the fact that you are out of control. Neither of those circumstances seem in most cases to apply to a young person who has gone into the mental health estate and then is discharged, so whilst I recognise the imperfections of the current drafting of amendment 126, for instance it may trigger other protections of the Children Act if we deem these children to be looked after children.

I chose that mechanism to try to bring them under the safeguards that we will have four children under section 25 who are looked after children and not leave them, still, to be under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. I do hope that serves to be a mechanism for the Noble Lady and what is the situation for that small group of children. I think it was envisaged by Sir Nicholas McFarlane that he would get data through the network so that we would come to Parliament, legislate, and take this in to a statute law out of the inherent jurisdiction, but it seems to me that from amendment 126 that unless we do something for this small group of children it is going to have to required the Nuffield Foundation because there will be a need for this type of deprivation of order under the inherent jurisdiction for the group of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children I have just outlined. Lady Berridge, as I have said, is
18:38
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady Berridge, as I have said, is entirely sensible for me and my voice. I did not myself know about voice. I did not myself know about this group and it does scheme wrong in principle that they should not be treated in exactly the same way as all other children in this particularly vulnerable group, as the Baroness Barran has pointed out, they are, quite obviously, the most noble of all children. I need to declare an interest, I am a patron of the Atlas and unit in Exeter which is hysterical accommodation.

But what I am really standing up for on this is not only to understand and support in principle what the Noble Lady the Baroness Barran has said, but to express some concerns. And I will just take, as an example, clause amendment 120. If this child under 13, and that is a very sad circumstance, to have a child under 13, if this child under 13 is actually under an order of the court, the Secretary of State would not be able to deal with it.

Further than suggesting that the court order should be reversed. And I think it is important that looking at these amendments one has to bear in mind it appears that deprivation of may be able to be made without the introduction of the court but insofar as the court is concerned And And the And the Minister And the Minister knows And the Minister knows perfectly build but it does seem to me we have to be a little bit careful about the extent of the use, the suggested use of these amendments.

I entirely understand what this entails and I think it is entirely laudable as intended, but we just need to be very careful in what circumstances and will there be a court-ordered? My recollection was in the past that the section 25 orders were also made in the family proceedings Court and not a word has been said about that now and it may be that does not happen any longer, but certainly there continues to be orders under the inherent jurisdiction, so I just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make this warning to your Lordships. The Noble Lord has often seen in this chamber that it is a pleasure this chamber that it is a pleasure to follow the Noble Lord and noble to follow the Noble Lord and noble Baroness and I see it is a pleasure
18:41
Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-
Baroness and I see it is a pleasure watching says, the experience of And And to And to think And to think of And to think of our And to think of our debates. And to think of our debates. I And to think of our debates. I want And there is a robust framework for And there is a robust framework for reviewing the deprivation of and the deprivation of orders are used in other accommodation arrangements the safeguards may not be there, so there needs to be additional safeguards including the type of setting, the reasons placed and where possible independent advocacy for all children with a deprivation of order being considered in place.

And clause 11 of the bill provides a statutory framework for people deprived of liberty in accommodation other than a secure children's home to amendment section 25 of the act 1989. The parity of children homes in terms of access to legal about the current position for parents and anyone of responsibility in these cases is that they are only entitled to means tested aid. Such means tests are very restrictive and research by the Law Society has demonstrated that even those living in poverty can feel the financial eligibility test for legal aid.

Many parents are, therefore, left to navigate these complex legal proceedings on their own, and as someone that has significant hearing for children it could lead to a child being put into a placement that is many miles away from their home environment and their local network of support, mirroring the arguments that we heard in the last group of amendments. Additionally, deprivation of orders are increasingly being used to place children in unregistered accommodation due to the lack of secure children's homes.

According to figures published by the family Court statistics quarter, there were 1280 applications to the High Court for deprivation of orders for children in 2024 and of these 132 were from children under 12 years of age. The total figure represents 120% increase since the 2021 figures which, themselves, reflected a fourfold increase since 20 a fourfold increase since 2018, again, according to the Law Society. And by way of comparison, there were 261 applications for secure accommodation for children in 2024.

The baroness Berridge mentioned the Nuffield Foundation. The Nuffield family Justice Observatory found that almost 90% of parents and carers were not legally represented in any hearings and applications made under the High Court inherent jurisdiction for deprivation of orders. From such importance to these families involved, that is, surely, in worrying figure and one that I suggest is just unacceptable. Surely on a basic human rights for no child to be deprived of their liberty, particularly into an Parents having access to advice and legal representation.

There should always be access to non-means tested legal it for parents and carers, in these cases amendment 500 and 6B would provide for that.
18:45
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
I speak really as someone that has had to make these orders and in doing so I recognise these amendments are of great importance. Shining light on the deprivation of jurisdiction, which has persisted in England, at least in England and Wales, for perhaps too long. In an article in the Observer just one year ago there was trenchant criticism for the former president of the family division so James Lumley. He wrote, "When the system is routinely locking of vulnerable children in highly inappropriate settings because they are too difficult to look after, something is clearly going very, very wrong.

" He described this as a moral failure by the state and society. As has been explained, the existing statutory provision. You accommodation orders made under section 25 of the Children Act now covers only if you of those with complex needs and those requiring accommodation because they have to be protected from exploitation or That is because secure accommodation is a term which describes only registered children's homes, specifically approved by the Secretary of State which, as we have heard, there are only a limited and increasingly insufficient number available.

With the severe shortage of places in the rising need for accommodation for those whose welfare requires some restriction of liberty, that need has had to be met by applications to the High Court with authorisation under the court's inherent jurisdiction. As places cannot be found in suitable registered homes which are section 25 compliant, the High Court then has to consider whether an unregistered placement is in the child's best interest. All too often, the local authority in the proceedings and the court have to struggle when considering what is available.

The court's face usually with a short-term crisis or planned for in the short-term and limited services available, battling to keep services available, battling to keep the child safe. And in doing so, one is usually presented with only one unsatisfactory option. As the McAllister report says, courts do not take such decisions lightly. Deprivation and liberty orders are often made following a nationwide search for homes and often after the child has experienced multiple own breakdowns. The harrowing circumstances set out in these High Court judgements are a window into the dysfunction of the care system.

In practice, if it is justified, the court has to look at the distance from home, adequacy of provision, adequacy of staffing, and the nature and level in the workable restrictions required. I take one slight issue with something the noble Baroness said. Children do participate in my experience, at least in some hearings. They sometimes attend in person, but has we all know, they are often placed far too far away, certainly for the court dealing with it, and sometimes, they attend remotely.

In my experience, one his children who are depressed, traumatised and often very worried. In those circumstances, the court is not looking for what is available and for what is trying to keep the child safe. The shortage of provision and the use of deprivation have been known about for a long time and have been the subject of strong criticism from the higher judiciary who have seen what was meant only to be a last resort to become the norm, described by the Supreme Court as an imperfect stopgap.

The judiciary have felt this made that their concerns appear to be unheeded by governments and Parliament. They were also concerned that the courts were having to do what the state really should have been doing without the course for the court in most cases. This scale of the problem has been lighted by the family justice observatory whose work has been referred to as this debate, but also by others, including the BBC and responsible journalists elsewhere. I recognise that clause 11 of the bill creates a new statutory regime, and the concept of relevant accommodation, extending the places in which children can be contrived.

Much of what I have heard from the ministers on the government frontbench today has been really very reassuring, and a recognition that the government are getting to grips. Of course it remains to be seen whether what can be achieved will be a sufficient response to the difficulties created by these orders, and the independent reviews calling for more innovative types of provision and care for children. But I would support the amendments to approve what the bill intends to achieve, in particular amendment 134 which would require it to be stated that a deprivation of liberty has to be a last resort.

Amendments 128 and 127 expressly provided for education and for therapy. Amendment 123 provided for regular reviews, not reviews by the court which is what happens at the moment, but by the authorities who are responsible for that deprivation of liberty, and there is much to be said also for amendment 132, and I will also support amendment 560 providing for the availability of legal aid. I did question amendment 122 would achieve, simply because we are where we are and because of the Shaw to edge of children's homes in which there are now only 13, which is of course forced reliance on unregistered placements which are often expensive.

I think the answer to my question is that the expectation is that there will be improved registration of homes and an extension of availability of homes to address what the noble Baroness called the underlying need to increase capacity. I would also ask in respect of the government amendment, I think 128, what this will mean for placements. There are awful stories of children from Devon and Cornwall having to be placed in Scotland.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is an honour to follow Lord Meston whose wisdom and experience Meston whose wisdom and experience of court processes have been very of court processes have been very valuable to the Committee stage of this bill. I rise to speak to
18:53
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
this bill. I rise to speak to amendment 133 in my name. I have also added my name to amendment 120. Amendment 133 is information required to be published by local authority which includes information about the authorities arrangements for enabling children subject to deprivation of liberty orders to maintain strengthen and build family and social relationships. This bill picks up much of the intent of Josh MacAlister's independent review of children's social care, but one of its key emphasis, the importance of relationships could feature more properly throughout.

Josh's review drew on experts by experience board, informing his recommendations, young people and adults who have been through the care system. They said in the forward that this review was their chance to reshape the system by placing relationships front and centre. I was on the design group on that review and this emphasis came through again and again in evidence, hence the first paragraph of the report which states that what we need is a system that puts lifelong loving relationships at the heart of the care system.

It calls for a reset that starts with recognising that it is loving relationships that hold the solutions overcoming adversary. An earlier group of amendments focusing on care leavers, my noble friend said that we need to make sure that a committed relationship which comes to the four in the family group decision-making process do not fall through the cracks in children's care pathway as they walk along it. If the local authority intentionally helps a child or young person to maintain them from day one, these relationships will not only be there when the child leaves but they have the potential to transform the whole experience of being in care.

Baroness talks about the lifelong links model imported from California and thoroughly adapted and tested with the Department for Education for children and friends which ensures children have a lasting support network of relatives and others who care about them throughout their time in the care system. I have recommended it for children in youth custody and wider system with whom children deprived of their liberty are an overlapping cohort. We can overestimate the strength of the pool towards blood connections without the corporate parents gentle hands on the tiller of this area.

Many young people in or leaving care go looking on the internet and social media for family members and not all of them will be beneficial relationships. While I would like lifelong links to be included in regulations and guidance as an offer to all children in care, care leaders and those deprived of their liberty as the Minister said is being evaluated. Whatever its future, local authorities should be required to be intentional and systematic about relationships. Children in care, especially when they are in trouble in care desperately need to feel that they belong somewhere.

Mark Riddell in the government's national adviser for care leavers tells how his turnaround moment when he was around 14 years old in the Scottish care system and had just trashed the children's home where he lived after several failed placements. Here been called to the manager's office and packed his black bag to be moved on again. The first and the manager said to him was what that bag for? Mark said it is all my stuff. You're going to kick me out the manager told him we can sort out the damage but you are not leaving.

This is your home. Knowing that he belong somewhere and that people were committed to him regardless of his behaviour put him down and he is now a voice for government. Young people deprived of their liberty need a profound sense of belonging. Relationships with dedicated and compassionate staff are essential but they also need to know that they have not been abandoned by their families, friends and other things. They exist on the web and we must not let that be torn apart by the problematic experience of being deprived of their liberty.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

A couple of questions. As we have said, we found this a very humbling said, we found this a very humbling and very disturbing group, which I
18:59
18:59
18:59
Baroness Tyler of Enfield Portrait Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
was an area that I knew far too little about. I think it has just been knocked receiving anything like the transparency that it should. The two points I wanted to make a run two points I wanted to make a run amendment 127 about ensuring local amendment 127 about ensuring local authorities to provide therapeutic authorities to provide therapeutic treatment for the children who are subject to a deprivation liberty order. It did remind me of all the order. It did remind me of all the detailed scrutiny that myself and other noble Lords in the passage of other noble Lords in the passage of the mental health bill in the first few months of the year, and one of few months of the year, and one of the things that was particular in my mind was that the bill included four core principles for making decisions about detaining people into the mental-health bill, and one of them was that it would be a therapeutic benefit.

I think it was Baroness Berridge who told us that quite a few of the children would be subject to these deprivation of liberty orders and it would be part of their severe mental-health problems, and it did strike me that there are parallels between the two bills, in the same way that we have said in the mental health bill that attention must be of therapeutic benefit. I do think it makes this amendment, 127, about finding therapeutic treatment for children Final point relates to amendment 132, think it is very sensible to expand the legal duties of the officer for reasons we have heard and Independent reviewing Officer I think is important.

It is not quite the same as having advocacy and certainly another key figure that Mental Health Bill toiled over for many a long evening was ensuring the 16, 18-year-olds were detained under the act and they all had access to some form of advocacy on their behalf. It does seem to me that just hearing the debate we have had that perhaps putting it in the form of a question to the Noble Lady the Minister, what is the current arrangement? What currency does the Government have to ensure this so deeply vulnerable children do actually have the advocacy that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need. I rise to add my name to the number of amendments in this group
19:02
19:02
19:02
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
been quoted several times. Actually ignoring all the careful facts and figures I had prepared for this evening because most of them have evening because most of them have already been given by other Noble Lord and it is a principle here we do not repeat what has already been said. Rather, I would like to stick to the broad principles and the moral case and to be brief. Having been struck by the number of parallels of the situation of last resort that I work with for many resort that I work with for many decades now, around families who are made homeless.

Homelessness should be rare, short, and on repeated, and socially deprivation order for a child. It should not be something child. It should not be something that happens very often it should only ever happen though once and it should be the shortest possible time and I think a number of amendments and I think a number of amendments in this group would help to ensure that is the case. Again, when I have that is the case. Again, when I have been dealing with services for those what matters is the quality of service and I put some amendments down in the renters reform bill all around that.

Some of these amendments in the group to make sure that children that are deprived of liberty have good, solid provision of services for them. And finally, of services for them. And finally, again, dealing with hope -- my homelessness, tracking across boundaries to get to school, but here also is important that some amendments in this group would tease out that where you must deprive a child of their liberty you do it as close to where they live as possible, as close to where they belong.

And I will just echo the words of one of the noble Lords, I was really struck and impressed by the Noble Lord Pharma reminding us about love, about relationships, about belonging. If these big picture issues matter, they must be the foundation stones on which we build some of our most deprived

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children in our society. I realise quite often that we are
19:04
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I realise quite often that we are very privileged in this House that very privileged in this House that when there is a bill we get showered with briefings from all sorts of organisations and, of course, we go, oh my goodness, I did not understand this, I did not know about that. And when we come to debate in the chamber we get real expertise as we heard from Lord Preston and the Baroness Butler-Sloss who bring that added understanding and information and I think it was Baroness Bennett we mentioned earlier in the Lord's session and they said we have got real people who are experts in the field and when you listen to them you go wow and not in this debate.

So, when I looked at the briefing from the Nuffield Foundation I was just absolutely shocked. It was not something in my understanding, it was not something I particularly knew about. And then when you read the briefing, the Bishop of Manchester says, I do not want to repeat the figures but perhaps they do need to be repeated because they are quite shocking, really. That the number of children that have been deprived through the High Court is rising and it is rising and it is rising.

In 2024 it had gone about 1,800%. And these were meant to be a last resort measures actually 10 times as many applications to deprive children of their liberty in the High Court, the applications for secure accommodation orders between July and March 2023, and we have talked a lot about the voice of the child. It has sort of been a mantra in this part of the bill, the voice of the child, and yet only 10% of children were present at that hearing considering their case, so where was the voice of the child? And the other figure that quote alarmed me was that 89% of parents and carers were not represented at hearings.

Now, of course, these children are not only the most vulnerable children, they are also, in most cases, very difficult children to manage and to support. And you need highly trained and professional people to be able to do that, and, sadly, that number of people are not always available. My question to the Minister would be the final part of this briefing was that costs are escalating, not that costs are everything, but outcomes are not improving, you would think if costs are going up the averages would be improving.

I just finally want to deal with one point finally want to deal with 1.5 Baroness Bennett because it quite surprised me that she talks about children in handcuffs and the reason we are surprised about that is that one of our MPs sent a letter around seeing if we have achieved anything it is to stop the use of handcuffs on children, so I was quite shocked to children, so I was quite shocked to hear that. However I got this wrong and where this is happening we need to find out and I really looking forward to the Minister's response on this.

I added my name to amendment 132 of Manchester in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

expanding the legal duties. I would like to speak to amendment 119 to 124 very briefly and we have touched on some very important points. And I think there is something that still needs to be crystallised and, as others have crystallised and, as others have said, these are some of the most troubled children in that system and troubled children in that system and also the ones whose care is the most also the ones whose care is the most expensive of all.

Such specialised arrangements have to be made. And we have touched on the tensions here have touched on the tensions here between local authorities, the health service, and the justice system. One of the reasons for the increase in the number of orders
19:09
19:10
19:10
19:10
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
to them. The measures in close 11 brought forward by the Government seeks to bring all children who would otherwise be deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court into a statutory scheme where they will benefit from enhanced safeguards and benefit from enhanced safeguards and protections. And I will say more in response to specific amendments about those safeguards and protections. It provides a statutory protections. It provides a statutory framework to authorise the deprivation of of looked after in provision other than a secure provision other than a secure children's home where they are not in places and they cannot meet all in places and they cannot meet all of the needs of the cohort.

Noble Lords will be aware of the pressing need to ensure that these children need to ensure that these children are provided with sufficient suitable placements to meet their various needs, and that includes in Scotland which brings me to the Government amendments 125 and 128. These and movement will allow local authorities and others in Scotland to seek authorisation to deprive children of their liberty in relevant accommodation in England. As noble Lords will be aware, relevant accommodation will have the primary purpose of care and treatment.

It will also be capable of being used to deprive a child of his or her liberty. If required, in connection provision of care treatment. We are also making a consequential change to amend that language from restrict to deprive to ensure consistency with existing amendments to section 25 of the amendments to section 25 of the Children Act 1989 provided by clause 11. These amendments will ensure Scottish local authorities are able to access all forms of accommodation to enable a child that has been deprived of their liberty in a placement that best that meets their needs.

Turning to the specific amendments, firstly to amendment 1198 tabled by the Noble Lady Baroness Barran. This amendment looks to address important issues around how best to support and protect another vulnerable group of children by seeking for children that have an education Health and Care Act plan and are in residential schools to be deprived of liberty in those settings under this legislation. Of course, the primary purpose of a residential school is to educate the children living there. Each child's EHCP will have specialist requirements to meet the child's educational needs in contrast, section 25 is specifically placing looking after children, specific accommodation where there is a need to avoid absconding or injury to the child or another person due to complex drama.

Clause 11 will not require any child to move from a residential school that is meeting the child's needs. Deprivation of is required for a child living in a residential school, mechanisms other than subsection 25 can be considered. For older children, that might include an application to the court of an application to the court of protection. Turning to amendment 119B, which seeks to remove India from the clause, but as the Noble Lady spells out is probing what is meant by the terms within the criteria under section 25 of the Children Act.

I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that injury in this context we consider to have a wide meaning. Which includes physical, mental, or emotional injury. The criteria under section 25 is long-standing, and has been well tested by the courts. Perhaps I could confirm further noble and it Lady Butler-Sloss that section 25 orders are issued by the family courts. I am confident given the long-standing and well tested procedures in section 25 that it will continue to ensure that children that are deprived of their liberty will keep them safe where appropriate and necessary.

Turning appropriate and necessary. Turning to amendment 120 AF. To ensure education access for children in the new relevant accommodation outlined in clause 11, I agree with the Noble Lady that access to education for our most vulnerable children is of the utmost importance to ensure that they are able to thrive and do well in life. That is why there is substantial existing legislation in this regard. Sitting at the legal duties of local authorities to promote children's educational attainment and include educational needs within care plans, as well as regulatory requirements for children's homes to meet children's educational needs.

The intention behind relevant accommodation which will be registered children's homes is to focus on ensuring that the child obtains the relevant treatment they need which may involve depriving them of their liberty, and where they may also be able to have, for example, continued access to the community, including for education. And, of course, it is more likely to be able to provide the closeness to the community and to their homes, which several noble Lords have quite rightly said yes and important right and need of children that needs to be continued.

Turning to amendments 121 and 122, which seeks to ensure that all relevant accommodation providers are registered with Ofsted as children's homes and for this to be reflected in their statements of purpose. This is of paramount This amendment will not be necessary to ensure this is the case. People will be required to register with Ofsted as they will provide care and accommodation and meet the definition of a children's home in section 1 of the care standards act 2000.

It is already a requirement for someone who is carrying on a children's home to be registered. Turning to amendments 120, 123 and 124 which raise important points regarding the approval process for children under 13, review points for orders made under this section, and a number of specific additional safeguards for children subject to orders made under section 25 in either secure or relevant accommodation. There is, I agree, a need for clear safeguards to ensure that children are only deprived of their liberty where it is necessary.

That is why the Secretary of State already has powers to make regulations in relation to secure accommodation and the same powers will be available to the Secretary of State for relevant accommodation. We will set out maximum periods for which a deprivation of liberty can be authorised, and make it clear the Secretary of State approval will be required where a child is under 13 as is already the case in secure accommodation given their additional vulnerability. We do believe it would be practical to make the requirements that this amendment seeks not within primary legislation, but within regulations, but certainly, I want to place on record our commitment to ensuring the equivalent levels of protection in these regulations, and also, that we do that by learning from research already underway to engage with the sector in the development of regulations and guidance to ensure that they are expertly informed and meet the needs of children.

As secure children's homes and relevant accommodation are different forms of provision, we will consider what is best required for each type of accommodation. Deprivation of liberty must be a method of last resort used where required to keep children safe. This is an accepted principle in the courts, so setting this out in primary legislation would be disproportionate. It is of paramount importance that any restrictions placed on a child are appropriate and applied for no longer than absolutely necessary with robust plans to ensure children are not stuck in the cycle of crisis.

In relation to children's recovery plans, there are a number of existing duties on local authorities including the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child looked after by them, and that placement decisions are informed by a care plan including a therapeutic model of care. We are conducting a test and learn project this year in the south-east regional product to know how an assessment of a multidisciplinary team can assist with care and treatment planning for children for their placement journeys with the aim of providing stability or repatriations homes if appropriate.

Turning to amendment 127 which seeks to place a legal duty on authorities to provide therapeutic treatment for children placed in secure accommodation, that is secure children's home, there are a number of existing legal duties and requirements in relation to appropriate care provision. This ensures that looking after children have access to necessary physical and mental healthcare including therapeutic treatment where appropriate, and I do note the name about the availability of appropriate provision, so in addition, NHS England has statutory responsibility for the commissioning of health services or facilities for children in secure accommodation.

The duty means children in secure settings are able to access high quality healthcare services. Turning to a member 22 for a child's case where a local authority does not implement a recovery plan for a child deprived of their liberty under section 25, or looked after children must have a way to make sure missions are made and care plans are followed effectively. We already have a statutory power to refer to where they feel that is necessary.

Turning to amendment 126 in the name of the Lady Berridge which seeks to assure that all children who are deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court become looked after as a result. Local authorities must take positive actions were child is demonstrating that they are at risk, including requiring a deprivation of liberty. This may include putting in place a child protection plan or applying for a care order concerns are substantiated. As the noble Lady said, nothing found that 96.6 % of children on a deprivation of liberty order under the inherent jurisdiction of the court already incur the time.

Whether child is not in care, they may have disabilities that means the deprivation of liberty order is needed to keep them safe. In these cases, seeking to consider these orders may not be needed or appropriate. Furthermore, the child act is clear that the inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised if the same result can be achieved through the statutory frameworks. It is due to a deprivation of liberty order being made under the inherent jurisdiction which would bypass legal frameworks that enable a child to become looked after.

However, I am not wholly sure that I fully addressed the detail of the points made by the noble Lady in her contribution, and I will therefore look again at what she has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

said and look to write to her. It may just be the position that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It may just be the position that we are left with the residual group of children who are still going to need the inherent jurisdiction, so need the inherent jurisdiction, so it might be that the jurisdiction just doesn't reach quite far enough at the moment, so we can clarify that in the letter. I will clarify that in the letter. I will clarify it in the letter. Turning to it in the letter. Turning to amendment 131, table by Baroness amendment 131, table by Baroness Bennett around the important matter of the use of restraint on children in care and subject to deprivation in care and subject to deprivation of liberty orders, it is vital that of liberty orders, it is vital that children are safe and restraint is only used where appropriate, including when they are moving between settings and services.

We take these concerns very seriously. We will consider guidance on restraint in due course. I think the question about children being handcuffed remains and I will endeavour to get more detail about that and to come back to the noble Lady. Providers in conjunction with authorities are under an obligation to use the minimum appropriate restriction to keep that child safe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm just wondering if the government is making sure that we are providing some sort of reporting mechanism to keep track of things for so they may be cases where this is necessary, but there should be some sort of annual report on this some sort of annual report on this so we can see what the direction of travel is and see if there is a problem that needs to be tackled. problem that needs to be tackled.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

problem that needs to be tackled. I was actually coming to that. My hope that is something that will be satisfactory in relation to that satisfactory in relation to that reporting mechanism. Ofsted manage incidents of restraint on a case- incidents of restraint on a case- by-case basis under their inspection framework. The children's homes regulations face a requirement on homes to record any incidents of restraint, and for the registered person to inform Ofsted of any incident in relation to a child that they consider to be serious.

We think that Ofsted inspectors are best placed to scrutinise individual incidents of restraint and the circumstances around them, and to ensure that care providers are minimising its use. We are not clear that a yearly report aggregating that data would add in that particular case, although it would create an additional burden and risk distraction from this important work. It would be significantly less effective in safeguarding children and recording the incidents in the Ofsted approach which is currently being used.

Turning to amendment 133 tabled by Lord Farmer seeking to promote family and other social relationships for children subject to deprivation of liberty orders publishing local authority plans to support children in this regard. As mentioned in respect of the noble lady baroness, I want to reiterate the government's agreement that wherever possible, it is vital for a child's welfare to have positive family and social relationships. Given the children act 1989 and supporting guidance already seeks to ensure family and other relationships for looked after children are promoted while keeping children safe, and this forms part of the inspections of local authorities, so I'm not sure it is appropriate or necessary to increase the burden on local authorities by mandating them to publish that information.

I do recognise the points made by the noble Lord, or it may have been someone else on his behalf talking about the effectiveness of the lifelong links programme, and I think we reference that previously, and I can see the benefits that can come from it. Turning to the amendment labelled by Baroness Barran seeks regulations made under section 25 of the children act 1989, ensuring regulations on this matter are subject to the correct scrutiny. I agree that it is important.

And she has raised the delegated powers and regulatory reports in which this was raised. We are grateful to the committee for their scrutiny. We are carefully considering their recommendations, and we will respond in due course on that. Turning to amendment 500 and 6B in the name of Lord Watson, this seeks to delay commencement until regulations are made to ensure that non-means tested things will not deprive people of liberty under section 25 of the children act.

I can assure my noble friend that where an application is made to deprive a child of the result of any measure that this brings forward, those children will be viable for representation using what will be applied to all children under section 25. This means that children will be able to access legal aid without needing to satisfy means testing. I hope that noble Lords think that I have provided some of the detail requested, all of the detail requested in these amendments.

And on that basis, I beg to move, and I hope that Lords will be able to withdraw theirs.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I can ask the noble Lady what may be a rather silly question, but may be a rather silly question, but my experience with the secure accommodation is that every child accommodation is that every child needs at least two carers. Some needs at least two carers. Some children even need three. I'm just wondering how I care home, the wondering how I care home, the children's residential home is actually going to manage the child actually going to manage the child deprived of liberty because it will be an extreme case, and the child will be unbelievably difficult to will be unbelievably difficult to look after.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

look after. We believe that it is possible to find those sorts of homes supported find those sorts of homes supported by the use of technology to help maintain things for children, certainly needing a certain level of staffing as the noble Lady says. We believe it is possible and for many children preferable to be kept, to be living in those kinds of accommodations as opposed to the alternative, which is to be deprived of their liberty and to the inherent jurisdiction of the courts, and actually, some of that type of accommodation, it may well be more suitable for things like maintaining contact, having education, being contact, having education, being
19:31
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to echo the Noble Lord story. I think it was the House of Lords first mentioned with the expertise that was shared very generously by your Lordships. I also would like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her comprehensive response. And I think she addressed all that is going to come back in relation to the Noble Lady Baroness Bennett's amendment on the use of handcuffs and the specific gaps in relation to children who are not looked after retirement Noble Friend, Baroness Berridge.

And I think she also give a positive response to the Noble Lord, so so far so good. In relation Lord, so so far so good. In relation to my amendments, I think that there were some genuinely positive and helpful responses. I think there was a category, for example in relation to 119 category, for example in relation to 1198 and 119B. There was a category of response that I understand and the Noble Lady is telling the truth that these already exist, whether it be in relation to children receiving education, therapeutic support, or, indeed, that they are in a registered accommodation, but, actually, she knows as well as I do that is not working in real life, so I guess it may be the problem is a difficult one to solve, but it still needs to be solved because children are not getting an education, though I would agree with the community they have a better chance of doing so.

We know that the children have frequently been in unregistered accommodation, and as I said in my remarks they often do not meet the criteria for them to provide therapeutic support. And I also felt something distinctly promising about in relation to 143, so I live in hope. The two amendments that I wanted to just touch on briefly amendment one, two, four, which she said, I think, that she agreed for the need for clear safeguards, and the same powers would be available to the secretary of state as exists today for secure accommodation, but those powers would be set out in regulation, so I think that was the bit where, if I have understood correctly, I stopped feeling comfortable, because obviously regulations could be reversed and I do not see why you would not want the same safeguards for these children on the face of legislation as for those in secure accommodation, but I will reread what she said if I have misunderstood.

And, similarly, in relation to my amendment 132, the Independent reviewing Officer, the Noble Lady said that those powers already exist, and my amendment explicitly extends and strengthens those powers, so I would be grateful if she could perhaps reflect on her comments in relation to 132. Because we do need proper scrutiny and oversight and we do need therapy and care for these children and they do need to be in the right accommodation, but with that, I beg
19:35
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Bull (Crossbench)
-

leave to withdraw the amendment in my name. Wye is a geologist pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment, by leave, with one. Amendment, by leave, with one. Amendment 119 beta one were 29 not moved. Not moved en bloc. Amendment moved. Not moved en bloc. Amendment 125, moved formally. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. content", The contents have it.

Amendment 126, not moved. Amendment 127, Baroness Barran, not moved. Amendment 128, moved formally. The question is that amendment 128 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. The question is contents have it. The question is that clause 11 as amendments stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendments 129 and one Amendments 129 and 130, not moved en bloc, Baroness Tyler.

Not moved. Amendment 131, not moved. Amendment 132 Baroness Barran, not moved. Amendment 133, Lord Farmer, not moved. Amendment 134, Baroness Barran, not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the House resumes. We will then move on House resumes. We will then move on to the Foreign Office statement and therefore not return to the children's wellbeing and Bill before

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2015. The question is that the House be
19:37
19:37
19:37
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
I will just give the House a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will just give the House a moment to reset itself. My Lords, the Rock of Gibraltar has now been the Rock of Gibraltar has now been British for over 300 years. In 2002, 99% of Gibraltarians rejected the notion of shared sovereignty with Spain. That reaffirmed their allegiance in no uncertain terms to allegiance in no uncertain terms to Britain. It is against this background that we must consider the government's agreement on Gibraltar. To test whether it puts the interests of Gibraltarians and, of course, our own national interests, course, our own national interests, first.

We are clear that nothing first. We are clear that nothing agreed can be compromised or infringe on the sovereignty and constitutional arrangements of constitutional arrangements of Gibraltar which should remain British. The deal was to ensure that we are able to operate our military base on the rock as we have done until now in order to safeguard our defensive capabilities. But we are also clear that the deal must be backed by the Government of Gibraltar and, crucially, Gibraltar's people to support their interests. It must also address the concerns about the actions of Spain that has prevented the free flow of goods across-the-board offer is a bit is vitally important that these houses have time to carefully and properly scrutinise the deal that the Government has reached over Gibraltar.

I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will join me in recognising the importance of proper oversight scrutiny if this is to be regarded as a legitimate and proper arrangement. Could the noble Baroness the Minister therefore confirm when the House will actually get to see the full details of the deal and the treaty, given the importance of the issue, Bill the noble Baroness commit to making time available for a full discussion of this matter? One of the reasons I feel it is so vital that we in these houses are able to properly scrutinise the treaty is because I seriously question the government's ability to negotiate a good deal on behalf of the UK.

I need only mention I am sure that they will state in this case but she got as an example of poor negotiations. While this agreement may not be as gracious as Che got, it is, nonetheless, moving forward. We have seen numerous concessions made to Madrid which, potentially, threaten core principles that should underpin any agreement. One of the most significant is the end of Gibraltar's long-standing of free rein regime, a central and persistent demand from Spain. Despite clear and repeated objections from both the UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar, the agreement will also commit Spanish police officers to operate at Gibraltar's airport.

Furthermore, passengers arriving from the UK will now be subject to dual checks, first Gibraltarians authorities and then by Spanish officials acting on behalf of the EU. And the Foreign Secretary in The Other Place was in paeans to point out this is not your fault I joining Schengen. Yet, apparently, Spanish border officials would be able to stop any British citizen entering Gibraltar as the previous days have exceeded the 90 day shared limit, even if they have no intention of travelling to Spencer Matt so could I ask the Noble Lady if this is in fact true.

What other circumstances will Spanish officials be able to deny entry to British citizens into Gibraltar? To take another example, the passport requirements for entering Gibraltar are different from those required to enter the EU. To enter Gibraltar, the British citizen only needs a passport valid for the length of their stay in Gibraltar. To enter the EU, you need one valid for three months. Willie British subject, jet therefore, with a passport valid for say two months. Meet by Gibraltarians officials but then refused entry by Spanish officials? The Foreign Secretary in The Other Place stated that the vital military base would be unaffected by this agreement.

But what about service personnel arriving at the airport? Will they need to be checked and approved by the Spanish as much and that might sound a little far-fetched, but there was a fascinating report in the Telegraph only this morning about a military exercise involving British paratroopers, parachuting into the Swedish island of Gotland to reinforce our Swedish NATO partners. Well and good, you might think. What is the first thing those troops had to do upon landing? They had to report to a mobile border control van to clear immigration control.

Now, luckily, this was only an exercise, as I am not entirely convinced that a hostile Russian invasion force would happily wait around for bureaucratic formalities to be concluded before, in fact, opening fire. My Lords, these are concessions that risk demolished diminishing travel to status as a distinct jurisdiction. I must ask the noble Baroness the Minister does she accept that a good negotiation involves standard firm and principles not merely acquiescing to the demands of the other side? Because from where we stand it seems that a great many of our priorities have been sidelined and far too many of our red lines quietly raised by this Government.

So, could the noble Baroness the Minister confirm whether the red line that the last Government set out with the Government of Gibraltar have been met or whether during the negotiations and since Labour took office last year there have been any divergence from them? And the Foreign Secretary in The Other Place made great play on the insertion of clause explicitly protecting our sovereignty. Yet despite the Prime Minister of Spain, welcoming disagreement, concluding by saying all of this without announcing Spanish claims to the estimates and the return of Gibraltar.

Could the Noble Lady tell us who is right? The Foreign Secretary or the Spanish prime minister? My Lords, these houses have a responsibility to scrutinise this agreement. Not only in the interests of constitutional principle, but also for respect for the people of Gibraltar who have consistently and overwhelmingly affirmed their mission to remain British. The arrangements set out by the Government raise serious questions, and they deserve to be answered and discussed in a proper debate. People of Gibraltar deserve our full support.

They deserve transparency, they deserve proper scrutiny, and it reflects their rights, their status, and their British identity. And the agreement can be reached over brought up must respect those rights and I hope the Minister is able to answer these questions fully in her response. questions fully in her response. My Lords, I should clarify I visited Gibraltar previously, both before and after the Brexit
19:44
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
referendum. And, indeed, I have been very conscious there has been a very very conscious there has been a very practical legacy which I note that practical legacy which I note that the people of Gibraltar rejected in the people of Gibraltar rejected in almost equal numbers for those that determine their own sovereignty, and, indeed, it is the areas of difficulty and complexity that the difficulty and complexity that the people of Gibraltar had predicted as people of Gibraltar had predicted as a result of leaving the European Union that came to pass.

The immediate response of the previous immediate response of the previous Government significant figures on the benches in 2217 was Lord Howard who said we should be sending in the fleet but did not sending diplomatic forces to ensure that they would forces to ensure that they would have an agreement for the benefit of the sovereignty, economy, and the people of Gibraltar. Indeed, it was diplomatic rather than bravado measures which we very much hope that now ensure there is a resolution to those complex issues.

I note that the chief Ministers letter to us all say is that this agreement put into place the 2020 order checks agreed by previous administration and that, presumably, was not the time when the Minister but the agreements under the previous administration were all, I suspect, previews that he is asking Pistons of the Minister now. I look forward to her response. And those forward to her response. And those These benches will look closely, and if there are measures required to operationalise the agreement, we will give them proper scrutiny, and we hope that Parliament will have a considerable say in these issues, because it is worth rehearsing the principles first.

We have an unshakeable and irreducible support for the sovereignty of Gibraltar. The self-determination of the people of Gibraltar is irreducible, and any decisions made on Gibraltar need to be made with the participation of the people of Gibraltar. These are significant principles which I hope the Minister will agree with. The tests for the agreement will have to meet those but there are additional tests and they protect the people of Gibraltar's security interests, support the economy, and they will contribute to the very sensible economic relationship with Andalusia.

I have seen with myself the relationship between Andalusia and Gibraltar. And the UK Gibraltar relationship and the residents of Gibraltar which adds to the Spanish economy in particular. And Spanish workers, especially in health and social care add considerably to support the services within Gibraltar. Therefore, the human right of the daily crossings, the workers and the relationship is of considerable importance, and therefore, a workable and sensible arrangement is in the mutual interests, and I very much hope that the government has achieved that when we see all of the details.

It was up to this government to ensure that there was agreement after the almost 8 years of inactivity from the previous administration. I wish to close by asking some specific questions of the Minister that the Foreign Secretary didn't respond clarity in the House of Commons. We have known regrettably that even though acting against their own interest the Spanish government have been willing to act unilaterally over Gibraltar, and to the detriment not only of their own residence, and therefore, we cannot predict what the future governments of Spain will be, all the positions that they take.

Therefore, will the Minister recognise what will exist in the deal to ensure compliance of those deal to ensure compliance of those areas of agreement? We will look at mediation and potential adjudication, and other effective resolution mechanisms in place in the event of future possible the event of future possible unilateral actions. We hope not, but
19:50
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
we have to plan for the contingency we have to plan for the contingency that might be necessary. Even the experience of the past, given confidence that the deal will be enforceable is very important. Finally, will the Minister confirm Finally, will the Minister confirm what the lifespan of the agreement will be? And whether it will include any mechanisms so if there are those circumstances where the people of circumstances where the people of Gibraltar believe that new deals will be required, there will be an opt out mechanism.

Ultimately, we believe in ensuring the ultimate guarantee for sovereignty and therefore that should be at the heart of this agreement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank noble Lords for their comments and questions. The Lord comments and questions. The Lord opposite is spiky than his friend in opposite is spiky than his friend in opposite is spiky than his friend in the other place. She gave it rather a warmer tone of welcome than he a warmer tone of welcome than he did, but he is here to speak for the did, but he is here to speak for the government on those benches, and I government on those benches, and I do thank him for reminding us of the importance of the sovereignty of Gibraltar and the long history and military base there.

What matters is the people of Gibraltar, and that is the open border. There are 15,000 people crossing the border each day to go to work and to go about their work, and the delays and the problems that can occur, particularly as the EU looks towards implementing its entry and exit processes in a matter of months time, this would make life very, very difficult for Gibraltarians, and it was important that we were able to reach a pragmatic agreement with the EU to enable daily life to with the EU to enable daily life to continue.

There does need to be a proper oversight and scrutiny, and there will be an opportunity that happens by both houses. It will be the process that we are now familiar with, and we are aware of the debates around things. It is the process that we are legally obliged to follow, and that is the process that we use, but I also that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has been incredibly forthcoming about his views on this, and he is happy with views on this, and he is happy with the outcome of negotiations.

There have been 19 rounds of negotiations to achieve this agreement, and these negotiations started, and they have concluded now that the Foreign Secretary has been very clear in terms of paying tribute to the work of his predecessors in leading these negotiations. This has been a relatively smooth process. I should also pay tribute to my friend the Minister for in the role that he has played in bringing this about. On the role of the Spanish police, there will be checks, and if you have been through St Pancras, you will have seen the cheques which have been about making sure that before you enter the area, there is a cheque.

If there is an alert that is triggered by that cheque, you will not be instantly lifted by Spanish piker for interrogation. You will have your rates maintained. You will have access to legal advice and you will have the option to return to your departure airports to do. And, and I thank the noble Lords array going to need checks stop but the there is always a but and play- offs to be Minister, the government of Gibraltar, their own Parliamentary process to look at this up they are content that this is the right way to proceed, and the Foreign Secretary is also meeting with Gibraltar in opposition people as just to make sure that everybody is comfortable and that we can proceed because the noble Lord asked about how long this arrangement is intended to last.

It doesn't have it. Before the people of Gibraltar, so having an end to be conducive to that. The contents of this agreement packed the sovereignty of Gibraltar. There is a clause in there that says this agreement doesn't affect the
19:57
19:57
19:58
19:59
20:00
None Portrait b Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-

I declare an interest on the register. I have been privileged to visit Gibraltar on many occasions the all-party group to the Minister and his colleagues and his manatees government for the hard work over government for the hard work over many, many years it agreement which has the support of all four parties involved in the negotiations. That Steam continues to back its claim over Gibraltar and it has never backed off over that.

To make a comparison, as I may say, how we get to the continent of France or Belgium using the Eurostar system, i.e. With a French immigration officer, it is not the same at all because you will then go through And when a Spanish immigration officer will call them will be checking British passports and British passport holders and can actually refuse entry for that British citizen into a British sovereign territory. That is the difference. So, we have a Spanish officer refusing a British citizen into a British overseas territory, so I would really like some clarification on that.

Other than that, I would welcome obviously to see the detail as my Noble Friend has asked for on a number of these issues, the devil is always in the detail and, of course, what is important is that the Gibraltarians Government and the citizens of Gibraltar continue to realise that the United Kingdom will certainly always be watching their backs and should anything arise that is toward through these negotiations in the through these negotiations in the future we need to make sure that we are diligent in any oversight that takes place.
20:02
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
We simply differ in our view with regard to sovereignty, with our friends and allies in Spain, but nothing in this agreement changes the status of the sovereignty of Gibraltar, we were very clear about that, Spain understands that, that is reflected in the treaty. It is really important that we made sure that was the case because we do not want any thing to arise out of this upper the Gibraltarians sovereignty. And it is different, of course it is different, getting on the Eurostar, going to Kent and then into France, but it is the similar check and the point is it is not a full immigration process.

This is an alert as to whether there will be an outstanding warrant or a criminality issue, it would be triggered. And issue, it would be triggered. And you would immediately lose all your rights, if you were arrested or anything like that, you would have the option of going and answering questions that may arise as a result of that trigger, or you would have the option of taking legal advice and returning to your country of departure. This is a compromise. I accept that. It is something that is very unusual, and this is an unusual circumstance.

This is necessary to make sure that border stays open and that was the whole point that we were trying to negotiate in trying to achieve and that is what has been achieved and I have to say if it is the people of Gibraltar being front and centre of all of this, as everyone has said, then we need to listen to what they and their representatives are saying about this agreement and they are very warmly in support of this agreement. And I have two say I will listen to them.

If it gets to the point where they are no longer of that you then clearly they would have to think again, but they have been involved at every step of the way. We have to think about them, we would not do that, and this is an agreement that they are pleased with, and for them it is going to make such a difference to their daily lives, and to their prosperity that they're able to live and travel backwards and forwards, 15,000 people everyday that they can do something freely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

without any concern about boarders being closed or anything like that, this is a link with the Gibraltarians and I welcome them. My Lords, I wonder if I could

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I wonder if I could welcome the government's statement very warmly and declare an interest, I was involved with senior officials I was involved with senior officials in the Foreign Office in aiding the impose controls on the borders that impose controls on the borders that have done such damage and lifted have done such damage and lifted well before they joined the European Union. And I was rather surprised, as was the Noble Lord Purvis, that as was the Noble Lord Purvis, that the Noble Lord mentioned which is quite brave to do so which for the quite brave to do so which for the Gibraltarians to remain part of Gibraltarians to remain part of Britain, but eventually the other Britain, but eventually the other vote which was a huge 90% voting to stay within the European Union and which, of course, was quite correctly overwritten by the wider vote for this country, which cast Gibraltar into nine years of uncertainty, anxiety, of worry, that things would not work out.

I think an apology is due here for all those who are responsible for that action. Could I ask the Noble Lady to questions? First of all, is it the case that with a bit of luck and hope this agreement will also facilitate the Governments process of resetting the agreements in the European Union? And, in particular, the one dealing with the security compact which will now go ahead at full speed? And the second question, if I could, will she perhaps convey the very warm words of these benches and others of this House with remarkable patience and perseverance with which she pursued what is, in my view, an extremely valuable my view, an extremely valuable agreement for the Gibraltarians themselves.

I think it would be right that he should hear words of praise from those of us who have contributed less than he has done to this process. this process. I thank the Noble Lord for his work in the past that I did not know about with regards to Gibraltar. And absolutely, we will make sure that absolutely, we will make sure that they are made aware of the warmest of words that have been said in this chamber and in The Other Place about the tireless work that he has undertaken on behalf of the people of Gibraltar over very many years to make sure that their interests are reflected in the agreement that we have now made.

I will not get into the whole Brexit, I just think we are all a bit exhausted with all of that, but, as he says, there is now a reset with the EU relationship, and I think that what this shows is what could be achieved when there is a focus on people rather than perhaps our ideological hobby horses. What could be achieved with patience and pragmatism, because that is the approach that this Government is going to take and has taken to this issue but will take to all issues regarding our relationship with the EU, it is important that we restore our relationships and we have cooperation on things like security, that we get our SPS sorted out and we can work together on the challenges facing migration such as climate change, the challenges, these are all things that we need to address together in the spirit of openness and pragmatism and I think that is far more profitable for the people of this country as well.

people of this country as well.
20:09
20:10
20:11
20:13
20:13
20:15
20:15
20:16
None Portrait Amendment:134A Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-

After close 11, a member 134 a, Baroness Anderson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Anderson. I rise to speak to amendment 134 a in my name which is in one sense a fairly limited amendment can append to some of the other proposals in this group. All of which I understand because what we are trying to deal with in this group is one of the most controversial realities in children and social care, and that is the reliance on private provision and the role of private equity funds. So more than 80% of children's homes are run by for-profit companies.

A rise of more than 20% since 2010. A large proportion are owned by private equity groups carrying large levels of debt and creating instability in a sector meant to protect the most vulnerable. And it was the concerns about the markets that the noble Baroness the Minister has mentioned that led to the CMA launching in 2022, and it identified a shortage of suitable children's homes in the right places, as well as high costs. With local authorities paying excessive fees to private providers and the largest providers making materially higher profits and charging materially higher prices than they would have expected if the market was functioning effectively.

And as we have discussed in the previous group, we have seen a rise in the number of children placed in unregulated homes as the pressure to find placements has intensified. So, as you might expect, in the Explanatory Notes for this bill, and as has been stated, one of its aims is to improve local authorities ability to shape the children's social care placement market and to tackle profiteering. And there are a number of measures to address this in the bill. There are new powers for Ofsted to find unregulated homes in the present undertaking, although as we have heard, this may be doesn't go far enough.

And the Secretary of State will have the power to The profit that can be made. As has been clearing the Explanatory Notes, this is the power that would only be used if the other marketing expansions do not sufficiently improve the function of the market. Yet, as with the previous amendment that I mentioned, some of these measures mentioned in this paper have not been brought forward in this bill, and one notable exception is the proposal to improve the data that individual local authorities hold on the prices paid for private placements, and also improve the sharing of that data, hence the reason for this amendment which would require local authorities to publish annually for private placements.

This would ensure that local authorities are supported to better understand, shape and commission placements that suit the need of placements in the area and bring transparency to the cost of placements, and that is a direct quote from the government's own policy system, so I'm rather hoping that the noble Baroness the Minister sees that. If I may, I would like to given example of why this data is important and how the current system works in the interest of the larger providers while threatening the viability of the smaller operations.

I have a friend who runs a children home. He has one property. He runs it well and has children who often stay with him for a number of years. Every year, he has to fill out a spreadsheet to justify a new price uplift to the local authority for existing placements. This information means that things are fair across-the- that things are fair across-the- board. Typically, his uplift means that it was only 1.2%. However, if we are in a home with regularly changing children, it is home to set placements each time.

As a result, and only through a chance conversation, he discovered that he was being paid £1500 per week less than one of the large private providers in the area, offering the same one-to-one support for a child to very similar needs. So, the net result of all of this is that he continually struggles to keep his head above water despite being a responsible provider running the type of home which we all agreed that we need more of, and if he was able to see the data on payments made to other providers in the area, it would help him negotiate more equitably with the local authority, and in turn, that would shore up his perennially fragile position for there are benefits on the other side from the local authority.

As the words of one practitioner, if we were more transparent, there would be less chance that the providers can pick us off one by one. The government has said it will engage in the sector to bring about greater cost and price transparency, but as we know, local authorities are not great at sharing data, so I would like to ask the noble Lady the Minister if she will consider mandating the publishing of this data as part of this bill. And I understand that it has been mentioned previously that governments are rightly cautious about the number of requirements they place on local authorities, but given the level of distortion in the market and the urgent need for more suitable homes, I think there is a solid case to be made in this instance, and I suspect that in her response, the noble Baroness the Minister will point me to the regional care cooperatives, and these will of course lead to a great deal of data transparency.

What it doesn't do is solve the problem for the providers. And as with other measures in this bill, it is another late stage intervention, so it is a step to be taken such as imposing fines when things have already gone wrong, and what seems to have got lost along the way are some of those positive preventative measures that originated from the government's own policy paper, and they have just fallen by the wayside. I'll be honest, I am slightly confused as to why this is the case, but perhaps the noble Baroness can shed some light on the matter, or perhaps she might suggest that she reinstates them into this bill.

Just quickly, and some of the other amendments, it does not go as far as amendment 174 which seeks to remove the market as was mentioned, and I think that may have just fallen down now as I don't think it is feasible or desirable to ban private provision because that would only increase the capacity shortfall, and we do need responsible investment. I don't think we should be incentivised private providers from investing in capacity or do anything to further destabilise the market.

So, that is why I understand the concerns about the proposed profit cut which the CMA thinks would be unworkable, and it is also why support her amendment which would exclude individuals from financial penalties. And while I have purposefully limited my amendment to children's homes, I think the same principle of datasharing to create a fairer market would certainly apply to fostering agencies where there is a similar problem and while private investors operate less in the space of supported accommodation, it is not unheard of, so I do understand the reasoning behind amendments 140 and 142 which would like to include supported accommodation are little more in the bell, and just finally, on amendment 141, it is not my area of expertise that I am looking forward to hearing your view and I beg to move.
20:25
Baroness Tyler of Enfield Portrait Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Clause 11. Lord Storey for adding his name as well. It relates to extending the scope to covering independent providers of supported accommodation. I think this is a really important group of amendments. The whole area of financial oversight is incredibly important. I suspect we are not all going to have exactly the same views in this area. But to put things into context, I just want to make clear that I do welcome the raft of measures to strengthen the regulation oversight of the care system in the bell, particularly the new provide oversight measures, the new powers for OFSTED to find providers of unregistered children's home, the financial oversight mechanism and the profit.

I firmly believe that these measures are welcome steps in the right direction in addressing some of the structural problems facing the care system. The sort of issues we have spoken about in this chamber, things like excessively high profit levels and rising care costs at a time when local authorities are under huge financial pressure. The power imbalance of local commissioners and the largest private providers, the risk of sudden exits to high debt burdens from private equity backed providers, and the growth in unregistered children's home to be focused on.

Together, I think it is a pretty toxic mix and we've got to take this opportunity to do something about it. So that is sort of the big picture, but talking to my specific amendment, as we have already heard, the has been a significant rise in the number of children in care aged 16 and 17 who were living in supported accommodation in the last six years. The numbers have risen very, very significantly. And I think it is just important to be clear what we mean by supported accommodation.

It is the purpose of it, for young people who may have already started to make some sort of transition to more independent living but still require a fair degree of support. And many supported accommodation settings like children's homes and foster homes are run by private companies, many of which are very large, and local authorities currently have no way of knowing the debt level being carried by the private companies, and whether there is any risk of the company or provider failing financially which could have drastic implications for the settings.

So, given the number of children living in accommodation, I believe it is important that these measures in clause 14 are extended towards supported accommodation, as well as providers of children homes or fostering agencies, and my amendment would achieve this and provide a consistent approach across the different care settings, and provide a safeguard for local authorities to identify and mitigate risks to provide a 70 closing multiple supporters accommodation settings. I would say finally that nine times out of 10, the noble Lady and I agree on pretty much everything.

We are often supporting each other's amendments and talking the same debate. I don't quite share her position on removing the profit motive altogether from children motive altogether from children social care. Far more noise needs to be done to regulate it, but I do think there is a place for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

private sector in the market. It has just got to be properly regulated. It is a pleasure to follow the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to follow the naval baroness when I agree with her and when I don't and I will note the
20:29
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
phrase the noble Lady used, toxic mix, and I think there has been brought agreement around the chamber and from the government benches that we have a huge problem. The noble Lady in one of the earlier groups of the market has prevented local authorities from meeting their duties. My stress and that term, in the market. What I am postulating is the market is not the appropriate way to provide and ensure that we have the right clear places in the right place with the right services.

And that is a statement of the Green party for cervical position. We don't believe that any form of care profit should be made from it. But I think it is also, in this case, just insane. The market has driven us to this. In one of the earlier groups. It was said that the market is clearly not working, so yes, it is mighty logical position, but here, I think I have an overwhelming argument for saying that the market is just the wrong model for providing this sort of care for vulnerable young people and children.

So, to introduce and speak to my amendment, this is a new clause that would look at services for poor fit companies, so it's as we have two very simple provisions. The first is that any new institutions created under the spell should be not-for-profit, and it says that, within five years of the day of this act, what is now for profit would be converted. As Baroness Anderson said, this follows the model of what is already happening in Wales and I acknowledge that Wales is smaller than England, but Wales has shown the way and I think it is worth looking at why Wales went that way, a significant part of that decision, and there was broad agreement about listening to young people, one of the driving forces behind the decision was to listen to young people in care experience and they told the Minister we do not want people We are not eggs being sold in supermarkets, we are not a normal private landlord.

We are vulnerable young people and people making profit from the way we are being treated we don't think is right. I would really urge noble Lords to listen to that. I think looking at what the profit motive does, we were talking before about regional care cooperatives and of course one of the predecessors for that is have been regional and sub regional commission frameworks and I noticed a study from 2022 about what works the children, they found that those regional and subregional commissioning networks, that the key problem why they were not working was a lack of provider signup.

Providers thought we can make more money from the spot market so we don't want to sign up to standard contracts. That is a real threat resented to the regional care cooperative model, but it's a threat that is always going to remain there while they remain for profit companies. I take the point made by Baroness Anderson there is for profit and there is for profit, and there are better and worse. In many contexts in your Lordships house have expressed great concern about the impact the private equity and its whole model of loading down with that, this picks up the point made by Baroness Tyler in her amendment, we've seen this twice already in aged care homes where we've been through a cycle where we have gone very close to large numbers of homes closing under one private equity owner because they have loaded down with debt.

Care homes is an obvious area, in some ways it slightly less of a risk with care homes because so many are in the poorest areas with the lowest property prices. Whereas The aged care homes in areas with higher property prices they just sell the home of for development for luxury flats and that covers the debt. Nonetheless there is a real risk with that model. I would say I'm sure there are very good people running a single home with good intentions, they come back to the point about what the children themselves feel.

That they are a profit unit. And we have talked so much about how vulnerable and how badly generally society has treated these young people, I don't think we should treat these young people as a profit unit for anybody. I'm happy to argue about whether five years is exactly the right time. I'm not wedded to any of the detail of this amendment, but I'm going to ask you to listen to the children.
20:34
Baroness Thornton Portrait Baroness Thornton (Labour)
-
-
In many ways the test of the government success in performing public services will be whether we can crack the tough NUT of children Social care. It's been quite clear from the debates in the last three groups that this is a major challenge. I need to declare my interest as the founding chair of Social care UK, I'm on an APPG and I'm associate of social business international when I have been working with leaders, social enterprises providing public services for the last 10 years or so I think I might have preferred to have made the speech nearly debate at the beginning of the afternoon but I'm afraid I couldn't make it here in time for the opening of the debate.

However this is appropriate because we are talking essentially about procurement and finance. As the noble Lord said earlier in the last debate that the independent review of social -- children Social care led by Josh MacAlister described how the current system leads to unacceptable poor outcomes for children, rising costs, private equity referred to by the noble Lady and it found that care packages are dictated by the market, not by children's needs. Excessive profiteering has minimised resources and created public disgust.

His central recommendation is for government to launch a reform program, a radical reset to fix the broken care market which has failed our most vulnerable children. But whilst I absolutely welcome the government Spending Review commitment to keep family held and other reforms linked to the McAllister review, I do feel you can't throw money at children Social care and expect to get better unless we actually also change. I want to see commissioners leave the well evidenced voluntary sector, social enterprise and other forms of care to have a diverse marketplace in children Social care.

I mentioned in the second reading debate, the wonderful judo community interest company in Liverpool. Social adventures in Manchester and the Lighthouse pedagogy trust in London. All are boosting the life chances of our most vulnerable young people. All exist for public service and benefits. They are efficient, entrepreneurial, transparent and accountable. They are sustainable, they plough their profit into their social mission, often providing preventative and complemented services. These organisations win tenders in open procurement processes. Yet -- there are exceptions in the system which incentivises what you might called social washing.

Let me explain. Commissioners plan and design services to meet local needs must consider social value when choosing providers. The concept brought into law by the 2013 social value act which I was very pleased indeed to help to get onto the statute book. Scoring bids for social value means public bodies consider and try to measure public and community benefit alongside value for money. When they procure services we depend on. But in practice the system can be gained while the process inadvertently raked.

It promises outputs they will never attain and are not and are Many commissioners know that social enterprises cooperatives mutuals, leisure drafts, employee owned businesses, charities, trading charities deliver high quality public services that meet community needs. And have many have long wanted them to take a bigger role in public services was this chimes with the publics view as well so the reason Procurement Act gave commissioners new tools and tax abilities and came into force in February this year. After the Cabinet officer Minister introduce the national procurement policy and the national procurement policy and the social value procurement notice.

Which referenced the role of these kinds of organisations and the idea of co-designing with community. There is no point in having the best regulation, which I am very proud of, if we don't use it in the opportunities it gives us. Commissioners can collaborate social enterprise providers, charities and other businesses, Procurement Regulations should be an enabler not a barrier. My question to my noble friend the Minister, what in the bill will allow this real change to take place? Do we need to strengthen the bill in some ways so that they can allow these redesigns to happen? I was very struck in the earlier debate, the question of planning.

Of course it's the whole system needs to be thought of and that needs to be done. I wondered if my noble friend the Minister might for instance organise a roundtable where we could address the role of procurement to bring about the change we need in this particular marketplace before we reached report stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady Sanderson on amendment 134A. You won't be surprised to know You won't be surprised to know recently I've been championing local authorities and around the cost of authorities and around the cost of children's homes, I want to give you a bit of a reality check and to do so I'm going to quote to examples. The first example is supported living for care leavers, 21 to 25, living for care leavers, 21 to 25, nearly adults or top end.

They need very little support so to speak, very little support so to speak, they are very nearly independent and a semi detached house is created a semi detached house is created that can take up to five young
20:40
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
that can take up to five young people. Very little supervision. The cost for one of those young people in that provision is actually £500 per week. If you think about that cost, that is nearly as much as any landlord would get to actually rent out that property for a month. £2000 a month. Actually if you've got five young people in their that is one hell of a profit margin. You can see why people go down that route and why we are having to grapple with the costs.

The second case I want to quote you is again where a property had been sought and used to secure accommodation with 20 4/7 support, so it actually was worse and it was another counsel that placed in our borough, was actually worth them getting the property and having 20 4/7 support for secure accommodation, which they have obviously a decision that this was either that they couldn't afford to get that accommodation three normal routes or that this was cost value, the first thing we knew about it was when we read police reports to say this young woman who is in 24 seven secure with two people had gone missing.

I'm jumping up and down saying, we got a young child gone missing, no actually is not our child, we didn't even know this young person was in our borough. That's actually expensive accommodation and to the noble Baroness Baroness Butler-Sloss earlier on, she said that you would know if people were placed in your borough, you don't. I'm sure the Minister will have something to say about that. When you think about it addition to the knowledge that this young person is placed in your borough, that cost to consider, 24 seven care and accommodation for one person in your borough is phenomenal.

They are the things we are grappling with on a daily basis. I know local authorities are not perfect, but actually some of these things we are grappling with on a daily basis, pushes the costs up and actually some of this transparency might deal with it. I look forward to the Minister's response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was looking at this group of amendments and I must say I apologise for missing the 30 seconds, when someone says I want a quick word with you I should have jumped round and tried to politely
20:43
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
jumped round and tried to politely brush them off. All these amendments are looking at financial control. Probably it is overdue but it's extremely difficult. I think is the assumption I would make here. It's a case of transparency yes, we need something in here and the fact that as the Baroness O'Neill has just pointed out, you are actually dealing with on a last-minute we must do something basis. Having some control over that is an extremely sensible idea, but you won't get rid of the fact that it will have to be done emergency contingencies or whatever.

It's still going to happen that way. Trying to extract from the government limitations and, of what they are actually proposing here and getting it more on the record is really what we are going to. My own amendment here, I probably think I should have slightly reworded it, of all the things which are accused of costing too much, special educational is probably right up there. Often it's the private sector. Depends what you are dealing with, because there isn't a right sum of money for that.

I'm on a committee looking at the autism act at the moment, just went to see a school that had one full-time member of staff for every two pupils and TA is on top of that. Because it is needed. The private support comes in usually, they are usually coming in to support somebody who has struggled in the education system, it may not be autism, it may not be that severe. They are usually playing catch up and repair to put it front -- bluntly.

They are going to have high staffing needs, is going to vary, it's going to very to the person. I would hope actually that this transparency may be a defensive thing from people who provide a service that is needed. Knee-jerk reactions and assumptions that they are just ripping the system of are often based on people who know nothing. Let's face it. There may well be people who are ripping you off as well but both are out there. So trying to get a good idea of what the government are actually trying to get out of this, we all agree the principle but then we have dozens of different assumptions of what that means.

If we can find out what the government means in this series of amendments we will probably be able to work, hopefully this will be something that is as much of this bill has been, essentially cross-party. It's about how do we get the right answer here because the government is as in all good do democracies this is a slightly reactive bills, dealing with problems that exist. I don't say that as a great criticism of the government it is simply that it's a government it is simply that it's a I would hope that the Minister will be able to give us an idea about the government's thinking around transparency, how we get out, if for example someone is grossly overcharging you, how you would say that is happening.

That is what I hope.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arose to support Lady Sanderson's
20:47
Lord Nash Portrait Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arose to support Lady Sanderson's amendment. And also believe that the transparency should extend to the transparency should extend to the SEMD sector. -- SEND. I believe we need highly leveraged, not private investment. I understand why we are bringing forward the profit cap, because of course none of us want them looking after our children. What worries me is that these are already out of favour with the sector who are struggling to sell the assets they have in the provision of a profit cap and monetary fines is going to drive capacity art.

I really am worried about this. Who is going to replace the lack of capacity that I'm sure will result as a result of these provisions. Of course, in an ideal world many of us would like more provision for these to be run by charities or the public sector. Some have their own problems. We do not live in an ideal world. The public sector hasn't no money, charities are struggling to raise it. Most of the operators are concerned about the reputation and safety and the quality of their provision.

We need to encourage them, otherwise we will have and I predict this will result in a massive shortage of capacity, as a result of fines and cat. I am

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all for, full transparency. ... How he feels that we need to make that transition to the kind of make that transition to the kind of system that we want, if he is so worried about the reduction in worried about the reduction in capacity. And how do you deal with the profit gouging that has gone on? the profit gouging that has gone on? If you sort of say you do not have gouging, what happens when suppliers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

walk away? Transparency is a good start. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Transparency is a good start. I think it is the case and I know there are prices charged, maybe for different reasons, property prices different reasons, property prices or whatever. I think transparency. I or whatever. I think transparency. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, trying to interfere in market is generally dangerous and generally has unintended consequences. Everybody knows I am a career private equity guide. I do know that these assets are completely out of favour.

There are a number who cannot sell these a number who cannot sell these assets. They are just going to run out of money. I think the government out of money. I think the government needs to be very careful. I say that as someone who is very concerned about the sector and that is why about the sector and that is why here. I do not have any magic solutions, but I think threatening people with fines, who is going to want to run these homes? The want to run these homes? The individuals.

I think it is something that needs to be thought about very carefully.
20:50
20:50
20:51
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 140 a, in my name and propose clause 14 do not stand part of the bill. Before I turned to my own amendments I would also like to add my support to my noble friend, Baroness Anderson's amendment 134 A, which would bring, as we've heard a much needed transparency to the children's homes market and level help in the playing field for smaller and larger providers. Of course, this transparency would help negotiating the position of local authorities and regional care authorities and regional care cooperatives.

I would also like to thank my noble friend Baroness O'Neill of BRICS Lee for making it real and giving us those are very practical samples. Equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler then filled made important points about the level of profit in the area of supported accommodation which, as I understand it, from the CMA report was a some of the highest margins in the second and today provides about two thirds, three quarters as many places as children's homes do, just over 6,000, or 7% of the market, for looked after children.

Amendment 141, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as we heard next extend the profit cap to independent special schools. As the noble Lord understand extremely well, this is a very complex area and one has to be careful, given the range of provision and some of these homes offer short-term respite to foster carers, for example. So any changes would need to be thought through carefully to avoid unintended , not just on my benches, but also the noble Lady, Lady Tyler, I cannot support amendment 174, in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle.

A starting point is that there needs to be greater capacity to limit price increases and ensure a choice of suitable care. We were very clear when we were in government that we do not condone the tiering, in this market, but we do have concerns about how transition in Wales will work. To a market where there are no full profit providers. And, obviously a problem with very high price it will be only be exacerbated as a Lord Nash just explained if sufficient new capacity is created quickly, or even if capacity is withdrawn.

I do not think that such an approach can be considered, until the government has invested in new, not-for-profit or social enterprise capacity, whether that be in the local authority, or in the voluntary sector as Baroness Thornton very ably outlined. I confess it is slightly curious to be in a position of challenging the government's attempts to regulate and limit the profits of some actors in this industry which has rightly drawn criticism from the CMA, from local authority leaders and indeed many in your Lordships' House.

My amendments, on this clause and the others in this area are definitely not about defending a group of companies if they won't defend themselves. I'm simply trying to test the viability and impact of the government's proposals and I think it is important, I think there is such A-level of frustration, with the behaviour of some of the actors, in this sector, that we risk having a kind of confirmation bias that anything we change it too will be better. I think we really need to test these proposals and be confident that the solution the government proposes will work.

As we have discussed at numerous points in committee there is a fundamental problem with the lack of a residential care capacity, whether that be in relation to fostering children's homes or indeed supported accommodation. And the Competition and Markets Authority found, described the current shortfalls as a fundamental saving failing in market functioning, imposing in their words, severe limitations on their words, severe limitations on the ability of the authorities in England, Scotland and Wales and purchase placements to engage effectively with the market.

And so, we need a clear plan to address this shortage. My fundamental concern is that the measures in clauses 12 to 18 will not have the desired impact. The government seeks and actually across Lordship's House macro. Amendment 140 K is simply an example of why I do not think the plan for financial oversight regime as presented in the bill has been properly roadtested -- hundred and 40 A. 30 Z I gives the Secretary of State to arrange for an independent business review, by an external business review, by an external qualified person.

You would assume that in such cases, almost the first thing that they would look at, if it existed would be the recovery of the resolution plan set out at 13 Z G. It isn't even mentioned, the list of the recovering resolution plans are mentioned. And it would be fundamental for them, given that it covers the nature and extent of any risk to the financial sustainability of the person and the actions that they propose to take to address this, as well as impact on local authority and on children.

It makes me lose confidence this has been properly thought through. I hope the noble Baroness the Minister can either add it into the list of things, independent business review is will look at. More importantly that she can assure the House that this area has been properly considered. My amendment at clause 14 should not stand part of the bill as a probing amendment. Proposed financial oversight scheme for children social, represents part of the regulatory response to the market failures identified by the CMA.

And as with many parts of the bill, much will be set out in regulation. The scheme requires information from parent undertakings, but as the noble Lady knows, private equity structures are notoriously complex and opaque. And I wondered whether she was concerned as to whether providers might restructure, to minimise oversight burden and how the government will mitigate against this. Also I'm not clear how the scheme will address jurisdictional limitations on enforcement of Thor-based organisations. I would be grateful if she could explain and write to me with the answers particularly if it is not at her fingertips.

I think it is also reasonable to question whether the DfE has or will acquire a specialised financial and private equity expertise, needed to analyse complex corporate structures and finance arrangements effectively. Similarly it is sent in by a private equity firm. Similarly, it is the noble Lady the Minister confident the local authorities have the capability to respond to advanced warning notices. She concerned that the act of alerting local authorities about the financial responsibility of the provider can actually lead to them withdrawing and lead to the financial collapse that the scheme seeks to avoid.

I also would be grateful if she could set out how the government thinks the contingency planning will work. I wonder whether the government could have conversations with providers about how they expect to create realistic plans, given the prevailing market conditions. Surely existing supply shortages will make rapid replacement extremely rapid replacement extremely difficult and emergency costs are already unsustainable. There are a lot of questions about the impact this will have on the shape of the market. Will it result actually in more concentration in the market, because the 40 largest providers will have hit the confidence of local authorities.

It actually results in financial pressures on the smaller providers where there is less transparency. The Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill page 30, paragraph 92, states that enable us to collect analyse and store financial and business information from providers and their undertakings, we will need to build The noble Lady will recognise that governments of all colours have not had the most sparkling track record of the new IT systems. I wonder whether she could share with the House what the estimated cost and time scale is for this? Again, without investment, this is a high risk approach, to address and empower problems in provision.

It has been estimated that the profit placement, per child for a full year, rages between 50,000 and £100,000. For a child in residential care. With 8640 children in care, including those in secure accommodation, 85% in private equity homes, that is a profit of around half £1 billion, a year, according to my info, Ayatollah Khomenei. Can the Minister confirmed that she thinks the annual properties of the thinks the annual properties of the And even if my very crude calculations to hire gives a sense that the return on investment of the government buying additional homes and accepting the early amendment from Baroness Sanderson and addressing the very real capacity problem would be very high, so I would really urge the government to consider that.

I think we need a more fundamental reform of capacity to get to a place where we have public nonprofit models which would better serve the financial stability that we need, but most importantly the welfare of children. I beg to move. move.
21:03
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendments in group 4 is of the noble Lords have identified in this group. We have a market that is dysfunctional and not working appropriately. That results in the types of pressures and complexities for local authorities that we have heard about. And is described, has been described by several reports in 2022 the Competition and Markets Authority found that the children Social care placement market was dysfunctional. They found the largest private providers were making profit margins significantly above would be expected in a well-functioning market.

The LGA also found in 2023 that the 20 largest independent providers made profits exceeding £300 million in a year. There is a discrepancy between the levels of profits made in this market and those made at the considerable discrepancy and those made on average across non-financial businesses in the rest of the economy. I don't necessarily believe, well I don't believe that there shouldn't be a market in this particular area, but it is completely clear that the excess profits being made are not the sign of a properly functioning market, they are the sign of a market which is distorted, dysfunctional and is failing to serve children and young people and the local authorities who are paying the costs in terms of funding the profits as opposed to investing in their children.

We clearly need to make reforms and that is what this bill is partly about, although I will say, I will come to some of the other reforms not included in this builder also part of the overall program additionally. Local authorities currently have no way of knowing if they provide all members of its wider corporate group is at risk of failing financially. That is why amendments in this group cover clauses 14 and 15 of the bill and related issues.

I will start by addressing Baroness Barran's point about clause 14 as a whole in the clause than part debate. -- Stand part. Clause 14 introduces a new financial oversight scheme for children Social care, a key part of our wider reforms to the market. We are aware that a provider of children Social care places suddenly closing the provision as a result of financial failure could have a significant detrimental impact on the care and stability of where children and young people live.

Currently local authorities have no way of knowing if a private provider or its corporate owners are at risk of failing financially. If a large provider were to fail and suddenly exit the market without warning it could be difficult for local authorities to find alternative placements for those children or places that are appropriately met their needs. That's why we are developing this new financial oversight scheme in children's social care. This will for the first time increase financial and corporate transparency of difficult to replace children Social care providers and allow for an accurate real-time assessment of financial risk and strengthened formal planning.

Baroness Barran rightly asks some detailed questions about how the system will work. We are not of course developing this completely from first principles, we have worked closely with the care quality commission to learn from their existing market oversight scheme that operates for a similar purpose in adult social and which was set up in the wake of the collapse of southern cross in 2011. We are confident that this is something that we can operationalise and make effective.

The way in which the scheme is being designed means that those on the scheme will also be those on the scheme will also be required to submit a recovery and resolution plan containing information on risks to a providers financial stability and plans to reduce those risks. The Secretary of State may also require providers or a corporate group member on the scheme of heightened financial risk to undergo an independent business review. The noble Lady I will come to her particular amendment but she asks about whether or not the independent business review would use the recovery and resolution plan, for reasons I will explain I think those are two important, although slightly separate elements of the scheme.

Turning to amendment 134 a in the name of Baroness Sanderson which seeks to require all know -- local authorities to publish the prices they pay for private placements a children's home on an annual basis, before I get into the detail of the amendment, the noble Lady suggested that other parts of the overarching strategy that we have to put right this failing market were potentially not being taken forward. That is just not right. The fact that something is not in this legislation doesn't mean that it isn't part of the government overall approach to improving the sufficiency of placement.

Alongside the legislative provisions in this bill we are also, I touched on this earlier on, developing a national data program to address that gap in national and regional data around the underlying costs of children Social care placement, are also extending our national support program to provide additional support to local authorities in forecasting commissioning and market shaping, we are of course investing considerably local authority capacity, £560 million capital investment between now and 29 /32 expand children's homes and foster care placements alongside additional investment in foster care sufficiency.

We are on the point about market diversification made by my noble friend Baroness Thornton we are exploring options to encourage new providers such as charities and ethical investors to enter the market and I will certainly talk to my honourable friend minister day be about the way in which we can bring people in potentially to a roundtable to think about that market diversification. We are improving both the workforce and the registration of new children's homes and supported accommodation in order to support the reforms we are making to the market.

This is a wide- ranging strategic and important program of work and what we are looking at in this bill is the legislative elements of that. I do agree with those noble Lords who have talked about the importance of data transparency that will be part of our wider package of measures and this will cover not only placements in children's homes but also fostering and supported accommodation placements. I'm glad Baroness Sanderson is supportive of the need for this change, I would like to reassure her of our ongoing commitment to it.

We want to ensure that local authorities have the necessary information, capability and tools to shape the market, negotiate more effectively, secure better suited placements and to achieve writer value for money. -- Greater value it is also a function of appropriately working market that there is better and clearer information than has been the case up until now. On the point about whether or not and how we do that with the local authorities, we are clear that these changes should be supported in nature rather than seeking to add additional burdens to local authorities, for that reason we are considering the best way to help local authorities to make informed decisions when commissioning placements.

Utilising the data we expect to collect on costs and how they can provide better data and cost transparency and we will be outlining more plant on that in due course. I agree on the principle about the need for much better information. Turning to amendment 140 tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Tyler which seeks to apply the natural oversight scheme to providers of supported accommodation, I would like to reassure noble Lords that supported accommodation providers will be in scope for the financial oversight scheme.

They are not on the face of the bill because that reflects how this type of provision is dealt with in the Care Standards Act, the Care Standards Act was extended to cover supported accommodation by regulations. So to ensure consistency we will similarly apply natural oversight to supported accommodation through regulation, this will occur once the financial oversight scheme comes into force. The scheme will increase financial and corporate transparency as I've said of the most difficult to replace providers of supported accommodation alongside the other forms of provision that have already been identified.

Turning to amendment 148 tabled by Baroness Barran, here is where we get into some of the detail about the independent business review and the recovery and resolution plan. I want to reassure the noble Lady that the independent qualified person undertaking the IBA will of course be able to request the providers recovery and resolution plan if that is necessary to inform their assessment. The RRP is a proactive contingency plan which requires providers to mitigate risks and prepare the worst case scenario of financial failure in a way that minimises negative impacts on children.

Upon submission providers RRP will be reviewed by experts in my department, and yes, I can assure the noble Lady that of course we will ensure that we have the appropriate expertise in order to be able to do that, but as I say, as we are basing this on a similar model for adult social I think there is a good learning and understanding about what will be required there. Separately, if we judge that there is a significant risk to a providers financial sustainability the Department may instruct a qualified person to conduct an independent review of their business.

The IRB will examine the nature and extent of risks to a providers financial stability -- sustainability and will provide additional assurances to the Department in its assessment of financial risk. As I say, that will include... That may well include a consideration of the RRP, and of course at the independent review of the business may well be carried out by people with specific, will be carried out by people with specific expertise in this area where we may well need to look to particular well need to look to particular The noble Lady also asked me about the advanced warning.

It is of course the case that we will need to be careful and sophisticated about the point at which we issue an advanced warning, on the basis that that itself, of course, could cause commissioners to withdraw children from a provider and therefore precipitate what we are all trying to avoid. So finding the right That will be something that we will consider very carefully. In order to ensure that local authorities can make the necessary contingency arrangements, if necessary, without precipitating the failure of, precisely, the organisation that we are trying to ensure does not leave the market at that particular point.

Turning now to amendment 141, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington which seeks to extend the powers to cap profits in clause 15 to cover independent schools, wholly concerned with the provision of education and care of people with SEND. I would like to assure the noble Lord that we really do appreciate the challenges in the SEND system, including the disproportionate costs and the profit making of some independent schools. I do not think that this approach is the appropriate way to respond to that.

The school system doesn't operate as a market, in the same way as the placement market does. Because, of course placement there are made through the statutory Education, Health, and Care Plan process. Policy interventions are designed for the children social care market, may not be the best way forward for SEND. We are however, in our consideration of SEND reform, that we will set out in due course, considering very carefully the place of profit, in a special schools. This is certainly something we will return to and we will have more to say about.

Turning, finally to the amendment 174 tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, which seeks to ban for making provision in children's social care. I think we all agree that profiteering for providing children social is unacceptable. The failure of the market through the unacceptable levels of profit that have emerged is neither good, for our local authorities, or for the nature of the market and those who genuinely want to provide high quality provision, enormously important for the children who need that provision.

Our thought is that rather than banning profit entirely, taking a more balanced approach is to be announced in keeping children safe, helping families thrive with a whole range of ages that I've Is more proportionate. There is a good work being done by some private providers, but what we want to do is to ensure that all providers are delivering high quality placements for children at sustainable cost to the taxpayer. We will continue to evaluate the state of the market, and if significant behavioural and if significant behavioural change from providers is not seen we will not hesitate to use the new powers to cap powers in clause 15 of this bill.

I know we are going to talk about in a later group, as well. I think there are probably some elements of the particular questions that Baroness Barran asked me, about the about the detailed operation of the financial oversight scheme, that they haven't managed to cover in this response. I will go back and look at her questions and make sure that I write to her on any that I have not been able to cover, in this response. On that basis I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
21:20
Baroness Sanderson of Welton Portrait Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her response and I would like to thank all of the four very interesting debates. I won't be very long, as debates. I won't be very long, as usual. Just very quickly, I want to say to Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. I genuinely have real sympathy for children that you mentioned and how it makes them feel. I believe in the voice of the child. It would be inappropriate to say otherwise.

I did agree with Lord Addington that he said that in some senses this is a reactive and we are dealing with the problems that we have here and now and, as Lord Nash and Baroness Barran said, one of the biggest problems is that we have caused a lot of the problems we have spoken about, and all of these days the committee, capacity. I think really what we have to do is just address the fact of capacity and the spread, the geographical spread of capacity, as well.

I just... Baroness O'Neill, she brings the experience and she is able to tell us what it is really like. Also I was really pleased that she said she thought this could be helpful, in terms of grappling with some of the problems that local authorities face. Baroness O'Neill says, it probably will be helpful. I was very encouraged by that. It might be helpful, I think in other areas. Baroness Tyler, the extent of the support of the market and the support of the market and the levels.

Baroness Thornton I thought made some very interesting points. I was going to suggest that the government did take up the offer of the roundtable. I was very interested. They are doing that already. To the Ministers points, I kind of knew having sat through last Thursday's debate and I thought I'm gonna end up with their Ministers and not everything is of a legislation box. And I do take the point and I think of course that there is a wider body of work and in the last amendment that I had spoken I mentioned that wider body of work.

I'm very happy to acknowledge it. I just think the difference here is that everyone says this, don't they. I actually think that it is great to have better data and it is great to have that improvement with local authorities. I'm not clear how it will help the smaller and private providers and the capacity was mentioned. Unless we kind of mandate that publishing I do not think it will happen. It does feel a little one-sided. On that note I actually think I'm afraid I'm going to put this back out of the box of legislation.

On that note, for now I bed to withdraw my amendment.
21:23
21:24
None Portrait Amendment:135 Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-

I rise to speak to amendments 135, hundred and 36, hundred 37, hundred and 38 and hundred and 38 A B C, in my name. Clause 12, provides an oversight scheme which, according to the Department's policy summary creates the ability to for Ofsted to creates the ability to for Ofsted to act, and scale and pace. When there is poor quality in multiple settings and agencies owned by a single provider group. It will require providers of two or more homes or agencies to implement an improvement plan, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the registration of the two, of two or more of the establishments or agencies should cancelled.

And we support, in the principal approach of giving Ofsted the power to intervene at a group, rather than at an individual home level. However, I do have remaining concerns about this clause. My overarching concern is that this approach may not be effective in getting providers to meet the required standards. Rather, I fear it risks turning into a letter writing competition between Ofsted and the providers. And thinking of a similar approach to independent schools who do not meet the independent school standards, frequently in relation to the teaching of PSHE.

These schools are face sanctions, are required to improve, the need to present a plan for meeting the standards. In my time in the department, despite the best efforts of officials, the names on the fairly long list, barely changed. I appreciate that the context and the reasons for non- compliance are different. I hope that the noble Lady, the Minister can convince me that this regime will be more effective. Secondly, the policy note talks about requiring standards not being met. Surely there is a spectrum of breaches of the standards.

Some which will require the cancellation of the registration as the bill is drafted and some which will require an improvement plan. While I understand that clause 12 is intended to sit alongside the existing regulatory regime of individual homes, it is unclear to me how they will mesh together and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister could explain. My amendments 135 and 136 require an immediate inspection where the preachers breaches of the standards indicates safety of children. 137 encourages the use of regulation for all visitors to make an unannounced visit to establish if there are lower-level breaches.

If these are est then the visitor can make a recommendation to Ofsted, which of course Ofsted is and obliged to accept, about what they have received. I think the idea and trying to get across is that having immediate eyes and boots on the ground, so to speak is essential when there are serious safeguarding concerns. I remember a case when I was in the Department of a particular children's home group, where two of their homes were judged to be inadequate. I requested all of the other homes of the group should be immediately inspect did -- inspected and that did happen.

It may be that the Minister was so these amendments are needed. It would help to have the explanation of record on how they expect us to work in practice. Thirdly my amendments 138 A B C require communication who may be permit commissioning a provider where there are concerns to make sure it is shared. I appreciate that this may be difficult in reality but as we just discussed there is a similar provision of the financial oversight regime. I assume this is something that the Department has considered.

Finally, there are a number of specific questions which might form the basis of some tidying up government amendments act report which is set behind my amendment 138 % I'm not expecting the noble Baroness at the Minister to have the answer to everyone. If she would like to write to me that's absolutely fine. How is a reasonably, how is that defined? Is that recent? If so how recent inspection was it from wider intelligent. Secondly an individual with a significant problem and management of the parent undertaking defined.

Is that a director, do they have to be registered at Companies House? What happens if it is an offshore on page 19, line 3, subsection 7, I wonder if the Minister can confirm that the period referred to four D is correct when referred to four D is correct when it must say it is less than 28 days. Is it that it should not be more than 28 days. I did read this eight times I still wasn't clear what it meant.

Don't we want to receive improvement plans as pulley as improvement plans as pulley as possible? On page 19, subsection A, should this clarify the sea ice EIS, Ofsted to its friends can only withdraw an improvement notice if it has strong evidence that it is no longer needed. What evidence does the Minister expect Ofsted to require before it withdraws an improvement notice. 23 B, subsection 2, line 22, shouldn't it be clear that Ofsted must inform the parent undertaking and any subsidiaries within 28 days.

Shouldn't this be mirrored for all of the stages in the process. I wondered whether the noble Lady, the timeline for communications listed, in clause 12 will be set out in regulations. At the moment it is not clear what the maximum time period after each stage of the improvement notice process, including for Ofsted, to inform and respond to the provider. I would have thought it would be useful for this to be clear as possible. In 23 B, subsection 5, I wondered if there was a step missing from the processes as set out in the bill? Surely the parent undertaking needs to inform the Chief Inspector, when it has been fully vetted, within a timescale which is currently not stated.

Then the Chief Inspector should arrange for an inspection, appropriate action to confirm that
21:31
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-

is the case. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 12, page 17, leave out improvement plan notice and insert
21:31
21:32
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-

the next stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments in group 5 all in the name of Baroness group 5 all in the name of Baroness Barran. Just taking the amendments as they are, the majority of as they are, the majority of residential and -- residential is settings are owned by provider groups, organisations that own the providers that run the settings will stop the legislation refers to by stop the legislation refers to by the groups as parent undertakings. Provider groups have influence over how settings run yet they are not accountable in legislation for the quality of the setups they own.

Clause 12 is intended to complement OFSTED's existing powers, it will allow OFSTED to take action at scale allow OFSTED to take action at scale and pace to improve the quality of and pace to improve the quality of care when they reasonably suspect two or more of the providers group settings are not meeting regular, regulatory requirements. In answer to a question together with clause 13 which provides additional enforcement powers to OFSTED, it is part of this government strategy to ensure the safety and well-being of vulnerable children in care.

I will start which seek to give OFSTED the power to inspect provide groups will stop inspection is not necessary at provider group level given the existing robust regime for inspection of settings. Inspection of provider groups would not give OFSTED any additional information that they don't already have. To ensure the quality of care and safeguarding of children in settings which are obviously is the purpose of what we are intending to do here. Inspection of provider groups would Inspection of provider groups would add substantial burden to the public purse and would not result in the improvement to the quality of care for children as inspections would focus on provider group policies rather than the lived experience of children.

Additionally they would not be effective in holding provider groups to account. Without establishing a burdensome inspection system and when we think that there are over 400 provider groups I think we understand the scale of the additional work that we are talking about. The clause gives OFSTED the power to serve an improvement plan notice on provider group to improve quality into or more of its settings. This is vital as it will ensure the quickest and most effective action to secure change at effective action to secure change at scale.

Clause 13 which we will come to shortly gives OFSTED powers to take action against the provider group when they don't improve the quality of the settings. This amendment will not impose any requirements in the provider group which OFSTED could enforce against. Turning to amendment 137 which seeks to empower OFSTED to use the services of an independent person as provided for by the regulation 44 of the children's homes regulations to carry out an unannounced visit to the children's home for administrative breaches or minor concerns about the quality of care being provided, the amendment proposes that after an independent person has inspected the children's homes or home at the local authority may issue an improvement plan notice based on the findings.

Under current regulations the registered person of a children's home must ensure that an independent person visits the home at least once each month and this visit may be unannounced. The independent person should have the skills and understanding necessary to form an impartial judgement about the quality of the homes care, they must produce a report about their visit which sets out their opinion on whether children are effectively safeguarded and whether the home effectively promotes children's wellbeing. OFSTED placing authorities, the registered provider, registered manager and responsible individual must be given a copy of the report.

The local authority where the home is located must also be given the report if they are requested. OFSTED used these reports to inform whether further activity or inspection is necessary. These reports may be used to inform OFSTED decision-making around improvement plan notices to ensure their effective role as the regulator. OFSTED must be the only body responsible for issuing improvement plan notices. Giving local authorities the power to issue an improvement plan would mean duplication and offers no additional protection to what is already in place.

Turning to amendment 138 which I believe this to probe how an improvement plan might work in practice provider of oversight has been designed to enable oversight to enable poor quality care at scale and pace. For instance where OFSTED in specs to children's homes and believes policies being impacted by the provider groups policies or management they could reasonably suspect those issues are in all homes owned by the provider group. They would be able to use these powers new powers to ensure the provider group drive up standards in all their homes.

The prior -- provider group would be to require to implement the improvement plan. This plan will be approved by OFSTED if they are satisfied. It will be effective in addressing the concerns. OFSTED can provide the -- find the provider group if they fail to submit the improvement plans when OFSTED are satisfied improvements have been made they will consider the plan completed. This will result in improvement in multiple settings simultaneously which could not be achieved through inspection of provider groups as would be the case arising from the proposed amendments 135 and 136 finally turned to amendments hundred and 30 8AB and C which would seem to require OFSTED to notify the relevant local authority when improvement plan notice has been served, cancelled or appealed OFSTED are currently required to notify all their local authorities where certain enforcement actions such as suspension or suspension of licences taken it also amend these requirements to include a requirement to notify all local authorities were provider group is issued with a monetary penalty for failing to her or implement an improvement plan this is more improvement plan this is more proportionate balance and ensuring local authority is aware of problems arising and ensuring that children's accommodation is not necessarily disrupted.

It would also require significant extra resource both in OFSTED and local authorities, these notifications would prove unnecessary where issues are resolved or successfully challenged. It is important to stress that provider oversight will not be the only tool in OFSTED toolbox to tackle poor quality care where they find it. They will continue to have their existing powers to work with individual homes including suspending or cancelling if they have serious concerns. I recognise that Baroness Barran has asked some quite detailed questions as is quite within her right to do so, I am sure she will understand that I do not have all of those answers are my fingertips and will give me the space to look at specifically the issues she has raised and I will write to her and make sure that those responses are shared with all members in the usual way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could be quickly make sure we are all copied in thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all copied in thank you. Has always -- as always, that was the point I was making. All the reasons I would kindly ask the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasons I would kindly ask the noble lady the Baroness to withdraw her amendments. I would like to thank the noble Lady for her very detailed reply and Lady for her very detailed reply and for her intention to write this is much appreciated. -- Commitment to much appreciated. -- Commitment to much appreciated. -- Commitment to right. In responding to her remarks, right. In responding to her remarks, the reason for putting down 135136 and 137 is obviously the improvement plan is for the parent company or parent undertaking, but it is because there are concerns about two or more of their establishments or agencies in the language of the bill which I understood to mean, given the severity that OFSTED suspects there are grounds for counselling the undertaking registration that they could within that be concerns about the safety of children in those homes so the spirit of 1356 and seven that we should have experienced people or inspectors in regulation 40 for visitors going and not to expect parent I'm sorry if my amendments were unclear in that amendments were unclear in that regard but to inspect the subsidiary undertakings so maybe when the Minister comes to right she could just reflect on on that point and the regulation 44 should have read OFSTED issues the improvement plan not the local authority because of course noble ideas write the local authority can't issue an improvement plan but again it was just trying to get at the issue that if there was a variation of the levels concerning the level reach that for a lower level breach regulation 44 visitors could advise OFSTED.

I felt there was an urgency if you think it undertakings registration should be
21:43
21:44
21:45
None Portrait Amendment:138D Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-

it. We now move to the next group in clause 13 amendment 138 the Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Barran. Coming into clause 13 as we have heard this introduces monetary heard this introduces monetary penalties for non-compliance with an improvement plan or for running an unregistered children's home or fostering agency. My amendments 130 fostering agency. My amendments 130 8D and E and 139 a seek to exclude natural persons from the power to impose financial penalties on individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management of these organisations and as my noble friend Lord Nash said earlier, there is I think a reasonable concern that this will result in lack of people who are result in lack of people who are prepared to take such a risk particularly as the financial penalty regime is being set out in penalty regime is being set out in regulations, therefore could be altered at any point.

Having said that given that the fines as I understand it are currently unlimited perhaps that is not the greatest worry. Obviously if that concern were to materialise it would More broadly my clause standing part amendment seeks to clarify a number of aspects of the clause. In terms of unintended consequences, we hear that local authorities are concerned that this will have a chilling effect on the provision of capacity in this area and stop the plans are providers to expand. Anecdotally this is already happening.

I wondered what analysis the department had made of the financial investment, in this area, which I'm in both capital investment and other relevant investment, buy it for profit local authorities and not- for-profit providers, in each of the last five years. I wondered if the noble Lady could share that information, in a letter. I also wondered whether the Department had looked at the impact of introducing and finding provisions on other and finding provisions on other regulated activities, some local authorities will become part of contract negotiations, and pushed prices even further with local authorities have to be provision for the payment of fines, on behalf of the providers that they use.

Turning to the proposed fines set out on page 32 of the bill, this may be of any amount, there could be an unlimited fine for non-compliance. The noble Lady will correct me if I have misunderstood that. If that is right, I would argue it doesn't feel fortunate, and a potential risk in a situation where there is no spare capacity and significant pressure on places and prices. Schedule one a goes on to detail fines in regulations. I would argue that the principles should be on the face of the bill and should not be unlimited.

I would trying to think if we contrast this with the harm done to children by some social media platforms and the clear limits on fines, in those cases. I would argue this is inconsistent and best and disproportionate at worst. Furthermore the bill is not clear at Furthermore the bill is not clear at 30 Z D... Whether the Constitution of automatic registration or not. At what point would non-delivery, non- plan result in cancellation of registration of the relevant steps.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarified. If this isn't clear and it is inconsistent, I would argue this will be the source of more judicial reviews in the future. In relation to unregistered children's homes, clause 13 feels like a curious workaround for two reasons. Firstly it introduces a civil penalties, where an organisation breaks the criminal law. The reason given and the noble Lady in the Minister, and she did earlier today is that it is too resource intensive and slow for Ofsted to pursue the prosecution.

I am aware that in other legislation such as speeding when driving to get different options. You can get points on your licence, or you can do a speed awareness course. But this is at a very low level of offence. In this case, in clause 13, 13 Z C two little a it states that the Ofsted will impose a monetary penalty on a person if the Chief Inspector is certified without reasonable doubt that remission counts as an offence under this part. We have criminal proof and what sounds like a commission or omission of a criminal act, the Chief Inspector can choose to issue a fine instead, which doesn't feel like an approach that is driven by resources rather than a point of principle.

I just wondered if there were precedents for such a choice between a criminal and a civil sanction, with such a serious law, it feels a bit different to freeports in your driving licence. Secondly we have the situation where local authorities are using unregistered children's homes for other reasons that we've already rehearsed this afternoon. Such is the lack of capacity, lack of availability for suitable places for some children, at very short notice and yet nothing is done to address the responsibility of the local authorities themselves to provide a sufficient places.

I wonder if the noble Lady could comment on both these points when she sums up. Some of the measures in this part of the bill would feel more appropriate if the bill or the spending review had contained major measures to increase the number of foster parents, in particular children with high needs to address in particular children who end up in a children's home, but whose care plan said that they
21:52
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

should have been fostered. So, with those remarks, My Lords, big to move. Amendment proposed, clause 13, page 22, line 11, insert except natural persons.
21:52
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is a deafening silence. Right. I of course are now turn to group 6 and the amendments, all in the name of Baroness Barran, concerning amendments one three concerning amendments one three eight D, one three eight D, 139 K which seek to exclude natural persons from the provisions relating persons from the provisions relating to the issue of monetary penalties was not clause 13 is drafted gives Ofsted an additional power to issue monetary penalties to providers that are breach requirements set and in all under the Care Standards Act, including operating a children's home, without registering with Ofsted, which they could also prosecute as criminal offences.

Ofsted will also be able to issue a monitoring penalty to provide groups for failure to comply with new requirements, set out in clause 12 of the bill. This measurement will ensure Ofsted had the full range of investment powers, so that they can act proportionately and at pace, which will act as a deterrent. This includes an individual to operate in children's homes, or other establishments, or agencies. I have to say, it is difficult to see why an actual person running a children's home, or other establishment or agency should not be subjected to the same enforcement powers when they breach the law, as a partnership, organisation would be and where Ofsted could prosecute that natural person for the relevant breach.

Furthermore, based on data from Companies House these amendments would result in Ofsted being unable to find individuals that currently operate children's homes. If they breach the law. Compared to the 2738 companies that operate in children's homes. Ofsted have told me, directly that they strongly oppose any amendment that would exclude natural persons and limit and limit financial penalties in place for illegally operating children's homes, without being registered. Individuals will and do gain financially from illegally operating children's homes.

Without being registered and should not be excluded from the potential consequences of doing so. I think all the way through the discussions we've had at committee stage it has all been about protecting children. And making sure that they are safe and I think we have to make sure that in this area, in spite of the comments that the noble Lady made that children are and their safety are at the forefront of our minds, it is also worth noting that it is common in legislation for natural Persians to be subject to financial penalties in the same way as operations and companies.

For example, the Tenant Fees Act 2019 enables fines to be imposed on landlords. Natural persons for breaching and letting fees are being charged and the Data Protection Act 2018 enables the Information Commissioner to impose fines on persons, including natural persons who have failed to comply with various notices issued by the ICO. I have already stated the reasons for the need and the extent of these additional powers but I will add that the clause that ensures the Ofsted have an alternative prosecution, where that is currently the only enforcement action, Ofsted will not be able to impose a monetary penalty on a person, for the same conduct where criminal proceedings have been brought against them, in relation to that same conduct.

Further and importantly, to act as a deterrent and to ensure transparency of the public, the clause of Secretary of State, the power by regulations to require Ofsted to publish details about the monetary penalties they have issued. Ofsted must also notify local authorities when a monetary penalty has been issued, as they are currently required to do in relation to other enforcement actions. The monetary action penalty also be used for cancellation of registration. I assume it will come as no surprise to the noble Lady that I will have to write to her, in terms of the financial assessment and the other questions that she raised and specific requirements in place.

I'm more than happy to do that and to share it with her. And interested parties. Therefore, for the reasons outlined, I would kindly ask the noble Ministers would draw her amendments and let the clause stand part of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble lady and I will keep my remarks brief. I think it keep my remarks brief. I think it was a very helpful of the noble was a very helpful of the noble Baroness, the Minister to set out the examples of where natural persons are find as in data protection and a Landlord and Tenant protection and a Landlord and Tenant Act. I suppose I would still argue I didn't quite follow. I think she said there were 10 people whom I escaped this which seems like a escaped this which seems like a small number in the totality and I small number in the totality and I suppose I was still argue criminal proceedings could be brought.

Even proceedings could be brought. Even if they couldn't be fined. It was
21:58
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

if they couldn't be fined. It was helpful to get those examples, as they say. I look forward to her letter and a big leap to withdraw my moment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn. that this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 138 E and 139 A, not Amendment 138 E and 139 A, not moved, Baroness Barran? The question is that clause 13 stand part of the is that clause 13 stand part of the bill? Baroness Barran? You don't intend to.

The question is that clause 13 stand part of the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say, many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. I... I beg your pardon. We can still tidy up a few more. I will do still tidy up a few more. I will do that. In clause 14, amendment 140, Baroness Tyler? Not moved. Amendment Baroness Tyler? Not moved. Amendment 140 A, not moved. Amendment 141, sorry, the question that clause 14 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

In clause 15, amendment 141, Lord Addington, not moved. And I think that is as much

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as we can do this evening. I beg to move that the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dinner resume. The question is that the House be resumed? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page