Lords Chamber

Wednesday 14th January 2026

(began 5 hours, 41 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:06
None Portrait Oral questions: Call from C40 Cities to give city representatives a formal role in the COP climate negotiations
-

First First Oral First Oral Question First Oral Question Lord First Oral Question Lord Rees First Oral Question Lord Rees of eastern.
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
None Portrait Oral questions: Impact of investment in early years education on children’s long-term outcomes, including attainment, employability, and wellbeing
-

Second Oral Question the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I think the IFS report published last year, should be essential reading for everyone, especially those who have responsibility for nurturing and developing the next generation. The the evidence shows that children with access to surestart centres, defined within a 2.5km radius, performed significantly better in assessment. Ages seven, 11 and 16. But as my noble friend says, getting children to the point where they're ready to learn when they enter the early years settings is absolutely crucial.

And that is what the best

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Start family hubs are being set up to do. My Lords, my Lords, a Labour MPs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my Lords, a Labour MPs House. Is rightly in recent weeks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is rightly in recent weeks discussed the issue around the NEETs figure totalling almost a million young people. So my question is to the Minister, is has any work been done in terms of any work been done in terms of looking at that cohort of young people and what sort of support they had in their early years? And can we actually start to map out where there are gaps where young people are neat, because they didn't have that support early on? Yeah.

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the noble the noble Lord raises a complex issue. But absolutely, the evidence we need to absolutely, the evidence we need to look at cohorts of young people and really understand why some of them are failing to come forward. We are failing to come forward. We know that Covid, for example, has had a huge impact on mental health had a huge impact on mental health and has sapped the confidence. But it's absolutely fundamental that everything we do is evidence based. So gathering that information and evidence is absolutely fundamental for helping to develop our policies going forward.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. Following on from my noble friend Baroness Penn's question, I friend Baroness Penn's question, I just wondered whether the Minister could say when the government plans to produce guidance specifically for early years settings about the use of screens both by children themselves and indeed, as the noble Lady rightly raises by their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

parents? I'm becoming very used to the noble Lady asking quite specific questions, and I have to say, I don't know the answer to that. I'm sure this is something that is being worked up and looked at, and we're happy to share that the our way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord middle aged. Early years education provides

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Early years education provides an ideal opportunity to screen for lifelong and specific learning difficulties, such as dyscalculia, difficulties, such as dyscalculia, which, without intervention and adequate support, will have a significant impact on employment significant impact on employment and education outcomes. So will government consider introducing early years screening for this early years screening for this condition, so that appropriate support can be put in place at the point at which it is going to make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a difference? The the I think the really interesting developments within the best start hubs is that councils, local councils, are being tasked local councils, are being tasked with having dedicated SEN practitioners within each of them. Dyscalculia, of course, comes under the umbrella of those conditions. And I know, not least because the And I know, not least because the noble Lady's efforts that the profile of this is being raised and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

understood. And as with anything else, the earlier it's picked up, I think the better. My Lords, my Lords, a Labour MPs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my Lords, a Labour MPs visit to a school in his constituency in Bristol was cancelled by members of the National Education Union purely National Education Union purely because he was Jewish. What message does that send to the long term

**** Possible New Speaker ****

outcomes of our children? Yeah, yeah. Well I'm not I'm not apprised of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well I'm not I'm not apprised of the actual details. And obviously it's something that has been picked up and will be looked at very seriously going forward.
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Can I can I first of all say to >> Can I can I first of all say to the noble Baroness that we the the unity of purpose between His Majesty's opposition and the Majesty's opposition and the government and all members of this House, sends a hugely important and significant signal to Russia and to our adversaries. So the first part of the question very much welcome that I anticipated the noble Baroness question. And I don't normally do this, but I want to read something because I want to make sure that I guess because if I'm not careful, I'll stray into areas that would not not be appropriate, which but the but the but.

So I apologise to the house but just I think it's important just to read something from it. So please forgive me if I take a little bit longer than I would normally do, but I think it's a really important point the noble Baroness has made. As we have made clear in our recent statements regarding the US military operations, to interdict the MV Bella one, the UK will not stand by as malign activity increases on the high seas. Alongside our allies, we are stepping up our response against shadow vessels and we will continue to do so.

We are fully committed to tackling the threat posed by the Shadow Fleet, and are working with partners to maximise efforts. We will use the range of tools at our disposal to crack down on sanctions evasion and illegal maritime activity. I hope that goes some way to answering the noble Baroness Carr question.
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:52
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Delays to the awarding of the New Medium Helicopter contract and potential closure of Leonardo’s helicopter site in Yeovil
-

reviews and pledges, MoD orders have effectively dried up out there. There is a desert in the defence
15:52
15:53
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:03
None Portrait Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill – report stage (day 1) Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-

>> Question is the question is that this report be now received. As many as have that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause one, amendment one Baroness Barran.
16:04
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, it's good to be back scrutinising the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill after what seems like a long break. But noble Lords will remember that while I think all sides of the House supported the approach of family group conferencing or a family group decision making meeting as described in the bill, there were a number of points that required clarification, and I think those are still outstanding. And I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to cover them.

In her response today, amendment one seeks to clarify what the government is really intending to implement. We've been told that the introduction of family group decision making is based on the success of the pilot sites in the Families First for Children pathfinders, but the evaluation, published in July, is clear that family group conferencing, not family group decision making meetings, was used in the pilot sites when children were on the cusp of care proceedings. So which approach is it? And if it isn't family group conferencing, what is the evidence based? I suppose I'm really concerned that the government isn't actually committed to following the evidence based family group conferencing model, but rather a slimmed down, stripped down version we might call FGC light.

And the evaluation, published in July, did not have any outcome data and was largely a process of evaluation because of the stage the pilots are at. Amendment two aims to press the government for a commitment that there won't be a dilution of the model. The bill talks about a meeting, while the evaluation talks about the importance of careful preparation, including pre-meetings, and that it's followed by funded support through the Family Network support package. So again, can the noble Baroness, the Minister, be clear that the government is proposing that the evidence informed model is followed? Turning to amendment three, we did question at committee whether it was actually necessary to have a duty to offer family group decision making in statute at all, and in particular at the point of care proceedings when there is already an expectation set out in the statutory guidance to the Children Act, that this should be offered.

Our amendments at committee included a focus on using family group conferencing at different points in the safeguarding process, and it seems that the evaluation, which was on page 58, it recommends, and I quote, the timing of the offer of family group conferences needs to be explored in greater detail to establish clarity around the pros and cons of offering it at different phases in the family's journey. End quote. Amendment three would require family group decision making or family group conferencing to be offered at the point that a child who has been in care returns to their original family, something that occurs in over a quarter of cases.

This is an obvious point at which additional support would be helpful, and could avoid a second care placement, as happens all too frequently. Indeed, in about a third of those cases, and it doesn't take much imagination to appreciate how traumatic and how damaging it is for children and their parents for that to happen. And finally, amendment five, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who, of course, brings great personal experience to this topic, introduces the idea of a kinship support plan, as we will come to in a later group, we believe that the government needs to take action to increase the number of foster and kinship carers beyond what is already proposed.

The idea of a kinship support plan is to increase the resilience of kinship care placement by offering additional support, either from the local authority directly or from wider community resources. And I wonder whether the government is considering anything of this type, which would increase the chances of successful kinship placements. These are cases where the threshold of significant harm will have been met, and therefore it's reasonable to offer additional support to carers and right touch oversight of the safety and well-being of the child in their care.

My Lords, I beg to move.
16:08
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause one, >> Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line nine. After meeting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert or family group conference. My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Barran to the noble Lady Baroness Barran for returning us to this important topic of family group conferences and for the refined amendments she has now presented, including amendment three, to which I've added my name. They will embed what is already now established as good practice into legislation. I also welcome the noble Baroness request for clarification of what lies behind the differing terminology.

The government, to their credit, recognised the important role of family, group decision making meetings. The arguments for such conferences are strong, enabling family members to be informed about local authorities concerns and proposals, including the wider family members who may have been kept in the dark or given an incomplete version of the problems. Just from the parents perspective, perhaps coloured by a negative view of the local authorities intentions, they are a good opportunity to maintain focus on the child or children while listening to and respecting the views of the family, particularly if the family has otherwise been marginalised.

As well as sharing information, conferences do allow social workers to explore and assess what family members might have to offer and what support might assist them to help divert cases away from legal proceedings. There is no doubt that family group conferences secure considerable financial savings for local authorities and for the courts, and I would emphasise the point the noble Baroness made proper preparation for them is essential. Ideally, such conferences should take place as early as possible, and at the preceding stage that we discussed at Committee stage.

However, amendment three would also require such a meeting to be offered when it is planned that the child will be returned to the care of family members. Again, that would be a good opportunity for informed discussion to clarify the expectations of the local authority for the future care of the child, and to discuss any difficulties that may have to be confronted. I do hope, therefore, that the government will use these amendments as an opportunity to build such points into the legal structure.
16:11
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Portrait Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)
-
-
Whilst welcoming the government's amendment to ensure government's amendment to ensure the child's voice is heard in group family group decision making. I would also like to add my support to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Baroness Barran in this group, as we discussed in Committee stage, family group decision making is a broad generic term without clear principles and standards about what families can expect and indeed the explanatory notes of the bills themselves state GDM is an umbrella term.

As a result, there still remains concern amongst charities and organisations supporting vulnerable families that FG approaches unsupported by evidence may proliferate at a local level as a result of the lack of specificity in the bill, and this is despite clear evidence, as my noble friend highlighted, both in the UK and internationally, that family group conferences in particular, are a successful and effective model of diverting children from care and supporting them to remain in their family. So if she's unable to accept amendment two, I hope in her response, the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to provide strong reassurance that in the regulations and statutory guidance, it will be made clear that local authorities will be expected to follow the principles and standards drawn from the robust national and international research findings on the efficacy of the of the Group approach, group conferences, approaches and turning to amendment three.

As was highlighted during our discussions at Committee stage, reunification is the most common way for children to leave care, but sadly too many break down due to lack of support. There's currently no strategy by which to support Reunifying families, and 78% of local authorities admit that what they do provide is inadequate. In winding up. In our previous debate on this issue, the noble Baroness, the Minister, said she had some sympathy with the objective of this measure in the bill, not least because of the challenges of reunification and the need to ensure that it is supported.

So I hope that even at this late stage, the Minister might look favourably on accepting this amendment as it could make a real difference to the stability of a child's return home.
16:13
16:15
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, anecdotal evidence often doesn't help. But when Margaret and I adopted a brother and a sister because their mother had died of cancer, the boy was eight. The sister was three. They came to live with us. After quite a considerable period of time. We consulted their family in Uganda, and they were very happy that we could adopt these children. The social workers who are working with us, particularly lady called Ruth, were supportive of that arrangement.

And then, of course, we then had to meet the local council of Lambeth on what we wanted. And that meeting was a very harrowing meeting. They didn't understand where we were coming from. They then asked questions why is a family living in Britain wishing to adopt Ugandan children? To which I answered Ugandan. We've been in touch with the family. They know what has gone on and the years of trying to help these children integrate within our own family, and that was not a very easy meeting, I must say.

So this family gathered meetings that are being suggested. Are you confident that a they will do a lot of homework before the meeting actually takes place? And eventually we had actually got to the family court and the judge then taking a decision purely in the favour of the children and where they're going to be placed. And he continued to to be responsible for ensuring that this happens. So if a child has been put into care away from the family and the intending to reunite, may I suggest that it's not always very easy to assess the interests of a child, because those who've been with the particular child have got greater knowledge, and particularly the social worker who's been working with the family over a considerable period of time, should be brought into the picture much earlier than what happened to us.

I know my daughter, but when I read the original. Section of this particular bill, and I'm very glad that the the noble Lord, the Baroness Minister, is putting on an amendment which may improve that particular situation. But I happen to feel that the amendments that are moved in this section, particularly section amendment one, two and three and and four, they may go somewhere to allay my fears and concerns. And please forgive me for being personal about this matter, but if you've lived with children, thank God they've now gone on to do wonderful things and to take responsibilities for their own life.

But there was a harrowing meeting and I hope others will not find this family gathering, family meetings, wanting to knock the spirit out of those who are wanting to do the best for children who childhood.
16:19
16:20
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I turn to the amendments in this first group of the Report stage of this important bill? And can I thank noble Lords for their contributions? And I just want to start with a message of reassurance from the start that this government is committed to hearing from and listening to children about what matters to them most. It is for this very reason that we've laid government amendment four to clause one on family group decision making, which requires local authorities to seek the wishes and feelings of the child as opposed to their views as was in the original drafting and giving due consideration to those wishes and feelings in exercising its functions.

Under this section, the noble and Right reverend Lord Lord Sentamu is absolutely right in terms of the absolute importance of the child in these proceedings and to make sure, wherever it's appropriate, they are in included. So this office includes ascertaining the wishes and feelings of very young children, non-verbal children or children who may lack capacity and are not able to express views. This is a complex area and does require the expertise that we've referred to.

In doing so, the amendment strengthens the requirement on local authorities to hear and give weight to children's voices without changing the overall effect of the clause. I think Lord Lord Storey is absolutely right and from experience, these situations often come out of a state of crisis where extended family members might not have been expecting the difficulties that were going to come up. And it's absolutely crucial that there is clarity and relationships. And families, as we all know, are complex and we need to do everything we can.

So evidence shows that engaging family networks through the use of family group decision making meetings can reduce applications for court proceedings and divert children from entering the care system, improving the outcomes for children and their families. And I think it's important to keep this at the front of of our deliberations. Turning to amendments one and two, tabled by the noble Baroness. Lady Baron, I completely appreciate the noble Lady's desire to ensure that the term family group decision making is well understood and that families are offered evidence based support.

However, given that family Group conference is a model of family group decision making, we believe that including both as distinct terms in legislation risks creating confusion and undermining the clarity the noble Lady is seeking. And we do not believe that prescribing a particular model in primary legislation is necessary. Likewise, including the term evidence based approach could be interpreted differently and create confusion for local authorities if not defined in the clause. Instead, as my noble friend, the Minister for Children and Families set out to peers in a round table on the 11th of November.

On this issue, we will set out clear principles in statutory guidance informed and this is the crucial bit by the evidence based family Group conference model. The latest estimates that we have are that 80% of all authorities already use this model, and we will make clear that we expect local authorities to consider using this model in national statutory guidance and direct local authorities towards the strong evidence base for it. And Baroness Evans talks about evidence repeatedly, and I hope that does address her concern.

And and for Baroness Barran, can I assure her there is no attempt to around dilution here, and we want to make sure that we stick to the evidence informed model all the way through the process. It's an incredibly powerful means of bringing people together, and we want to make sure that we use every skill that exists out there to get the very best outcomes for children and their families. Our intention is to avoid tying local authorities to a single model in legislation mandating one approach risk stifling innovation and limiting professional judgement.

Local authorities have been clear that flexibility in primary legislation is essential to design services that meet local needs and family circumstances. We have already published the Families First Partnership Guide, which sets out clear principles informed by the evidence based family Group conference model, and we will continue to embed these principles in updated statutory guidance on pre proceedings and in working together, both of which we will publish later this year. Statutory guidance, rather than primary legislation is the right place for this.

Key organisations and proponents of the family Group conference model have also contributed to the development of best practice, support and resources for local authorities, which we shall also publish later this year. Turning to amendment three, also tabled by the by Baroness Barran and supported by the noble and learned Lord Meston. Can I just say I share their determination to ensure that children returning home after a period in care receive the right support, continued breakdowns is heartbreaking and it does so much to damage the future life chances of the young people involved.

Undermining confidence and and and enormous disruption. And I think the noble and learned Lord Meston speaks eloquently about the importance of reaching all family and and indeed not just family. Sometimes extended members of the family circle might be the appropriate people to be involved in this process. And of course, proper preparation is essential. Statutory guidance working together to safeguard children already provides that local authorities should consider family group decision making when planning for reunification to support the transition from care to home, and we will continue to support this approach.

The care planning regulations also make clear that wider family members should be consulted where appropriate. As I've outlined through this bill, the government is also introducing a range of measures to ensure children leaving care receive the necessary support to improve their outcomes. Although we agree that family group decision making can be an important part of the unification process, and we are mandating measures to ensure young people get the support they need, we are concerned that introducing a second statutory trigger point to offer family group decision making risks delaying the reunification process for some families.

Just to reemphasize, we have commissioned the production of best practice, support and resource for local authorities on family group decision making, which makes clear that family group decision making should be championed as a tool to support reunification. And I can say I will. I'm happy to share an embargoed copy with noble Lords and ladies to demonstrate our commitment to this approach. Turning to amendment five, I recognise the intention, of course, behind the noble Baroness May amendment to ensure that children's welfare needs are prioritised following family group decision making, and I agree with the noble Lord Hampton.

Of course we need more carers across the piece. Kinship carers, foster carers. We know how vital this is for so many young people across the country. To re-emphasise. Local authorities have existing statutory duties to ensure the safety and welfare of children. In addition, clause five of this bill will place a duty on local authorities to publish a kinship local offer, setting out the support available to children living in kinship care in the area, cementing the expectation already set out in statutory guidance.

This transparency will reduce barriers to obtaining help and ensure kinship carers receive the practical support they need to. It is a key principle that the creation of a family plan through the family group decision making process should be family led. The Families First Partnership Programme Guide tells local authorities that once the plan is agreed, safeguarding partnerships should commit to providing the support contained within it to the family network and it should be integrated into and given sufficient weight within family health and child protection plans through the development of best practice, support and resources on family group decision making.

Families were clear that when children and their families voices are heard and plans are co-created and owned by families, the results are not just better plans, but stronger, more resilient families, requiring the creation of a separate kinship support plan risks distracting from or diluting the weight given to the family led plan. Having responded to the comments made, I hope I've addressed the noble Ladies concerns and I hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she feels able to withdraw her amendment. noble Lady sits down on the last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lady sits down on the last point. On amendment five. She talked about the local care offer. I wonder whether she's able to say today whether she expects when the today whether she expects when the consultation happens and when there's a kind of template developed for what that will look developed for what that will look like, that there will be a specific section on reunification, because obviously that's a rather different context than the other situations.
16:31
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
I think. Sure. The noble Lady is that her comments are fed into the process and that they are listened to. >> I'd like to thank the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to thank the noble Lady very much for her remarks, and obviously she also comes with huge obviously she also comes with huge expertise on this subject. Can I also apologise to the noble and learned Lord Lord Meston that I didn't acknowledge his co of amendment three? Starting with amendments one and two. I was reassured by what the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said. I accept there could be confusion if you use both terms, and I was glad to hear her say that there would be clear principles set out in the guidance, as was suggested by my noble friend Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, and that she said there would be no dilution of the models.

And I thank her very much for that. Turning to amendment three, I'm encouraged by her last comments. I think there is an inconsistency that she points to the recommendations in working together, that there should be family group decision making meetings at the point of reunification because, as I understand it, you know, that is the same. Recommendation as there is for using those meetings at the point of care proceedings. But the government has chosen to put one on statute and not the other.

But that is obviously ultimately the government's prerogative. I suppose I would just say, of course she's right to bring up the point about delay and avoidable delay, but actually the choice is between delay and stability. And I hope very much that that where where the delay is proportionate, stability really is prioritised in the interests of the child. I think I've touched already in my intervention on the noble Lady's remarks on the local support offer. Obviously, I'm disappointed the government didn't accept, particularly my amendments three and five.

I hope that local authorities, as they implement this new legislation, will use all of their discretion and creativity to address the needs of specific children in the way that we've all across the house very much hope to do. But with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendments is by leave withdrawn. Amendments two and three Baroness Barran not moved. Amendment four move. moved. Amendment four move. Formally, the question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content of that opinion will say content contrary not content. The The contents have it Baroness Barran amendment five not moved after amendment five not moved after clause one, amendment six Baroness Barran.
16:35
None Portrait Amdt. 6 Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-

My Lords, amendment six in my >> My Lords, amendment six in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, who I know is unable, through no who I know is unable, through no fault of her own, to be with us this afternoon, would require sign off from the Director of Children's Services or Head of Social Work practice, where a child under five previously on a child protection plan becomes subject to section 31 care proceedings.

Last year, there were about 18,600 children involved in care proceedings and about 16% of children in care are under five. Yet children in this age group are disproportionately represented in the most serious cases. Children under the age of one accounted for about 30% of serious incident notifications last year, and earlier triennial reviews found that about 65% of cases involved children under the age of five. So if we just pause to think about that, this age group appears roughly four times as often in serious incidents where a child is killed or seriously harmed, as it does in the care population.

And in this context, the amendment is modest, really modest, practical safeguard that could help prevent avoidable abuse and tragedy and say very young lives. And I hope very much the Minister will consider her position. My back of the envelope estimate would be that a director of children's services, on average, would have to look at 20 of these cases annually. And given the length of time of care proceedings, I think it's the least we should expect them to do.

Turning to the wider amendments in this group, on the 17th of December, the Minister for Children and Families wrote to peers following two very helpful round tables about part one of the bill. In that letter, he rightly emphasised the importance of local authorities operating within the right framework so that families receive, and I quote, intensive well-evidenced early help, that children are protected through more expert and decisive multi-agency child protection, and that children leaving care benefit from enduring relationships facilitated by the care system.

He warned against overreliance on legislation, regulations and guidance, arguing that an ever growing stack of rules has in the past failed to improve practice and has undermined professional judgement and accountability. And I think that analysis is compelling. But unfortunately, clause three takes us in the opposite direction from the approach he advocates, and that is why the amendments in this group are needed. There is, as yet, no robust evidence for the government's chosen model. I thank the Department for the email that they sent me yesterday, setting out in a bit more detail some of the evidence from the Pathfinders, but they remain at a very early stage.

The evaluation concentrates, as it says itself, on process and implementation rather than outcomes. And there were only ten families interviewed for the evaluation, some of whom were unaware that they were part of these pathfinder sites. There's no counterfactual. There's no control group. There's no convincing data yet showing better decision making or earlier intervention. Moreover, one of the pilot sites recently moved from good to requires improvement at a recent Ofsted inspection, which underlines that this is not a magic wand.

Wanting a model to succeed is not the same as demonstrating that it does, and amendment 17 would therefore delay implementation of this clause until a proper evidence base is available, which is entirely consistent with the Minister's own stated aims and the list of those expressing concerns about these reforms is growing at committee. Reference was made to Professor Eileen Munro, public concerns who is possibly the closest thing to a household name in social work in this country, and similar concerns have been raised by Professors June Thorburn and Professor Ray Jones.

A community care poll of social workers found that 78% of respondents agreed with research, warning that combining the investigative and the chairing role of lead social workers would undermine impartiality. The children's Minister argues for avoiding prescription. Yet the bill allows the Secretary of State by regulation to prescribe, and I quote, support of any kind to be delivered by the multi-agency child protection teams. If we all try and imagine a future government who each of us would least likely like to see in charge, it's not difficult to see how such a broad power could be misused, and so amendment 11 would remove it.

Despite the minister's concerns about overprescription, the pathfinders themselves have been heavily prescribed. Some of the evaluation documentation only underlines how little is actually known about the real world impact of this approach. For example, appendix four asks the evaluators and I quote, to identify what impact a greater role for education has on services and what costs are associated with strengthening the role of education, signalling that the implications for for a key partner are still unclear. Indeed, funding issues were brought up in the email, which the department kindly sent me, where they pointed out that the dedicated health roles in most areas within the multi-agency Child Protection Team are funded by the local authority, as are a number of the education roles.

Police, on the other hand, have funded their posts, but I think this links to the government amendments 12 and 14, which, if I've understood them correctly, would allow special constables that would be unpaid volunteers to act as the police representative at the multi-agency Child Protection Team meetings, that the Minister is shaking her head. So if I've misunderstood. I look forward to being corrected. But I thought that was what her letter to your Lordship said. And it's obviously absolutely critical that we don't have a dilution of skills.

Which leads me on to another point from the evaluation, which highlights a lack of confidence among the so-called alternatively qualified practitioners. So non-social workers who will be now working in early help and child in need teams in relation to risk assessment and real concerns that they don't have the same expertise both in risk assessment, but also, crucially in the identification of harm as qualified social workers. Turning to amendment 13, for which I am very grateful to Professor Peter Green, co-chair of the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, and Doctor Vanessa MP, would stipulate minimum qualification levels for staff, including health professionals aligned with the intercollegiate document and working together.

Safeguarding leads in health are deeply concerned about the government's decision effectively to halve the capacity of designated doctors and nurses who specialist expertise underpins safe, multi-agency practice. Working together defines designated professionals as dedicated clinicians whose roles centre on providing clinical expertise and strategic advice to the system. And, to quote Professor Green, halving or worse, this workforce is the same as halving the number of top paediatric heart surgeons. Children's heart surgeons in the NHS, and that is a loss that would be unimaginable in any other area of child health.

So I hope the noble Minister, when she comes to reply, will agree with me that the multi-agency child protection teams cannot function effectively if overall safeguarding standards fall because senior highly experienced safeguarding professionals are lost from health services. When she comes to respond, can she set out clearly how, in the face of cuts of 50% or more to statutory safeguarding posts, there will not be a deterioration in safeguarding standards within health and in multi-agency working. If the government are willing to protect these posts, there will be no reason to test the opinion of the House on amendment 13.

So, my Lords, there is agreement with the government's underlying aims in clause three, but deep concern about the speed of implementation, the weakness of the evidence base, the dilution of expertise and the scale of concurrent change, especially for local authorities and integrated care boards. These amendments offer a measured way to secure the benefits of reform, while avoiding serious and avoidable risks to very vulnerable children. I hope the government will pause and treat them with the seriousness they deserve.

I beg to move.
16:45
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause one. Insert the new clause as one. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Barran in noble friend Lady Barran in supporting amendment six, 13, 17, 250 and 251. And I've also added my name to amendments 11, 15, and 16. I'd like to remind you, Lordships, from my register of interests, in that I'm a councillor in the London Borough of Bexley. I was previously leader and Cabinet member for children's services, hence my interest in this area. I'd like to put on record my thanks to the Minister in the other place, Josh McAllister, for the round table discussion recently.

I mentioned on this subject last November when we did discuss some of the points our amendments today cover, so I hope he'll find them helpful. Likewise, I understand the hon. Lady. The Minister opened up communications with directors of children's social care across the country last summer during recess, for which I thank her and I know it was welcomed. I also apologise if some of the points I'm about to make are similar to those they may have made to her last summer.

So firstly, not everything in this bill is bad. As I think I said previously, we all want a system that keeps seeks to keep children safe. However, I don't understand the government's reticence to ensure the policy that pilots are fully evaluated and that information shared with others before full implementation, which they are proposing, happens before the end of the year. Baroness Blake has just made the case for evidence based changes. I hope I'm knocking on an open door. When we met the Minister from the other place in November, he promised to share in the evaluation done.

But the documents circulated, which was from July 2025, was Implementation and Process Evaluation report. Early findings? Surely this isn't sufficient to drive full implementation before the end of the year, and I hope to explain why. Firstly, I'm hearing that in some areas the caseloads are increasing for the family health lead practitioners. I'm also told that the number of section 47 are increasing in some of those areas. There's a suggestion that it could be about enlisting the expertise of the multi-agency child protection team.

If these two points are consistent across the pilots, it would contradict the minister's suggestion that the proposal would decrease demand. But more importantly, it puts demand on the service that isn't currently there. Surely it would be sensible to understand why that's happening. Is it happening in all the pilot areas or restricted to some? And what's driving it to ensure that if there is an issue, it can be addressed and avoid it happening more widely? It has to be in everyone's interest to understand the reason for the increase.

And that's why we ask for the full evaluation. It would be helpful if the DfE were to conduct and publish comparative data analysis from both wave one and wave two Pathfinder authorities to include trends in referral volumes, assessment outcomes, escalation from early help to statutory intervention, and section 47 activity to inform the rollout. To ensure the right resources in place and the safe implementation of the multi-agency child protection teams. Likewise, it would seem sensible to evaluate pilots from a cost perspective across agencies to ensure funding is available to make sure children are safe.

Once the scheme is fully implemented and where the costs are needed. This will avoid cost shunting, but it might also necessitate new burdens. Funding from the government. The next reason is recruitment and retention of appropriate staff. I understand that the pathfinder areas reported significant challenges in recruiting both social workers and qualified practitioners for the multi-agency child protection schemes, with particular difficulties for key partners such as Icbs and police due to workforce shortages and funding constraints.

Indeed, the early evaluation did say that resourcing was a key concern across wave one and wave two areas, with this also being a key challenge across partner agencies. The partner agencies expressed nervousness about assuming that family health partnership role and the additional strain it would put on their already limited capacity. However, the evaluation didn't publish specific recruitment or vacancy data for the multi-agency child protection, so instead it highlights barriers such as partner agency workload, funding uncertainty and delays in recruiting specialist roles.

It would be helpful if the DfE publish workforce metrics and proposed solutions to recruitment and retention challenges, including a competency training and development programme for the multi-agency child protection schemes and alternative and alternate qualified staff similar to that for qualified social workers. Of course, the strain on resourcing from partners could potentially explain some of the apparent lack of engagement that's been seen in the pilots. The Minister from the other place told us that lessons had been learned from the send inspection process and that police, health and schools would all be willing partners.

But I understand that's not the findings of the pilot areas so far. He also suggested that there'd be unique qualifications for health and police. But and I understand and my understanding of the letter that came out recently from the hon. Lady, the Minister is the same as my colleague in that there was a suggestion that it might be open to police staff and specials, so I look forward to clarification at that point as well, because I believe that would diminish the role.

To be able to make those people would not necessarily be able to make the decisions or the commitments that might be necessary. Likewise, there's a concern about potential change in landscapes and how that might impact delivery. I'm referring specifically to local government reform, of course, and also to the icbs. And in addition to workforce, how might that impact IT systems? The impact of cross border cases also needs consideration, especially as partner agencies involved may not be coterminous with the local authorities.

Finally, there is a concern about the inflexibility of the proposals. The Minister from the other place has indicated that the system is overregulated, and that the new expectation is a self-improving system using practice guides rather than introduction of further statutory guidance, which could mean a way of reducing the financial burden on central government and potentially shifting it to local authorities. How will the Department ensure that the absence of tighter statutory guidance does not lead to variable implementation, or a lack of accountability for best practice? What assurances can be given that practice guides will be sufficiently resourced and supported, rather than just being aspirational? Document how will the department respond if local authorities are unable to implement best practice due to funding or resource constraints? Is there a risk of different levels of service and safeguarding from area to area for children and families? My Lords, the government have invested a substantial amount of taxpayers money in setting up pilot schemes.

It would be foolish to not analyse the experiences from those pilots thoroughly, to understand and answer some of the issues I've just spoken about, to avoid repetition of the areas of the errors that would make best use of the investment. It would ensure listening to professionals responsible for delivery and most importantly of all, keep the children safe. I beg to support.
16:54
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords. I rise to speak to >> My Lords. I rise to speak to government amendment 12. Although I understand why, I think I understand why it's been made, I do understand why it's been made, I do worry that it seems imprecise and I'm not absolutely sure it's necessary. I think where a police officer brings to these teams that's unique is number one powers. They have a power of arrest. They have a power of entry powers to seize evidence. But if this team is not to exercise those powers, they it's not clear why they need the police at all in a way.

But probably more importantly as well, they need experience. What this amendment talks about is that a member of police staff, i.e. somebody who's not a police officer, should have experience, and it's that imprecision that I don't understand. And I wonder if the government would like to try and find some way of making it more precise. Experience could be one week, it could be six years. There is an accreditation process for trained officers, and perhaps the police might offer some form of accreditation measure before they put someone in this role.

I would like myself to see some of that experience, perhaps of going into people's homes, dealing with children in the situation in which childcare is needed, sometimes arresting the parents, sometimes moving the child to another location, sometimes getting involved with other agencies to make sure that child is looked after in the future. The reality is that on the whole, police staff won't have that experience. Now, the only argument I can see for this amendment is that you might have a police officer who's retired, has become a member of police staff, but has previous previous police experience.

If that is the case, I'm not sure it's necessary. There's now a scheme of fire and rehire. Most chief constables seem to be working on it, but the basis of it is that someone retires from their post as a constable, takes their lump sum, abates their pension and carries on being paid as a constable. So if it's the requirement to keep someone in the role with the police experience, I would have thought that's a reasonable reason for doing this. My biggest concern is that and I say this against the police, who of course I love, is that the 43 forces might come to different conclusions about what experience means.

Probably more worryingly, they might come to the conclusion that they actually want the cheapest option. And the cheapest option by far would be to put police staff into this area and not have to play the police officer well. The Minister knows that I've had some concerns about whether the police should be members of this team, but given that they are to be members of this team, probably it's best that they are police officers and not people who we have an imprecise definition of what their experience is, because I think finally, what they do offer is some judgement of the life situations that they deal with and that other social services deal with, and probably that brings some judgement or to amplify their judgement in the the cases that these teams will have to consider.
16:57
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
In other words. >> I stand here as a rather inadequate replacement for Baroness Tyler today, so I will be very Tyler today, so I will be very brief. An amendment six, I think the as Noel Baroness Barran pointed out, we're talking about the most vulnerable group here, certainly a group that doesn't have the added protection of, for instance, the school environment and people looking on. So actually having greater attention paid to it is something which seems self-evident. You should have.

And if the and if the government doesn't like the suggestion made here by my noble friend in the Baroness Bull Baroness Barran, possibly they could tell us where else they'll get it, because I think it is very important. Now, the rest of these amendments are going into a new area of government activity, a new team. So I think coming to the and the concerns that have been raised about how is it going to work, how is it not going to work? The comments made from Lord Hogan-Howe trying to find what happens is something that we really should, and be exploring in considerable depth.

And I well, the Baroness O'Neill experience dwarfs any I have in this field, so I would hope that the government would answer those questions very thoroughly when they come up. And also, I mean, I have no doubt that Baroness Smith is going to do this because she normally does, explaining why she thinks her amendments are necessary. But the one amendment that does really attract my attention is amendment 17. You're going to a new area. Why not check and see how it's working first? My Lords, there's the general agreement on the way of approach, but let's check and make sure it's done properly.

I would suggest that those two particular amendments are ones that, as well as the others here, are ones that really this House should consider very fully.
16:59
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
I want to speak to the amendments being proposed by my amendments being proposed by my noble friend Baroness Barran, and what we've heard from a number of members of the House about the changes that this clause is making. There is a fundamental rebalancing of responsibilities in social care being carried through in the pilots. It is putting much more onto the shoulders of less qualified staff. The reforms were intended to streamline the system and to manage rising costs. But as my noble friend Baroness Barran has pointed out, there are many concerns from from experts such as Professor Monro and from many practitioners about the implications of inexperienced work, finding themselves inexperienced staff, finding themselves doing child protection work, and that, paradoxically, this could lead to more section 47 investigations, not fewer, as was one of the aims of the reforms.

Taking one step back, the hypothesis behind the reforms was the was the the idea that the social care system had become weighted too much towards individual children in isolation, rather than children in the family context, and that more of the support available should be diverted to families rather than given to individual children. But little account was taken of the profile of the children most likely to be in the care of the local authority, and those include children with really severe disabilities and special needs.

Often the children who are most likely unavoidably to to live in social care. As adults. There are there are children where parents simply don't have the capacity to manage at home, even with extensive support. And indeed, the strain of trying to manage a child's needs sometimes has itself fractured. The parental relationship and other family relationships, more family support and more kinship care is often simply not a solution. And then we have to acknowledge that there are some children who simply don't have a decent parent, nor any other decent adult in their family, and realistically never will have.

It's horrible, but true that there are children who simply don't have a family member able and willing to give them the care and attention and love that they need. And we have somehow to recognise and face this. And thirdly, a substantial minority of looked after children are unaccompanied migrant children, typically boys in their late teens. These children aren't here because they have a dysfunctional family network that needs support and intervention by our social workers. They do need help, but other kinds of help.

And there are, of course, risks to these children. And there are also risks to others from some of them. Now, together, these kinds of children account for a substantial proportion of the social care caseload. And yet the reforms that are being pushed through don't really acknowledge the particular needs. So for all these reasons and considering all these kinds of children, I think it's exceptionally important that amendment 17, in particular, deferring carrying through the full reforms until the full findings from the pilots and pathfinders are published, discussed, understood, and any any necessary changes reflected, I think it would be unsafe to proceed.
17:03
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Creating new multi-agency child protection teams through clause three is not, as the noble Lady Baroness Spielman suggested about saving money, it is about bringing together social workers, police, together social workers, police, health and education colleagues with experience in child protection with experience in child protection to take swift and effective action that protects children from harm at the earliest opportunity. And I the earliest opportunity. And I hope I'll be able to respond to the points raised in this short debate, as we did in fact, at length, of course, during committee, and have continued to do through engagement that noble Lords have acknowledged since then, including, in my case, directly with directors of Children's Services.

Turning first to speak to government amendments 12 and 14, which broaden the range of police staff who can work in these teams to include police officers and other police staff experienced in child protection. The need for this amendment arose as we talked more closely with the National Police Chiefs Council, with the National College of Policing, to make sure that we were providing the scope for the correct representatives from policing to be on these teams, and we are confident that this will improve frontline operational capacity through the right people with the right skills working in the team and regulations will be clear that individuals must have appropriate levels of experience, seniority, qualification and expertise.

And I'll come back a bit a bit later on how we will ensure the correct that those appropriate levels are delivered a little later in my remarks. Noble Lords have heard me speak before. In fact, as I suggested at some length in Committee stage about the Families First Partnership Programme, where we are in actual fact, of course, investing £2.4 billion over the next three years to change the way that we help support and protect children. One element of that, introducing new multi-agency child protection teams brings a sharp focus to better multi-agency working, information sharing and decision making, and I therefore welcome the opportunity to address amendments relating to these new teams to clarify what we're learning through the national rollout and how this will inform the future legislative framework on day to day operations.

Turning first to amendment six, tabled in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Barran on the important matter of child protection for very young children in legal proceedings. Of course, these are children who are widely represented in the system as the noble Lady identified, and for whom we need to have special care. But amendment six would require specific senior sign off for the decision to end child protection plan when proceedings have been initiated, or care or supervision orders are issued for children under five.

As I've outlined before, these plans should only end through a child protection conference when multi-agency practitioners are confident that a child is no longer suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, and not automatically when proceedings are initiated. And I know that the noble Lady is concerned that children in these circumstances may fall between teams or services, deciding whether staying at home will keep them safe from harm. But I want to reassure her and noble Lords, that I am confident that reforming the system of family help with new multi-agency child protection teams wrapped around is about exactly this, making sure that the whole system holds the safety and well-being of children as the number one priority.

Moving now to speak to amendments 11, 13, 15 and 16, also at tabled in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Barran. These amendments focussed on the operation and delivery of the new multi-agency Child Protection teams. Amendment 13 seeks to ensure that the new teams operate within the existing statutory framework, working together to safeguard children 2023, and that these teams have sufficient access to health safeguarding expertise, specifically in relation to the NHS. Intercollegiate document Safeguarding Children and Young People in Care Competencies for healthcare staff.

I want to reassure noble Lords that that these teams, as part of the safeguarding partners, will absolutely be required under the existing duties in section 16, E, section 16 and section 16 K to comply with the expectations set out in working together, statutory guidance and local arrangements. And we are working closely with health, police and local authority national leaders to ensure that practitioners in the teams have the skills, expertise and knowledge they need or need access to to deliver effective child protection interventions.

And on the specific point about the police, can I just be clear that the intention of broadening the category, as we have done in the in the government amendments, in my view, would not suggest that a volunteer special constable would be suitable for one of these roles, but we could envisage police staff who would be appropriately qualified. And in fact, as I've said, regulations will set out the requirements for the skills and qualifications, including police representatives and the College of Policing's Professionalising Public Protection programme, and developing resources to make sure that the police workforce have enough of the right professionals with the right competences, qualifications and experience to work in multi-agency child protection teams.

And there are good examples of police forces providing expert staff for child protection work. For example, Thames Valley Police deploy experienced senior police representatives to their local multi-agency safeguarding hubs, including detective sergeant equivalents. They are decision makers and they offer expertise to support their police representatives at all levels, and Thames Valley will take this approach to staffing multi-agency child protection teams. Well, so just yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry, I just would be grateful if the noble Lady could clarify. So I think when I was speaking, she said special constables would not be represented. I think she said that again just I think she said that again just now. I'm looking at the letter that she sent to all peers on the 7th of January in which she says clause three, the government's laying two amendments to broaden which practitioners from the police can practitioners from the police can be deployed to multi-agency child protection teams so that it includes police staff and special constables.

Could you explain that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, I have to say I regret that we put including special constables in there because given constables in there because given the criteria that will be set out in regulations for the level of in regulations for the level of expertise and experience and skills necessary to be part of these teams, necessary to be part of these teams, I couldn't envisage a situation in which a volunteer special constable would be an appropriate person to be part of those teams, and just and I was just coming to the point of reiterating that we are setting out in regulations the skills, knowledge and qualifications that all practitioners nominated in multi agency child protection teams will need and that these regulations will be subject to both public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, so that we'll be able to be clear in those the types of people from those safeguarding partners who would be appropriate to be part of the teams.

Amendment 11 seeks clarity on the support that multi-agency child protection teams will provide to local authorities to keep children safe from harm. And I have listened to requests to be more specific about what these teams will do in practice. And that's why last week, the department published a policy statement to give clarity about the scope of regulations for the operation of these teams. I hope noble Lords have had the chance to look at that. The statement makes clear that the teams will deliver all statutory child protection functions, from strategy meetings to conferencing.

These teams will lead investigations and make decisions about what needs to happen to keep children safe from harm, and then hold agencies to account for delivering support. I hope the statement reassures noble Lords that we are working closely with multi-agency partners and will continue to work with noble Lords and others as we develop the regulations through public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, to make sure that these teams are the very best that they can be. Amendments 15 and 16 seek to allow the social worker and education practitioner in multi-agency child protection teams to operate on behalf of multiple local authorities, where teams are combined across local authority boundaries.

As I clarified at committee, local authority professionals in the teams must remain responsible for children in their area. This ensures the local authority with statutory responsibility for the child continues to be accountable, and that children do not fall between the cracks. Collaboration across areas and between practitioners will happen. In fact, clause four of the bill creates a clear duty on all practitioners to share information to safeguard or promote the welfare of the child, regardless of local authority boundaries.

Turning now to amendments 17, 250 and 251, also tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Barron, which relate to evidence, funding and accountability for these new multi-agency teams in relation to amendment seven. I agree that learning from the families first for children pathfinders is important, but I think that we must balance this with acting now to improve protection for every child that needs it immediately. Pathfinders are, as the name suggests, finding the way to the new approach that the government has set out.

They are not pilots as such, which we would then need to complete before we carried on with progress. We are already seeing commitment across the country from local areas who are driving forward on implementing these new teams. There are existing proven models and decades of learning about what works in protecting children that these new teams are based on, and I would seriously worry about delaying this great progress. Noble Lords will know that following committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Confirm that all the pilots are not exactly the same. So therefore there will be different evidence there will be different evidence from the different types of pilots done. And surely a sensible thing done. And surely a sensible thing is to actually find out what works best and what doesn't work best.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

best and what doesn't work best. The Pathfinders and I and I know it's semantic, but I do think the point I made about Pathfinders is important. Yes, the Pathfinders are trying out different approaches within the criteria and the framework set for those pathfinders, and they are discovering, you know, as we've suggested, I think at some length when we were talking about some of the examples in committee, different ways of doing things, but and they're also ensuring that we're doing this on a basis that will have the right professionals in the right place, will ensure that that children do not fall between gaps.

In fact, we will actively close gaps that exist within the system now and that we will continue to learn from. And I'll come to the point about timing in a moment, because I do think that that's important. So I was just coming to the point about the round table with both Pathfinder Directors of Children's Services and representatives from each of the regions that I held to discuss the opportunities and challenges in implementing these new teams. And just to reassure noble Lords, I did say specifically to my team in setting up the Round Table that I wasn't interested in only hearing from people who thought everything was going well, but from those who might have been more sceptical.

Well, I have to say that I did hear overwhelmingly from Pathfinders that while changing the approach to child protection, has been challenging the benefits of multi-agency expertise in working are already evident in the decisions and outcomes for children. For example, areas shared positive examples of innovative, innovative, whole family work enabled by multi-agency collaboration and noted more empowering and transparent practice, has given partners confidence in the approach. But I also want to take a moment to reassure noble Lords that we do recognise the scale of the ask here.

This is a complex national system reform that requires leadership, cooperation and commitment from agencies. That requires us. The noble Lady Baroness O'Neill is right. That requires us to learn from the Pathfinders, and I will, by the way, undertake to ensure as far as possible, we're able to provide, as we continue some of the evidence that the noble Lady identified. Which is why, through the Families First Partnership programme, we are also working, for example, with three three police force areas the met, Thames Valley and West Mercia, to identify how we can create multi-agency child protection teams that that align with policing footprints and this work includes over 40 local authority areas working together to create effective delivery approaches.

And we will bring into that work representatives from health and education as well. And finally, on this point about delay, it is not the intention that assuming that this bill passes through these these houses, that the multi-agency child protection teams will instantly need to spring into action. It isn't even the case, as that noble Lady Baroness O'Neill said, that we're expecting them to be fully in place during this calendar year. I want to reassure noble Lords that the provisions will not come into force before late 2027, following public consultation and further scrutiny of regulations by Parliament.

We also have a comprehensive quarterly monitoring process to measure progress, impact and outcomes as the Families First programme rolls out nationally and we are working across sectors to share learning about what works. But I would just ask noble Lords to not to slam the brakes onto what is an important reform, for which I think there has been considerable support and where work is already underway. Turning to amendments 250 and 251 regarding resourcing, funding and effective delivery of these teams.

Just to be clear, again, as we were in committee, safeguarding partners already have a joint and equal duty to work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. Statutory guidance. Working together to safeguard children is clear about the expectations on safeguarding partners in making these local arrangements. Guidance will be updated in line with new regulations to clarify what this means for delivering multi-agency child protection teams. Therefore, resource and funding are already agreed locally and this will be the same for multi-agency child protection teams.

And once again, we're learning from the Pathfinders here. For instance, some areas are funding new roles, others are using existing or seconded resources, and some are using agreements between agencies to pool resources for multi-agency child protection teams. And the noble Lady Baroness Barran seemed to suggest that that it was wrong, that there were different approaches that were being taken in in different areas. That is precisely the type of flexibility and local recognition of responsibilities of the way in which the teams have been set up.

That I think is important. The Children Act 2004 means safeguarding partners can also already work with relevant agencies, such as probation and youth offending teams, to support their arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Clause three will supplement these local arrangements and allow safeguarding partners to choose from a sub list set out in regulations, which relevant agencies will work most closely with them to support the multi-agency Child Protection Team functions. Agreeing this locally through cooperation memorandums.

And we say more on this in the published policy statement. At committee, I outline the £523 million funding made available in 20 2526 for national rollout of our children's social care reform. Since then, we have confirmed a further £2.4 billion. Over the next three years. I'm sure that noble Lords will agree that this is a significant and important investment that shows our commitment to reforming the system, to reforming it right, and to improving protection for children. And I hope, therefore, with the reassurance and clarification that I provided, that the noble Lady feels able to withdraw this amendment, and I beg to move the government amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the noble Lady sits down. I wonder if she could clarify two wonder if she could clarify two things, and I apologise if I missed the first. But she went through a series of expectations for series of expectations for qualifications for staff in the multi-agency child protection teams. I didn't hear her confirm that those would align to the intercollegiate document, so I'd be intercollegiate document, so I'd be grateful if she could confirm that in relation to health staff. And also, did she could she just clarify? I think I wrote down that she said these teams by which I wasn't sure whether that was the multi-agency child protection teams or the early health teams or both, will not be implemented until the end of 2027, which feels later than was previously projected.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wondered if she could clarify that. On the point about the NHS,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the point about the NHS, intercollegiate guidance, or that that's that document anyway. Yes, I that's that document anyway. Yes, I think the point that I was making was the that we believe that the was the that we believe that the provisions there are already set out in the working together requirements, and we'll be able, of requirements, and we'll be able, of course, to set that out more fully in regulations. I'm pretty confident about that. If I've gone beyond where I should have gone, I will make that clear.

When I refer to teams, I. I'm sorry, I'm in some ways I was shortening the my speaking note every time I think I referred to teams, I was referring to multi-agency child protection teams, and the point I was making was there will be many of those teams already set up, already operating as part of the pathfinder process. But in recognition of the scale of the challenge, we are clear that we will take time to get the regulations right to continue the learning from the Pathfinders, and to do that in a way that ensures that we can all be confident that they will be successful.

And that's the reason for the timescale that I set out.
17:25
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
I'd like to thank the noble Lady >> I'd like to thank the noble Lady very much for that clarification, and to all noble Lords who and to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. And I'd also like to acknowledge the government's financial commitment to this program in relation to my amendment six the noble Baroness. The Minister, said that a child protection plan should only end up when there's a multi-agency child protection case conference. I think one could argue that under the government's proposed system, where the same social worker will work with a family but also chair that conference, actually the need for fresh eyes to look at those cases of very young children who are at risk of not having adequate protection and are not nearly so visible to society as those over the age of five, because obviously they're not in school.

I'm not convinced by the arguments that the noble Lady made. I am amazed, I think, that she regrets she put special constables in the letter. I can imagine she's feeling a bit irritated about that, but I think there are a lot of people who will have received the letter who aren't in the chamber. So I hope the noble Lady will write and clarify that special constables will not be eligible because it looked like a cost cutting measure. As the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe alluded to.

I agree in relation to the cross border work that there's no one should not in any way blur accountability as amendments 15 and 16 aimed to introduce some more flexibility. But I think the noble Lady knows families move around a lot, particularly in London, and having rigid boundaries I think will be unworkable and that more flexibility will need to emerge in future. I think it is semantics. Turning 17, whether they're Pathfinders or and I hear what she says, and I absolutely believe her, that the government is seeing increasing commitments from some local authorities.

But she's also aware that very senior, very experienced, very committed people who want to see the best for children also have specific concerns. And it was before my time, but I'm not for a second suggesting I would have got it right. But those who are involved in the special educational needs reforms, who introduced the Children and Families Act, did so in the same spirit to address an urgent problem that needed an urgent solution. But without proper piloting, that has ended up in a place that nobody intended it to do.

And I think the spirit of my amendment 17, together with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is to avoid that happening again. I, as I say, I'm not convinced by the noble Ladies explanation in relation to amendment six. We're talking about 65% of child deaths and serious harm occurring to that age group. So I would like to test the opinion of the House question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that this amendment be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say, content. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. Content, content, content question will be decided by a division. I will inform the House
17:30
17:41
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, these amendments refer >> My Lords, these amendments refer to by my notes which I put down somewhere. I'm sorry I have to do somewhere. I'm sorry I have to do without them. These this group of amendments in in my name and supported by my noble friend Lord Mohammed all refer to early years safeguarding in in general, and particularly those in large nurseries and early group settings that are regulated. We all expect, that are regulated.

We all expect, don't we, that when a child goes to nursery that they are safeguarded and looked after? And recently two. MPs have in their constituencies faced the horrific situation where a constituent's have come to them were the child was not properly looked after in the nursery, and those children in certainly in Cheadle, were lying on a mattress rolled over and the child sadly died. And you can imagine the the absolute horror, the absolute upset, the the devastation that those families must have faced.

So these. Amendments make suggestions about how we might give added safeguards, particularly in those nurseries which are are in groups or in chains of nurseries. And I want to particularly thank the Minister and Ministers for being prepared to listen, prepared to meet and prepared to understand, and not only our Minister here, but also Minister Bailey, who I met. I lost track of the days now last week I think it was and was was very supportive indeed.

And you would expect that. And I, I want to pay pay tribute and thank them for that, that understanding and response. So firstly amendment seven ensures that large nurseries and early years groups must actively participate in the arrangements, including local briefings and trainings, and allows this to be enforced through registration and funding conditions. Amendment eight in my name, that any large nursery or early Years group which operates more than one registered setting automatically, is brought within the arrangements as a designated agency and amendment nine.

This clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling Ofsted to inspect and report at the level of large early years groups or nursery chains so that safeguarding problems, which span multiple settings, can be identified and addressed at a group level. And finally, amendment ten would require the statutory framework to be revised so that large nursery groups must ensure the safeguarding leads and staff are trained and engaged with local safeguarding arrangements across all of our settings.

Now, I absolutely sure that nurseries which are currently in settings or groups of of nurseries, I'm sure the staff do all they can to ensure these practices of safeguarding happening, but we must do everything to tighten any potential areas of concern so that all parents can be assured that when their child goes to a nursery, they are fully safeguarded. I move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Posed pause two, page three. Line nine. At the end, insert the words as printed on the margin of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

best. My Lords, please let me thank the noble Lord Lord Storey for his the noble Lord Lord Storey for his focus on bringing forward these amendments. The amendment, the amendments themselves are obviously
17:46
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
amendments themselves are obviously well intentioned, but His Majesty's Loyal Opposition harbours certain reservations. We do, of course, recognise that safeguarding arrangements should, wherever possible, be consistent across different childcare providers and their settings. Many families both depend upon and place a huge amount of trust. In early years, providers and nurseries, and therefore approaches to safeguarding should be well coordinated and the relevant staff involved should be trained to a level where they feel fully confident and able to engage with safeguarding partnerships.

Indeed, only last month, Ofsted warned that early opportunities to identify children with special educational needs and disabilities are being missed, and this can result in a lack of understanding of individual children's situations, meaning that the schools do not always take a flexible approach to their behaviour policies or make reasonable adjustments. There is, of course, a clear need for early years training to adapt to this emerging reality. However, as was so eloquently put by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, former Chief Inspector for education, Children's Services and Skills, at Committee stage, there are some key concerns about the capacity of providers to implement the proposed changes, namely the majority of schools which fall on safeguarding and inspection are small schools, primaries and special schools that struggle to cope with the complexity.

Given this, we are concerned as to whether these amendments are feasible, and whilst we believe in a coordinated, multi-agency approach, the inclusion of early years groups and nurseries to these partnerships may risk adding further layers of complexity which would not necessarily be of help. Nor would we wish the lines of responsibility for safeguarding to be blurred between ever more partners, to a point where it is no longer a functioning or focussed local safeguarding partnership? No one would want the unintended result to be that safeguarding does not improve, but administrative capacity declines.

These concerns remain about the noble Lords amendments, implementation and impact. In practice before the 2024 election, the Department for education committed to setting out a timetable for a consultation covering education's role in safeguarding the Education Committee in the Other Place has recently launched a call for evidence as part of its ongoing inquiry to examine how safeguarding can be strengthened in nurseries for childminders and other early years settings. Under the Early Years Foundation stage, there is yet to be concrete evidence to support the proposals here, and we feel it would potentially be pre-emptive to introduce such amendments.

Now, these are obviously important issues which need to be consulted upon further, and we look forward to acting on the findings as and when they are brought to your Lordships House. We support the aims of the amendments to support a holistic and thorough approach to safeguarding arrangements. But that approach must be evidence based to ensure that providers have sufficient capacity and resources for this to capacity and resources for this to work in practice.
17:50
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, turning to this group, >> My Lords, turning to this group, group three, and particularly first of all, amendments seven and eight tabled by the noble Lord Lord Storey, let me be clear that I fully recognise the vital importance of ensuring that every education, setting and childcare provider is fully embedded in local safeguarding arrangements. We are acutely aware of the appalling instances of abuse that have occurred with certain nursery chains, and no one in this chamber underestimates the gravity of those failures.

And whilst I cannot comment on the specifics of ongoing reviews, I know that our thoughts will remain firmly with the children and families affected. And I would also like to extend my thanks to the commitment of hon. Members Munira Wilson, Tom Morrison and Tulip Siddiq, who have been powerful champions for families and children affected. Their contribution underscores the importance of the reforms this bill takes forward. It is precisely to emphasise that the system already places clear, multi-agency safeguarding duties on all registered early years settings through existing regulations.

Clause two reinforces and clarifies these obligations by placing a duty on safeguarding partners to include education and childcare settings in their arrangements, and ensures providers continue to take part in safeguarding activities. In short, the settings in scope of amendments seven and eight are already captured by the legal framework and measures in this clause, adding an extra layer of statutory designation risks creating legislative duplication with no clear operational benefit. In addition, robust accountability is already in place, including through independent inspection and statutory guidance.

Under the Children Act 2004. This ensures that relevant agencies participate fully in safeguarding arrangements and are supported to do so. Additional legislative compliance conditions, such as linking participation to funding or registration are unnecessary. The existing framework, combined with the enhancements delivered through clause two, give safeguarding partners the tools they need to secure meaningful and consistent cooperation across the sector. I now turn to amendments nine and ten, also tabled by the noble Lord Lord story. And as he set out the overarching aim of these amendments is important and it is already recognised by the government.

Amendment nine seeks to make specific provision for Ofsted inspection and reporting on nursery chains. An amendment ten requires the statutory framework to be revised, so that nursery groups must ensure their safeguarding leads and staff are trained in and engaged with local safeguarding arrangements across all of their settings. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that we are committed to reviewing nursery chain regulation, to improve market oversight and to improve the quality and safety of early years education and childcare.

This commitment was first made in the government's recent Best Start in Life strategy. It was reconfirmed in the statement that the Secretary of State made in the House of Commons, in response to Operation Lanark, and I am happy to reconfirm it today in response to the points made by the noble Lord Lord Storey on amendment nine. I appreciate the concern of noble Lords regarding Ofsted inspection of early years groups and chains, so that safeguarding problems that span multiple settings can be identified and addressed addressed at group level.

Although Ofsted can already take action against settings that are linked by the same registered person, we are in complete agreement that we need further consideration of bespoke powers for the regulation of nursery chains to better safeguard the youngest and most vulnerable children. To that end, we have committed to working with Ofsted to review the regulation of early years chains. We expect this will very likely lead to recommendations relating to inspecting and reporting on chains. However, careful consideration is needed to ensure that we get this right before we make legislative change.

Turning to amendment ten, I once more appreciate the concern of noble Lords regarding safeguarding training in early years settings. In September 2025, we introduced new safeguarding training requirements within the Early Years Foundation stage. Statutory framework. All early years staff must be trained in line with these and designated Safeguarding Leads must know their local child protection procedures and how to liaise with local statutory children's services agencies and local safeguarding partners. Any new requirements which would need to be considered at a chain level will form part of the previously mentioned Nursery Chain Regulation review.

They will be in scope of that review. Given that, I hope that I have addressed the noble Lord, Lord story's concerns. He is right to have brought, particularly in the light of some of the devastating events that he has referenced. These issues to notice of this House, and I hope, given my reassurances, that he feels able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw his amendment. My Lords, I thank the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her fulsome response. Like her I have, it's almost the opposite of Lord Carrington. I have concerns Lord Carrington. I have concerns about large nursery chains, nursery businesses, large groups of nurseries run by a business where often decisions are made away from that individual nursery. I personally, and perhaps should say that I was a head teacher and had a nursery of 100 places. And if there was any issue, I was always on hand to to deal with them and support my staff.

I'm wondering if you've got a nursery business of, you know, several dozen nurseries, whether you can have that immediate impact of change that might be required. I'm really and I suppose also what I didn't say was after the parents in these two tragic cases, you feel helpless and you want to do something. And I think I paid tribute to them that in the grieving for the the child, that they came forward with ideas to actually improve the safeguarding arrangements.

And I just think that is amazing that they can they can think of other children after having faced the loss of their own own child. I'm very, very grateful to the Minister and she recognises the problem of those large chains and how we should work with Ofsted or talk to Ofsted about how we can bring forward perhaps some recommendations in the future. So I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments eight, nine and ten Lord Storey not moved. Not not moved. Amendment 11 Baroness Barran not Amendment 11 Baroness Barran not not moved. Not moved. Amendment 12 Baroness Smith of Malvern moved formally. Moved formally. Question is that this amendment be agreed to, as many of that opinion shall say content contrary not content, the contents have it.

Amendment 13 Baroness Barran not moved 14 Baroness Smith of Malvern moved formally. Question is that this amendment be agreed to as many are of that opinion content contrary not content, the contents have it amendments 15 and 16 Baroness amendments 15 and 16 Baroness Barran not not moved. Amendment 17 Baroness Barran.
17:59
18:00
18:11
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern I rise to move amendment 18 in this group. to move amendment 18 in this group. In the name of my noble friend Baroness Smith. Group four covers minor and technical government amendments in relation to data protection. These remove clause 62 protection. These remove clause 62 and amend certain text in clauses four, 13, 18, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 45. The original drafting in the bill sought to clarify that any duties or powers to process personal data is subject to data protection law.

However, these references are now unnecessary. Following the commencement of section 106 of the data in brackets, Use and Access Act 2025. On the 20th of August 2025, my Lords, let me reassure that this absolutely does not remove any data protections. This is about redefining, refining, drafting to reflect the latest legislative developments. Section 106 of the 2025 act introduced a general data protection override into the Data Protection Act, 2018. This ensures that the UK's data protection laws are not overridden by future legislation that imposes a duty or grants a power to process personal data, unless expressly provided otherwise.

This does not remove any data protections. This is about refining drafting to reflect the latest legislative

**** Possible New Speaker ****

changes to the UK's statute book. I therefore beg to move these amendments. Amendment proposed clause four,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause four, page seven. Leave out lines 11 to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

14. I'd just like to say I welcome very much the clarification from very much the clarification from the noble Baroness, the Minister, both for the reasons and the impact
18:13
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
of these amendments, which seem

**** Possible New Speaker ****

entirely reasonable. Smith. Smith is moved. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

These amendments. The question is that amendment 18 stand part of the bill, as many 18 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion say, content, the contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Barran. My Lords, as we debated at Committee stage of the bill in clause four, the way the bill is currently drafted, and I'm not sure that, in fact, I'm pretty confident that both Ministers don't believe this is how it should work in practice. But the bill seems to be drafted in the way that there's a one way flow of information between someone with safeguarding duties to someone else with safeguarding duties. But if this is to make a difference to the safety of children, we need to be clear that information needs to flow back and to be shared in a multi-agency context.

Initially, such as a mash, and potentially later on in terms of child protection. But the significance of any piece of information is not usually clear until it's put together. And a jigsaw picture emerges of what is going on in a child's life. So my amendment 19, also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, sets out how in practice the links should work between wider information sharing fora and the multi-agency child protection teams. It aims to set out some key practical issues that need to work.

If information sharing results in action rather than just sharing. So it covers the coordination function of the front door, how information is passed on to the child protection teams, the need for clear timescales, referral thresholds and secure systems. I understand that the Minister may argue that this will be set out in regulations and guidance, but I really seek with this amendment her reassurance to me and to the House that these specific points will be covered. And just to stress, sharing information on its own does not make any child safer.

It is the actions that arise from it, from a better understanding of their situations which might make them safer. And we need to ensure that assumptions are not made about who might have relevant information. But the opportunity is taken to share information and to make multi-agency safety plan that can be drawn as widely as possible. My amendment 23 looks again at the government's approach to introducing the single unique identifier and would require the specification of the NHS number.

The noble Baroness the Minister, will know that the pilot in Wigan, of the single unique identifier, has revealed just how complicated it is to implement this approach and therefore, I would argue, how slow it is. So we continue to believe that it just isn't realistic to think that the government will introduce another identifier or another number that would be workable as set out in government amendment 22. So I would be very grateful when the noble Baroness, the Minister, comes to sum up whether she could give an estimate for the time scale and the relative costs of the two approaches of using an NHS number, or using a new single unique

**** Possible New Speaker ****

identifier. I beg to move. Amendment. Proposed clause four. Page seven. Line 14. At the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. I rise briefly to add my name to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to add my name to the noble Lady. Baroness Barran amendment 19. As a teacher, we are
18:18
18:19
18:20
18:22
18:23
18:25
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Good cooking. >> With gas today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're all fresh at this point. My Lords, throughout the passage of this bill, there has been a strong interest in provisions to improve information sharing for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. And I do share the points made by the noble Lady Baroness Barran and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton and others. In fact, that information sharing is a necessary but not sufficient determinant of whether or not what we have is effective practice.

It is, as others have identified, enormously important and has too often been lacking in cases where children have have come to harm. But it must be a basis for action. And that's why the. The point of information sharing, as I say, is for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. This call for improved information sharing includes the long requested introduction of a consistent identifier for children, which mirrors the provision for adults, which was introduced as far back as 2015.

There is, as I think we've heard, broad support for these measures, with concerns focussed on ensuring that they can be implemented successfully, appropriately and as soon as possible. And the government amendments in this group aim to provide further clarity. Turning to amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Barran, that seeks to require safeguarding partners to establish practical, multi-agency arrangements for initial information sharing before section 47, thresholds can be determined. As the noble Ladies Amendment suggests, clear information sharing processes are crucial.

However, safeguarding partners and as I have suggested, need to be followed up by action. And that is why safeguarding partners must already publish their multi-agency arrangements, including how they identify and respond to children's needs. So the requirements set down in this amendment would actually duplicate existing requirements. Local leaders must retain flexibility to establish effective systems for their context, including how information flows between services. And I hope I can reassure the noble Lady that it is not our intention, nor do we believe that the current.

Way in which this is. Drafted within the legislation implies one way flow only it doesn't. It implies precisely the or. It determines precisely the sort of flows backwards and forwards of information that the noble Lady rightly identified as being fundamental for this to be a success. But in addition. To the existing requirements to publish multi-agency arrangements prior to commencement, we will consult on and publish statutory guidance, including a template data sharing agreement to help partners agree information flows and ensure timely and consistent information sharing within and across agencies.

And I hope that that provides the assurance that the noble Lady was looking for. Turning to amendment 23, I support the sentiment set out in this amendment from the noble Lady Baroness Barran to broaden the consistent identifier regulation, making powers to ensure scrutiny of how the consistent identifier operates and which number is used. Government amendments 21 introducing an information standard and 26 introducing a Code of practice. Also support effective operation of the consistent identifier, but are more focussed, as I have already set out during committee.

We are piloting the NHS number only and we want to be assured of the benefits and information governance before naming a consistent identifier in legislation. Since committee, we have continued pilot activity which has provided valuable insights into what is required to operationalise the consistent identifier and to implement the information sharing duty effectively. As has rightly been the call today, we have also carefully considered the comments and amendments raised during committee and in relation to what? What have we learnt from Wigan, and particularly from the complexity of what's been demonstrated there? Firstly, on on the timing of introducing the identifier as a manifesto commitment, we we want to deliver on this ambition as soon as possible, and we have identified that we believe we will be able to do this before the end of this Parliament, but we will only mandate the when we're confident in the benefits, benefits, cost, security and governance.

Ensuring the consistent identifier delivers the intended outcomes. And it's our ambition to lay regulations by the end of this Parliament, as I say, to enable that to happen. Progress is taking time and noble Lords may wonder why a single unique identifier requires one authoritative source and secure access for every organisation that needs it. The NHS number, managed through the Personal Demographics Service, is the leading candidate that we're basing pilot activity on, as I say, and whilst the personal demographics service is mature and has many health systems connected to it, extending this into children's services is complex and it must be done right.

But what we've learned so far is that our first pilot with Wigan proved direct connectivity to Ppds is possible, and improved the lookup of NHS numbers and the match rate by ten percentage points compared to manual processes. But it was resource intensive and took almost nine months to work through information governance activity, which I know noble Lords will recognise is important. Whilst appropriate for initial test and learn work, that approach also worked outside of the day to day systems that social workers use.

So we want to work with a small number of additional local authorities so that we can continue to build evidence about matching rates and issues, but ultimately, scaling the original approach would be neither practical nor proportionate. So we want to, through further local pilots. Sorry, further local pilots that work outside of the day to day systems practitioners use would likely repeat what we have already learned. So instead, we're using this learning and will begin developing prototypes based upon what we think the end solution needs to look like.

For a scalable solution that works through the existing systems practitioners use. And we believe that this approach will help us to get to the end state more quickly. In other words, we will be able to introduce it more broadly, more quickly than was the case in Wigan. That's important learning. As a result, we're bringing forward amendments to facilitate effective information sharing, particularly in relation to operation of the consistent identifier. These comprise of information standards, a code of practice and the power to share the identifier with designated persons.

So, in relation to government amendment 21. And I thank the noble Lady Baroness Spielman for recognising the response to concerns that she and others had had raised here. Consistency of approach to recording key information about a child helps support effective information sharing by facilitating smoother exchange between and within systems. This amendment ensures that all agencies and service providers involved in safeguarding children must have regard to information standards issued by the Secretary of State, publishing these standards and consulting relevant sector bodies, the Information Commissioner's Office and relevant government departments.

Promotes transparency and accountability whilst supporting consistency through the use of information standards. Turning to Government Amendment 26. Whilst there is already a provision requiring designated persons to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State, the Code of Practice would sit alongside any such guidance to cover technical and practical matters relating to the consistent identifier, both in terms of accessing the identifier, how it is stored and how to use it to best effect. This would complement the guidance and allow the content to be updated on a more regular basis to reflect latest technical developments and any changes in processes.

The Code of Practice will be informed by piloting and testing of the consistent identifier, which will involve user testing as well as engagement and consultation with relevant sector bodies, the Information Commissioner's Office and relevant government departments. Turning finally to Government Amendment 22, this amendment enables regulations to be made authorising or requiring a person to disclose the consistent identifier to a designated person, so that the designated person can comply with their duty under section 16 brackets for the intention is that the regulations will apply to persons or agencies who hold or manage the consistent identifier on a national basis, as opposed to those who may hold or manage the identifier for a child or group of children for their own purposes.

This amendment helps ensure that the person or agency has the appropriate powers or duties to share the identifier, so that designated persons can comply with their duty to include the consistent identifier when they're processing information about a child, as well as alleviating concerns about sharing information and clarifying that the duty of confidence is overridden. I. I hope noble Lords will feel able to support these amendments, which I move, and I hope that I have addressed the noble Ladies concerns and that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
18:36
18:38
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
Sir Baroness McIntosh of Pickering, is unable to be here and Pickering, is unable to be here and is therefore asked me to lead on this amendment. It follows on from that move by the noble Baroness at the Committee stage of this Bill on the 22nd of May last year. As I have said, the noble Baroness regrets she's unavailable. But I would like to just to take a moment to recognise her dedicated support for the work of child contact centres and her wish to maintain and raise the standards of such centres, standards which are already high if accredited by the National Association.

This is a more straightforward amendment than that. Moved at Committee stage, it simply requires all contact centres and organisations to be accredited in accordance with national standards for safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse, with such accreditation to be granted by the National Association of Child Contact Centres, there can be no doubt about the value and effectiveness of child contact centres, as they have evolved since the first was set up in the late 1980s in Nottingham by a Family Court magistrate to help those separated parents who could not arrange contact for themselves.

The centres do allow parents and children to adjust to child contact in a safe and neutral environment. The use of such centres, when court directed has been reinforced since 2000 by judicial protocols, the first of which was in endorsed by the noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss sloth when president of the Family Division, and which has later been updated and revised by her successors. One of those was Sir James Munby, who sadly died earlier this month.

In a speech in 2018, he said this everyone in the family justice system knows just what a vital role is played by child contact centres and the contact centre movement. Child contact centres enable contact which otherwise might not occur to take place, and they play a central part in maintaining and, if necessary, restoring and rebuilding the child's relationship with parents, grandparents and other relatives. He went on to say that NAC and the whole Contact centre movement are a distinguished example of the voluntary sector at its very best, and the civic and the civic society operating as it should.

Sir James, for those who knew him, was never given to understatement, but in that he was completely correct. It is the experience of all of us who worked or work or have worked in the family justice system, that such centres are now essential in enabling courts, cafcass and those advising parents, but also unrepresented parents and marginalised grandparents to manage contact problems and disputes. They facilitate supported contact and for those cases requiring more vigilance, they can provide supervised contact.

Typically, use of a centre in a fairly is a fairly short term measure, a temporary solution on the way to more solution on the way to more normalised arrangements. It is certainly the experience of all judges that it's very gratifying to see contact arrangements progress in a way, in a way that moves the arrangements away from the centre, perhaps after six months or so, with the use of a well-run centre, having reassured typically an anxious mother and or a suspicious and resentful father, that contact can proceed away from the centre and in the community, the strengths and potential weaknesses of contact centres were shown in the recent report by Cordis Bright, published in 2023, and this amendment really builds on that.

The emphasis in this amendment is on the use of national standards for safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse. Those who refer a family to a centre should already be required to inform the centre of the relevant background, history, and in particular, any violence or abusive behaviour or conflict, so that the more profound problems can be screened out. Conflict avoided. Those working in centres do need training to identify and deal with the risks to have accreditation as proposed in this amendment, which would require all centres to work to the same standard, will be important in helping centres deliver their services and it will underpin the confidence of those using or thinking of using such centres, and will further safeguard the children concerned.

It is on that basis that I beg to move.
18:44
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause four, insert the following new clause the words as printed on the Marshalled List. >> I agree with every word of the noble Lord Meston. One of the rather sad aspects of a minority of rather sad aspects of a minority of families who can't get on and separate is they so often don't recognise that children love both of them. It's all too common for one parent to say the child won't want to see daddy. She can't stand him or daddy to say, I know that I won't be allowed to see her.

That woman can't bear me. And this is, I regret to tell you, absolutely. Typical contact centres are brilliant. I not only was very involved with the National Association for many years, but I used to be a governor of Quorum Centre and they had an absolutely wonderful assisted contact centre where very often in public law cases, the families went there rather than going to a local authority office because it was much more comfortable, much nicer, and children could see parents in absolutely safe circumstances.

Very few parents, except that tiny, absolutely unbelievable minority who won't agree to anything. Most parents will be very happy for their child to see the other parent in a contact centre because it's safe, it's pleasant. The child has lots of toys to play with. I went to a lot of centres right across Wales as well as in England, and was very impressed in particular with the Baptist one in Swansea, all voluntary and absolutely beautifully done. But it is important that the points are made by the noble Lord Meston that the contact centre needs to know a bit about the background.

The contact centre needs to have appropriate training for its members who are looking after the children. You don't need a great deal of training, but you do need some and in particular that the contact centre is meeting the absolute minimum standards because there are out there centres which would not be entirely suitable for families and for children. And consequently I very strongly support this amendment.
18:46
18:48
18:48
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thought I'd >> My Lords, I thought I'd intervene this, as I've dealt with in my time as a family magistrate. The issue of contact centres really The issue of contact centres really quite a number of times, and I wanted to make a point that Lord Meston didn't made. And that is the problem with unregistered contact centres. When you're in court, it's not always obvious to the court making decision whether the contact centre proposed is registered or unregistered.

And this is of course, is a is a is a potentially very serious problem. And I've even been in court where we've been told that one of the parties had personally set up a contact centre as a way of kind of gaming the system, if I can put it like that. So, so this is a real problem. And registration and training, of course, is the answer. And I hope that my noble friend can be as encouraging as possible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord Lord Meston made a very compelling case, both for the value of child contact centres in and of themselves, and the importance of themselves, and the importance of having clear minimum standards and having clear minimum standards and achieving that through additional training and accreditation. And I have to say that I did feel in this case that the Minister gave a very good answer at committee in this specific case, and she highlighted the role of the National Association of Child Contact Centres.

So I don't in any way disagree with the aims of the amendment. But I suppose my experience, having worked in a charity which did a lot of training and accreditation. Is that we can place too much weight on it and what it can achieve. I think the point the noble Lord Lord Ponsonby makes about unregistered contact centres is extremely important, and anything the Minister can say that would ensure that courts have absolute clarity and magistrates have absolute clarity as to whether
18:51
18:52
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, turning to this amendment, which was in the name of the noble Lady Baroness McIntosh, the noble Lady Baroness McIntosh, but introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, this would require all providers of child contact centre services to be accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres, to national standards set by the Secretary of State. And I'd like to start in responding to this by recognising, as all noble Lords have, the vital role played by the National Association of Child Contact Centres and by the many dedicated child contact centres across England and Wales.

As the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss made clear, their work is fundamental to the family justice system, providing supervised or supported contact in a safe, neutral environment, allowing children to maintain a meaningful relationship with a non-resident parent. And furthermore, of course, the commitment of staff and volunteers to safeguarding and creating a child focussed space is invaluable, and I want to express my sincere appreciation for the work that they and the NAC undertake. I understand the motivation behind this amendment, but.

But the government does not believe that it is necessary and is already responding to some of the points made both in this debate and in the debate in committee. Firstly, the NAC already accredit the majority of centres in England and Wales with research showing that unaccredited centres are uncommon and I, in preparing for this, asked the obvious question which is, well, how many unaccredited child contact centres are there? Interestingly, the Cordis bright research that the.

Noble Lady referenced earlier on found that there was only a small number of unaccredited contact centres, but the report itself did not provide a figure or estimate as to the number of those unaccredited contact centres. Those working in accredited child contact centres who took part in the research. When asked about unaccredited contact centres, indicated that such centres were few in number. This may well suggest that we have made progress due to the efforts of the Nar triple C in ensuring that many more child contact centres are accredited by them, but following the meeting that my noble friend.

Sorry following the meeting that noble Lords had with my noble friend Baroness Levitt, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords, a range of work has been commissioned and is being taken forward by officials at the Ministry of Justice. One of those pieces of work is for officials to work with the Nar. To further understand how we can identify the number of unaccredited contact centres in England and Wales. Also following on from that meeting, other other streams of work are taking place.

I hope we'll provide some reassurance to noble Lords with some of the specific issues that they've raised. These include firstly, exploring the possibility of introducing a protocol or similar mechanism for mediators to ensure that they refer families to accredited centres. Secondly, and several noble Lords raised the important point about ensuring that those in child contact centres are suitably trained. So another piece of work is carrying out a further review of the mandatory training already in place for child contact centre staff and volunteers, in order to ensure that that is as good as it can be.

And, as I've already said, developing a more robust understanding of where any unaccredited centres are and any concerns that may exist in relation to them. So whilst I completely understand that the amendment is well intentioned, I do not believe that mandatory accreditation is the best way to approach the issues that have been raised. The NAC already provides effective leadership and oversight to the majority of centres, and further to this, the work of the Ministry of Justice. The work that the Ministry of Justice is now taking forward will provide additional reassurance in this space.

As such, I would urge noble Lords to withdraw this particular amendment, given the good work that is already being undertaken in relation to the points that noble Lords have raised just before.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister sits down, if I may ask her what action can be then ask her what action can be then taken against a centre which appears to actually be quite appears to actually be quite dubious and accredited, because whilst the amendment is not being whilst the amendment is not being accepted, there is recognition that there may be activities going on which are effectively underground. And yet the children who may be having contact with a family member, usually a parent, in such a situation, might then actually be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

exposed to quite serious risk. Well, I don't believe that there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I don't believe that there is evidence to suggest that that that is the case. One, because, as that is the case. One, because, as I've suggested, all of the research suggests that there are actually a suggests that there are actually a very small number of unaccredited centres. I do think my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, makes an important point about how it's possible to identify centres that are accredited. The vast majority of them are, and given that it's clear that the NAC accreditation scheme covers the vast majority, I would have thought that's the appropriate route.

And as I've said, we're going to ensure that for mediators, they there is a protocol that means they only use accredited routes. I would have thought that would also have been the case for courts, but it's also the case that in the very limited circumstances in which an unaccredited child contact centre might be used, which would be for specific and short term purposes because of the individual circumstances of the case. So, for example, in order to limit the travel that a child had to do in particular circumstances, it remains the responsibility of the local authority.

In fact, the local authorities, under a legal duty to ensure that such provision meets all statutory safeguarding requirements and promotes the child's welfare. So there is another level of assurance in the system. But I will ask my noble friend Baroness Levitt. Particularly, I will refer to her the particular issue raised by my noble friend, noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the ability for courts to always be able to determine the nature of contact centres where they're referring children, because I think that's a a very reasonable point that he has raised.

I'm sure all of us would want to ensure was covered off.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And sits down. Just to be clear about an aspect, as she talked about an aspect, as she talked about mediators only recommending contact centres that are registered. Of course, very often in court, particularly in private cases, there are no mediators. There are there are no mediators. There are people self representing very often men. And they they are the ones who propose contact centres which may propose contact centres which may or may not be registered. And the point I was making, it is not that straightforward for a court to actually find out the the nature of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the of the the contact centre, which is being recommended. No. And this this was the point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. And this this was the point which I was, which I was accepting and which I said I would ensure that our noble friend Baroness Levitt is is informed about from this debate, and I'm sure we'll want to give more thought to how, want to give more thought to how, if you like the labelling almost of the accreditation that, as I've said, does exist for the vast majority of contact centres, it's perhaps more obvious to courts in the sorts of circumstances that the my noble friend identified.
19:01
19:03
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 28 Baroness Tyler of Enfield.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm not Baroness Tyler of Enfield. She's she's was her flight Enfield. She's she's was her flight was delayed by 24 hours. So you've got me instead, I'm afraid. Yeah, yeah. So I'm speaking to this amendment, but I'd also then would be speaking to amendment 97. So I far too long shall neglect has been absent from the conversation about supporting families and reducing the number of children in care. And the consequences of neglect are devastating. It can impact on child's physical and mental health, hinder the development and disrupt their ability to form secure relationships.

With a shift towards a greater focus on multi-agency family support across local authorities through the Family First initiative, now is the opportune time to take a strategic approach to tackling child neglect. The NSPCC data over the past five years has consistently shown neglect to be the number one reason for people contacting their helpline. Professionals continue to speak of a lack of national focus on tackling neglect, which has left many children without the right support resources and early help services have been at an all time low, whilst economic pressures have been at an all time high, are receiving a welcome boost through measures in this bill.

But this new focus on support must go hand in hand with a greater focus on tackling neglect. Persistently high levels of neglect and those circumstances remaining unnoticed or unaddressed reflect reduced early health services for families. Uncertainty from the public of when services need to be involved in a child's life and are impacted by two. By rising child poverty levels, the government has a rare opportunity as it's taking steps to address embedded issues in children's social care and implement in its new child poverty strategy to ensure that neglect is a fundamental part of the discussion.

It is also important to note that many parents living in poverty make astonishing sacrifices to ensure that their children are not adversely impacted by material hardship. While we must be clear that not all children living in poverty experience neglect, nor does neglect only happen in families experiencing poverty, it is present in affluent households, too. Emerging evidence does draw out links between poverty and all forms of harm. Such a national strategy would make a real and tangible difference to the levels of children, the lives of children.

Neglect, for example, often overlap substantially with other forms of child maltreatment and can be present in other forms of abuse that are taking place. The government must therefore wake up to the profoundly urgent crisis of child neglect and commit to a national child neglect strategy that gives children and families an England England vital support before irreversible harm is done. That is why early help is so crucial. Children need early, effective and holistic support to address these vulnerabilities, recover from harm and achieve positive outcomes.

I was pleased to hear the Minister recognised during Committee stage of this bill that neglect is an enormously difficult and important area of work for children's social care, and probably one where professionals and others need even more support to be able to identify it and to take mitigating action. The government clearly agrees that equipping professionals to identify concerns about neglect early enabling parents to reach out for support is is a non-stigmatizing way, and ensuring there are available resources to respond effectively to neglect are all vital to reducing the devastating impact it can have on children.

Whilst we are optimistic that Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill will address some of these urgent concerns through measures like the new multi-agency Child Protection Teams, stronger information sharing duties, consistent child identifiers. The reality is that without the local services and expertise in place, neglect will continue to lack the national and local attention it so urgently needs. That is why a national child neglect strategy is essential. Finally, the Minister noted in her response to the earlier version of this amendment at Committee stage that the protection from all forms of abuse, including neglect, is a key priority of the government.

Recognising that neglect is often the earliest sign of child maltreatment. If the government is indeed serious about prioritising protection against all forms of harm and supporting families as early as possible, preventing and tackling neglect through a dedicated strategy must be a central plank of this government's response. My Lords, I move.
19:09
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Portrait Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause four insert the new clause National child neglect strategy on page 13 child neglect strategy on page 13 of the Marshalled List. >> Lord Watts I return to the issue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Watts I return to the issue of the defence of reasonable punishment and my amendment 97 asks punishment and my amendment 97 asks the government to look carefully at the report from Wales. Following three years of implementation of their legislation. In response to my amendment at Committee stage, the government repeated the statement that it was waiting for evidence from Wales. My amendment only seeks to make sure this happens. It does not force the government to take a decision, but ask the government to inform Parliament of its assessment of the Welsh findings and the implications for England.

I am grateful to the Minister for having met me previously after Committee stage on the bill. The evidence has increased that physical punishment harms children's health and wellbeing and does not improve behaviour. This includes nearly 70 studies reviewed in The Lancet and evidence from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. No positive outcomes have been shown and there is a higher risk of later physical abuse, with clear links to behavioural problems and mental health difficulties. This amendment is supported by 24 leading organisations in child health and child protection, social care and human rights.

While we delay, children can continue to be inappropriately physically punished. Contacts to the NSPCC, adult and child helplines have shown an increase, not decrease, in concerns over physical punishment in recent years. Polling has shown that those with professional safeguarding responsibilities overwhelmingly support the approach taken in Wales and Scotland. The UN convention on the rights of the Child Committee has repeatedly recommended that the UK repeals the defence of reasonable punishment when a child has had physical abuse.

The Wales report shows the legislative changes are progressing well. The Minister for Children and Social Care, Dawn Bowden, Ms. described the review as evidence that the law is working and making significant progress in protecting children's rights, and it concludes that Wales has made a clear rights based shift away from physical punishment. There is strong inter-agency collaboration and the focus on prevention and education. Most referrals come from professionals indicating the system in Wales operates through normal safeguarding channels, and therefore many professionals reported no increase in workload as the law aligns with their duties.

Finding. The law has clarified and strengthened their ability to protect children and have better conversations with parents. It has helped educate and support parents in managing behaviours differently. There is no evidence whatsoever that such legislation interferes with children in loving, supportive families, nor that any trusted stakeholders are disproportionately affected by removing the defence of reasonable punishment when they make decisions. Wales is highly successful out of court. Parenting Support Scheme has had 365 individuals referred by the police between 2022 and 24, 265 reported positive outcomes in increased parental confidence or children's behaviour.

Fewer than five cases were considered by the Crown Prosecution Service, and there have been zero convictions. Now, 95% of parents and 91% of the public know physical chastisement is illegal in Wales. Such changes provide children with equal protection from assault, aggressive physical chastisement leads the child to becoming more aggressive themselves over time and developing poorer quality parent child relationships in later life, as well as showing emotional and behavioural difficulties in school and a variety of negative health and development consequences.

Importantly, there is no evidence that physical punishment relates to any positive developmental outcome the government is investing, as we see in this group, of amendments, in schemes to protect children at risk of abuse and to prevent them falling through the cracks in services. All these investments must be evaluated. The evidence from three years evaluation in Wales should not be ignored. We do not accept hitting adults. That is assault. Yet at the moment, hitting children in England in the name of discipline is viewed as acceptable, even though the relative force between the hand that hits and the small body of a child has a greater risk of causing physical as well as emotional damage.

The three year report is now before us. The amendment simply asks the government to now fulfil its promise to review the implications of these findings for children in England to provide equal protection from assault. Speak in.
19:15
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
Support of amendment 97, to which I have added my name in committee. I likened the waiting for Wales argument to a legislative waiting for Godot. Well, Godot has arrived in the form of a very thorough evaluation of the first three years of the Welsh legislation. And the overall message is, as we have heard, a very positive one. I was particularly struck by what the report says about positive parenting, as this was a key argument used by my noble friend, the Minister in rejecting the original amendment in committee.

What the report makes clear is this is not an either or situation. The abolition of the reasonable punishment defence in Wales has been implemented in such a way as to promote and support positive parenting practices. Thus, the report makes clear that, thanks in part to the introduction of a parenting support scheme which we have already heard about, the response to physical punishment is proportionate and focussed on behaviour change rather than criminalisation. Elsewhere, the report notes the aim of the act was to protect children's rights whilst adopting an educating and preventative approach which avoids criminalising parents, and it suggests that this aim is being realised in practice, in that implementation is acting not to criminalise parents, but to help educate and support them in managing behaviours differently.

This addresses one of the fears sometimes expressed about abolition of the defence. I argued in committee that this is very much a children's rights issue, and the report points to research that indicated that professionals view the act as having enhanced their ability to safeguard children's rights, with nearly 60% reporting that it either supported or greatly supported them in protecting children's right to be free from violence. This is, of course, an interim report, but it's the one to which my noble friend referred in committee as helping to build the evidence base needed for the government to make a decision.

And I think it is fair in its claim to provide a robust initial evidence base. I'm not sure what further evidence to the pile that already exists the government needs, but this amendment is very much a compromise, and I can see no good reason for the government not to accept it. I hope they will, because otherwise it could be a very long time indeed before English children are freed from the harmful effects of what the four Children's commissioners described as an outdated and morally support.
19:18
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment 98. In my noble >> Amendment 98. In my noble friend's name, Lady Tyler, which I hope the government will support. But I'd like to speak on amendment 97, in the name of the noble Baroness Finlay concerning the legal defence of reasonable punishment. And I'd also like to declare an interest as vice president of Barnardo's, who have been campaigning for the end of reasonable punishment. Defence, along with their partners in the children's sector. My Lords, we already know that physical punishment can cause significant harm to a child, including poorer mental health and increased behavioural problems at Baroness Finlay has always said any child who is physically punished is also at greater risk or even more serious of more serious abuse, which can be devastating.

My Lords, professionals who work with children can find it difficult to assess and respond to potential risks, since distinguishing between physical punishment and abuse is challenging. As a result of this, Wales and Scotland have acted to remove the reasonable punishment defence from the law. But, my Lords, England has not done so. My Lords children in this nation remain uniquely vulnerable, with less protection from assault than adults and other children elsewhere in the UK. So, my Lords, I'd like to turn my attention to the Welsh Review.

As mentioned by Baroness Findlay, my Lords, 95% of parents in Wales now know that physical punishment is illegal. An 86% believe it is ineffective. Where we feared widespread criminalisation of parents, this has not occurred. My Lords, there have been fewer than five cases referred to the CPS and no convictions to note. Instead, families have been diverted to supportive parenting programmes, which have led to positive outcomes for many of them, including in children's behaviour and parental wellbeing.

My Lords professionals have also reported greater clarity and confidence when dealing with such cases. This shows that the law is working, but most importantly, the children are being protected. My Lords, there is widespread support for change. Polling from the NSPCC has shown that the majority of safeguarding professionals, including teachers, healthcare professionals and the police, would like to see the end of physical punishment of children. More than 300 public figures also supported the change in law.

However, the government wishes to wait until evidence from Wales on the law change was available. Well, my Lords, that evidence is now available. My Lord, the amendment before us does not seek to legislate the defence away at once. We only ask that the government meaningfully considers the evidence from Wales, and that it means for abolishing the so-called reasonable punishment defence in England through future legislation, and within six months of this bill becoming law. My Lords, when the proof of harm is so extensive and the evidence of change is so promising, asking for a transparent response to that evidence, I strongly feel, is the reasonable and proportionate request.

My Lords, children should not have to wait indefinitely for clarity on what their rights are, or for protection and fairness when evidence that could be potentially changed their lives already exist. My Lords, I ask other noble Lords across the House to stand with children and to give their support to this amendment, but more importantly, for the government to accept the amendment as it will show. They too, put children at the heart of the matter when it comes to equal protection for children.

As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime, so let's do it.
19:22
Lord Hampton Portrait Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-
MATs I rise to speak to >> MATs I rise to speak to amendment 97, to which I added my name as well. As we've heard, my name as well. As we've heard, my Lords, the law changes in Wales on reasonable punishment are going well. Children in England have less protection in law from assaults than adults and their peers in Scotland and Wales. The law, as it stands, is unclear and open to interpretation, making it harder to safeguard children. As a teacher, I know first hand the challenges this poses for professionals safeguarding children when the law contains ambiguity, safeguarding becomes more difficult.

I've come across cases where children have reported that if they don't get good grades, they will be beaten. That's a safeguarding risk, I would report. But for safeguarding leads, that's a nightmare that they have to judge the extent of any injuries. The fact that you can still legally hit a child with calculation is bizarre and barbaric. My Lords, this is reflected in the NSPCC YouGov polling from August that in England, 90% of social workers, 77% of healthcare professionals and 75% of teachers all believe the law in England should be changed and they are voters.

My Lord. 81% of parents with a child under 18 think physical punishment of any sort is unacceptable. I, like many others, want to see the reasonable punishment defence removed entirely to give all children protection from assault. I support this amendment as a clear and pragmatic compromise to bring in the evidence the government wants to see on the impact of implementing this change on parents, professionals and public services in a timely way. The government's openness to review the evidence and hear from a range of people on this issue is welcome.

Therefore, I hope they will support this amendment. In that spirit, given the challenges the current law poses for professionals, it's welcome to see the current. The positive impact of removing the defence has had in Wales. Professionals across Safeguarding Education and healthcare report. The law has clarified and strengthened their ability to protect children's rights and have better conversations with parents. This is. This reinforces the call from the Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health that removing the defence supports professionals in safeguarding children and providing clearer advice to families.

The report has also shown that the concerns around criminalising parents have not materialised. In fact, it's meant families have been able to access support with zero convictions. Fewer than five cases referred to the CPS, but hundreds of families accessing parenting support. The report concludes that the aim of the act not to criminalise parents, but help education and support them in managing behaviours differently, is being realised. My Lords, can I quote again? In Wales, the law is working and making significant progress in protecting children's rights.
19:26
19:28
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> I rise to respond to amendment. 97 and to oppose it. >> The amendment in the name of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Finlay. It's actually over six months since we actually over six months since we last debated this issue at committee in June of last year. Let me begin by welcoming the change in tack. A previous version of the amendment sought to abolish the reasonable chastisement defence outright. Amendment 97 is more measured, given the serious implications that such a change in the law would have for both parents and children.

My Lords, in England, the only parents who can use the legal defence of reasonable chastisement are those who use reasonable discipline, like a mum tapping a tot on the back of a hand to teach the child not to play with the electrical sockets of Granny's house. The defence protects parents from being unfairly charged, prosecuted and convicted for smacking their own children, and does so only when no harm was caused and the parents behaviour is objectively reasonable. We are not talking about allowing parents to get away with abuse, as government Ministers have helpfully acknowledged from the Dispatch Box on previous occasions.

Under the reasonable chastisement law, if a parent punishes a child in a way that causes anything more than temporary reddening of the skin, that is unreasonable and therefore illegal. My Lords, some in the media have exploited horrific cases of children being brutalised to try to bolster their case for outlaw outlawing mild parental smacking. Let me reiterate abusers are prosecuted under existing law. The tragic cases we have seen in the press invariably turn out to involve children who were well known to social services, but the social workers were invariably overstretched, putting thousands more families on the books for nothing more than a tap on the back of a hand or a smack on the bottom will further burden those responsible for child protection, leading to more vulnerable children slipping through the cracks.

Amendment 97 requires the Westminster government to examine the situation in Wales. The Be Reasonable campaign produced a report on the first three years of the ban. It found, as we've heard, that over 300 parents have been criminalised and referred to an out of court diversion scheme. These are parents whose actions were not abusive. If they were, hopefully they would have been prosecuted just as they would have been before the law changed. Their actions were by definition reasonable, but they have entered the criminal justice system as a result in the change in the law.

I do wonder whether public opposition to the ban made Welsh Ministers wary of prosecuting hundreds of parents, opting instead for a non-prosecution policy that masked the reality of what they've done. Because during the progress of the bill in Wales, they kept telling people that they were not criminalising smacking. Indeed, the deputy, the then deputy social services Minister, Julie Morgan, said this is not about the government telling parents how to raise their children or about criminalising loving parents. This was silly. If you remove a defence for a specific action, then of course you are criminalising that action.

So now in Wales, any report of smacking automatically triggers an investigation by social services or the police. If a parent is referred to the diversion scheme, that information may be recorded against them on the DBS system. So if they work with children or vulnerable adults, they could lose their jobs and livelihoods. The Welsh Government says offences involving a child will never be eligible for filtering, i.e. from a criminal record check, regardless of the length of time since the offence. So a mum in Wales who taps a toddler on behind on the behind is marked for life.

As a child abuser. I do not believe that those like the noble Baroness want to see loving parents criminalised and losing their jobs for trying their best to bring up their children. But even well-meaning legislation can have negative consequences. My Lords, the Welsh Government also produced a three year review of the law as it is required to do. Among other things, the report identified an increased workload for some professionals, particularly in policing and local authorities, unquote. It said this was due to more time intensive processes and reclassification of low level incidents as crimes, unquote.

Unsurprisingly, it also said that this led to temporary backlogs. The number of police recordings of, quote, common assault, unquote, on children increased from around 3900 cases to 6200. After the law change, it seems highly likely that most of this dramatic increase consists of parents whose actions constituted reasonable chastisement, innocent parents who caused no harm whatsoever. Parents who have fallen foul of a politically correct ban on the kind of loving personal discipline that most of us experienced as children, and most of us, many of us have used as parents.

Many noble Lords will have received the review published by the Christian Institute called Does Smacking contribute to Negative outcomes for children? It analysed 37 peer reviewed studies, despite hysterical headlines suggesting that one smack can, quote, scour child for life, unquote. The review noted that the studies actually showed limited correlation and had never shown that physical punishment causes negative outcomes parental depression, poverty, family stability, and child temperament are far stronger predictors of outcomes than is smacking.

The Welsh Government acknowledged that in the explanatory memorandum to their bill that, quote, there is unlikely to be any research evidence which specifically shows the effects of a light and infrequent smack as being harmful to children, unquote. And they went on there is no evidence, sorry, no definitive evidence, that reasonable physical punishment causes negative outcomes for children. But in their misplaced zeal, they went ahead and criminalised hundreds of innocent parents. Anyway, my Lords, if the government were to properly examine what is happening in Wales and that would require more information than the Welsh Government has hitherto released, it would show that banning smacking is both unjust and counterproductive.

My Lords, I therefore invite your Lordships House to reject this sincere but nevertheless wrongheaded amendment.
19:35
Baroness Meyer Portrait Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I to oppose the removal of the defence of reasonable punishment. I realised that noble that the noble Baroness Findlay's amendment number 97, no longer does that directly, but it is intended as a staging post. And this is why I would like to talk about the issue. As a child, I was subjected to physical punishment. My parents were overly strict. My father came from a military background and my mother had little patience with children. I was also a boarder at a Catholic school where the nuns were extremely strict.

On one occasion I was caught talking to my neighbour and was made to kneel on the platform by the teacher's desk with tape placed over my mouth for the rest of the lesson. This was a clear violation, and it would rightly be unacceptable today. But my Lords, we must draw a distinction between physical punishment and between hitting a child and an occasional light smack that causes no harm. These are not the same, neither morally, psychologically, or legally.

English law reflects that distinction. Any punishment that causes injury leaves, marks, involves implements, or amounts to abuse is illegal and rightly prosecuted. The defence of reasonable punishment applies only to the lightest chastisement where no harm is caused. It is. It does not excuse abuse nor physical punishment. It prevents ordinary parents from being treated as criminals when from time to time they apply proportionate form of discipline to an unruly child to remove it is another step towards a nanny state, where the balance between parental responsibility and state intervention is quietly but significantly shifted away from families and towards government control.

My Lords, all children are not the same. Some respond to a word or a look and never need to be scolded. Others test the boundaries for those children. The calm assertion of parental authority is not cruelty, but guidance. Helping them learn limits, responsibility and respect for rules. I am also a parent. On one occasion, after repeatedly warning my eldest son, I smacked him lightly on his bottom. It did not hurt him, but he was so shocked that I actually followed through that he howled in indignation.

His pride was hurt and after that, when I warned him, he never. Sorry. When I warned him, he believed me. It was not fear, it was authority exercised once and never repeated. Sadly, surely, my Lords, this is not something that should be criminalised. Polling consistently shows that more parents favour remaining and retaining the current law than banning smacking. We are told that the law is unclear. It is not. The current test is simple. If harm is caused, the behaviour is illegal.

Removing the defence would simply would replace that clarity with subjective judgements, creating confusion for parents, police and social services experience. As my noble friend has talked about in Wales and Scotland, bans have led to thousands of additional referrals to social services, diverting attention from children who are genuinely at risk. A similar ban in England would cost at least 145 million, at a time when services are already under extreme pressure. What is needed is education, support and awareness, not criminal law, but legal bans, invite denunciations, investigation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and fear not better parenting. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I actually, when I saw the amendment 97 was pleased to see the amendment 97 was pleased to see the focus was on actually the Post-implementation review report in terms of the abolition of in terms of the abolition of defence of reasonable punishment
19:40
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
defence of reasonable punishment Wales Act. I I'm actually keen that the UK government digs deeper into the impact of what's known as the Welsh smacking ban. It's I'm keen that the government reviews the evidence, reviews the data and hopefully draws a conclusion that this is not something that should be brought into UK law, but doing that by looking at the evidence. I've been obviously as somebody in Wales, have been involved in this debate for some time, have had lots of discussions, done, media discussions, spoken on the issue over the years.

But having heard the noble Lady Baroness Finlay talk about the report, I felt as though we probably read different reports, but also had different interpretations. So that just shows you that is worth digging into, because I do have some serious reservations about the success of the law change, and I think that there has been some rather unintended, though predictable outcomes. And so I just want to raise a few of those. Of course, I understand that the movers of this motion of this amendment are motivated by concern for abuse of children, but I think it's very important to note that we're all motivated by a concern about abuse for children.

This is something that we can share. But one of my worries is the impact of the law change in terms of the pressures it's placing on social services in Wales, in terms of thousands of new referrals that have been made to Welsh social services that have involved the police. They're actually costing millions of pounds and lots of time. And to be honest, it can mean that real abuse is being squeezed out or relativised by what's happening. The influx of referrals is not a surprise when any report of smacking is automatically, automatically triggered.

An investigation by social services and the escalation of reports is no doubt because of the Welsh Government's guidance to a wide range of organisations who work or volunteer with children. That anyone who witnesses a parent smacking a child should immediately contact social services. And my concern is that valuable resources are being taken away from protecting children who are at genuine risk of harm and being diverted into trivial cases where harm hasn't been caused, even if people ideologically don't agree with the chastisement of smacking.

It's not that the same as abuse, because even the most zealous anti-smoking campaigner I thought before I heard some people in this debate, should concede that a well-intentioned tap on the back of a tot's hand or leg by a parent who loves their child is not an abuser. I mean, I was actually a bit shocked when I heard the noble Lord Lord Hampton saying that, you know, any child who says I don't get a good grade, I'll be beaten. Which is a shocking thing to hear a child say.

And it's actually illegal to beat a child any in this country. Of course it is. And the idea that that's the same as smacking in the way that the law is, is permissible in the law in England. That conflation of brutality with smacking and mild physical chastisement, parental discipline is the kind of sleight of hand that distorts the evidence and makes us a far too emotional discussion, and is so insulting to parents. I mean, I that's what I found shocking.

If we actually examine the guidance notes issued by various Welsh local authorities, you can see how resources that might be best spent protecting children of serious risk of, for example, beating if you don't pass your exams. I think that would be worth investigating can become diverted. So one example using one of the guidance notes was a teacher is this is an example. It says a teacher reported that a young pupil stated his father smacked him because he was naughty.

The advice from the Welsh Government was that teacher should trigger section 47 investigation, which would include two uniformed officers visiting and talking to the four year old. And it's that sort of escalation and the the dragging of the family into the orbit of social services and police forces that I worry about. And obviously there are implications for the workloads of frontline staff with statutory duty to investigate all referrals, regardless of severity. That creates a danger of services, unable to prioritise cases where there's a genuine risk of abuse or neglect.

And that just gets me to another worry. I have that the that the fact that parents are caught up in this. When the Welsh law change was argued for, supporters insisted that, as we've heard actually, that the law would not be heavy handed and that the movers, the supporters of the law change, didn't want to criminalise parents. I mean, I thought it would, but I had many of those debates. But I think whether we like it or not, a new criminal category has been created in Wales, in which erstwhile parenting styles that some may have disapproved of but were legal, has now been dragged into the framework of existing assault laws.

And although, to be fair, the Welsh Government has sought to mitigate large scale prosecutions and partly by the way, because, of course, are so busy, so they haven't been able to use the courts and have deployed out of court diversionary diversionary schemes. Nonetheless, parents are being questioned by police, social services investigated and accused of criminal activity and even settled out of court a criminal activity that's part of the assault of a child scheme. And I think the shame, the humiliation, the injustice and what's more, I would have thought this would, in fact, as we've actually heard from of previous speaker, this will affect the employment prospects because how even out of court settlements are being added to enhance DBS checks.

So a mum who has been gone on one of these courses education courses could find that she can't be a care assistant or a childminder because she'd stopped her child running into the road in front of a car by slapping them and somebody reported it. So I do think we've got to consider reputations trashed, parents jobs at jeopardy. Goodness knows where the what the impact is on family life and parent child relationships. Especially when I hear noble Lords comparing maybe a smacking dad and putting him into the same category as a monster who beats his child black and blue.

That must be so demoralising. It's certainly unfair. It's disproportionate and all in the name of positive parenting. I would like to therefore encourage the government to review and look at what's happened in Wales, but maybe with a different view, a different set of research and evidence than we've heard today. Because actually, a recent literature review of 37 peer reviewed studies have noticed the tendency to conflate correlation with causation, have noted unrepresentative samples. There is a problem in Wales, by the way, of incomplete data gathering, often different localities, collecting data in different ways.

Some, it seems to me, ideological rather than scientific assertions being normalised. So I would suggest that the UK government yes, look at Wales, but no, don't emulate them. And I think that those of us who are concerned about this overreach by the state into parenting and parents autonomy, who love their children and so on, and conflating that with abuse, I think, is really an unworthy way of conducting a serious discussion. We all want children to be safe, and some people think that a tap on the leg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is the same as abuse. It isn't. Can I. Just stand up and speak again? I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just stand up and speak again? I believe I just got accused by the noble Lady, Baroness Fox of Buckley noble Lady, Baroness Fox of Buckley of insulting parents, which I've never been done before, and I would just like to explain myself slightly in the fact that the law, as far as I understand it, is that as far as I understand it, is that the bruise has to be not visible within three days. Now, on dark skin, you can get quite a lot of force into a mild slap to leave a bruise that can't be seen in three days.

So I think to say one side that we're practically calling parents punch drunk mad people, and on the other, it's a light tap because a child has done something wrong. I think there's a there's a huge area between there. And I think to call me insulting parents.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I find insulting myself. Yeah. intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In my intervention. But if I can just say that there is a huge difference between a small tap and difference between a small tap and beating a child, and I think that's the point. That's the point. And a the point. That's the point. And a small tap shouldn't be illegal. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beating a child is illegal. MAT Lord Brennan Baroness Fox
19:50
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
started her contribution. She said, let's look at the evidence from Wales. And I thought, well, fair enough on that. That's what the government are going to do, aren't they? But then toward the end of your contribution, Baroness Fox, your contribution, Baroness Fox, you said, well, look, look at let's look at the evidence in Wales, but don't emulate it. Well, the evidence in Wales is suggesting evidence in Wales is suggesting that we do take this course of action. Look, we're all getting we're all getting hung up, aren't we, and concerned about the harmful effects of social media and the harmful effects of mobile phones.

But what about the harmful effects of of smacking? It's hard to believe that 40 years ago they probably debated in this chamber. 40 years ago, we still had corporal punishment in schools. You were caned or slippered and a few noble Lords probably got up and said, well, this is not a good idea, really. And there'd be, you know, you can imagine the contributions from the Baroness Fox of the time about that suggestion. I'm sorry, I mustn't I mustn't do that.

I'm sorry. Look, we've had a, a debate and well, the experiment, the experiment, the work that's gone on in Wales has been mentioned several, several times. But what about the most important people in this are the children, aren't they? What about the children? Children who experience physical punishment are up to 2.6 times more likely to develop. Develop mental health problems up to 2.3 times more likely to go on to experience harm through more serious forms of physical abuse.

And this is the most worrying thing to me. Childline found in 20 2324 over 700 children, 700 children. We're talking about young children here, probably contacted Childline to complain about or to worry about or to cry about, about physical abuse. And what do we do? We go chatting on about all sorts of other things. I'm disappointed to have to say that we're not having a division on this. I'd like to know how people feel because I'm I'm sure that the majority of Labour members who've been, you know, notably quiet.

But I understand why that's perhaps a cruel dig. Absolutely are on the side of doing away with with corporal punishment, I'm sure about that. But I also accept that you want to look at the what's gone on in Wales and use that as the basis for coming to a conclusion. I am sure you're genuine about that. I'm sure you're not using that as an opportunity to delay this, delay it beyond the general election, maybe. Well, if you are immediately after the general election, if you're still in office, I'm sure you could well be.

Could you please bring this forward and let's have a vote on it, please? Because this is an issue that's just as important as 40 years ago. It was about corporal punishment as it is now.
19:53
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> No. >> My Lords. I will respond briefly,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I will respond briefly, given the hour in relation to amendment 28 tabled by the noble Lord Lord Storey and implementing a government child neglect strategy. Again, I obviously understand the aim of the noble Lord in advocating for this, and I think it's right, absolutely to raise the issues regarding neglect of children. But in my own experience, neglect almost always coexists with other forms of abuse or other forms of harm. And I fear that focusing on one element of child's experience might lead professionals to overlook others, which are frequently interlinked.

So I think there are real risks with that approach. And and we don't support that amendment on these benches. I genuinely look forward to the noble Baroness. The Minister's reply in relation to amendment 97. In the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, we had powerful speeches in favour of what's happened in Wales, and I would argue, equally important speeches from my noble friend Lord Jackson and my noble friend Baroness Meyer, and the noble Lady Baroness Fox, just reminding the house of the current position of the law and raising important balancing points about some of the impacts of the Welsh legislation.

I'm sympathetic to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox's. Push for transparency and understanding of the data as the government navigates this very difficult area. But the only point, I think, that hasn't been raised this evening, which worries me in relation to a smacking ban, is that I would argue that children also suffer terribly, and I'm sure nobody would disagree with me, from what you might call psychological violence or emotional abuse or. Coercion from their parents.

And I think one of the points that was made early in the debate about the importance of parenting programmes and positive support for parents is all important, and I'm hoping the noble Baroness, the Minister, can talk about the best start in life hubs, and that the government is finding routes to support parents, which all of us want to see without having to criminalise behaviour.
19:57
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, we've had a good debate in this group on clauses on new clauses regarding a national new clauses regarding a national child neglect strategy and the removal of reasonable punishment review in Wales, and I will also speak to three government amendments which ensure providers of regulated children's social care settings or youth detention accommodation are held accountable for their role in the ill treatment or wilful neglect of under 18 seconds in their care. This group of amendments does raise important issues around child safety and well-being, as we've heard in the debate, areas to which the government is wholly committed.

Turning to amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Taylor and introduced by the noble Lord Lord Storey, this seeks to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a national child neglect strategy, protecting children from all forms of abuse and neglect is a key priority for this government. Neglect accounts for 50% of all child protection plans in England, and we know that it is often cumulative. Harm builds up over time if not addressed early. This is why, backed by over £2.4 billion of investment, our focus is on strengthening multi-agency family help and child protection through national reforms.

Statutory guidance that explicitly references neglect as a safeguarding and child protection concern throughout and measures in this bill. These practical steps will support practitioners to identify and respond effectively to children and families who need support, including where neglect is present. We also know that poverty can increase the risk of neglect, although I also share the view of the noble Lord Lord Storey that being poor does not imply that you will neglect your children, but of course it makes your life more difficult.

And that's why the recently published Child Poverty Strategy prioritises early intervention and integrated support for families. Addressing those stressors, such as parental mental health difficulties, parental substance misuse and domestic abuse factors, which often co-occur with neglect. My Lords, I acknowledge the strong case made on this topic by the Liberal Democrats and the case made by the noble Lady, Baroness Tyler. When we were able to meet and talk about it. The government has heard a range of representations on this issue, and I can commit to the House that we will continue to work with key stakeholders, including the government's What Works Centre Foundations and the National Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel regarding specific work relating to child neglect, helping to shape our understanding of this complex issue.

Specifically, we are committed to working with the panel and stakeholders to ensure that the insight and evidence they have gathered translates into practical improvements and tangible actions at a national level, such as through future updates to statutory guidance and our children's social care reforms. We also welcome the panel's development of key learning, practical guidance and useful tools for practitioners that can be shared nationally on their forthcoming website. Combined, this will help to strengthen workforce responses and interventions and deliver meaningful change for children and their families.

Precisely what the noble Lady Baroness Tyler was seeking in her amendment. I turn to amendment 97, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Finlay, which seeks to place duty on the Secretary of State to review evidence from the Welsh Government on the impact of the abolition of reasonable punishment in Wales, and report back to Parliament on the impact. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and other peers for their passion and commitment to protecting children. It is right that we do all that we can to safeguard those at risk of harm, but equally that we avoid unnecessary intervention in family life where children are safe, loved and well supported.

The measures in this bill strengthen protection for children at risk of abuse and neglect, introducing new safeguards to prevent children falling through the cracks. Alongside this, we are also, as I've said, investing £2.4 billion through the Families First Partnership programme and rolling out Best Start family hubs nationwide to improve support for families. We've heard from noble Lords that the Welsh evidence points to the significance of parental support. But, my Lords, it is not necessary to change the law in order to invest in support for parents.

This government is doing it through the Best Start family hubs and we will continue to develop that enormously important provision to make sure that all parents are supported in that difficult task of bringing up their children, and particular support is provided for those parents who face the biggest challenges. We have been clear that we will continue to monitor the legal changes made in Scotland and Wales. It is right that we take time to carefully examine the evidence from Wales on this important matter, and how any implications may apply in England.

We are working closely with analysts and our Welsh counterparts to fully understand what the data is telling us, its limitations and what further work the Welsh Government may be doing ahead of publishing their final implementation report in 2027. I can reassure noble Lords that we remain committed to examining the Welsh Government's interim report, but we do not feel it is necessary to create a statutory duty to do this. Turning to government amendments 72, 73 and 74. We previously identified a gap in legislation, meaning that care providers involved in the wilful neglect of 16 and 17 year olds in regulated children's social care settings or youth detention accommodation, cannot be prosecuted.

Through this bill, we have sought to close this gap by extending sections 20 and 21 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act, 2015, so that it also applies to 16 and 17 year olds. But we have since identified that care providers cannot be prosecuted under section 21, where the child is under 16. They also cannot be prosecuted under any other legislation, such as the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as offences in this act apply only to individuals and not corporate bodies or local authorities, these additional amendments extend the existing care Provider offences in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act to all under 18 in regulated establishments, providing parity of protection for all children against ill treatment and wilful neglect.

Having highlighted how we are addressing the issues that the amendments raise, I hope noble Lords will feel reassured to withdraw their amendments and to, and I urge noble Lords to support amendments 72, 73 Lords to support amendments 72, 73 and 74, which I move.
20:04
20:05
20:05
Viscount Camrose Portrait Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
-
-
>> My Lords, >> My Lords, the >> My Lords, the technological capabilities and their misuse that capabilities and their misuse that have prompted this statements are, needless to say, deeply disturbing and demand our careful attention. The use of AI to generate non-consensual sexual imagery of women and children is both grotesque in and of itself, but also corrosive of trust in technology more broadly. We welcome, therefore, the Secretary of State's confirmation that new offences criminalising the creation or solicitation of such material will be brought into force this week.

We support the enforcement of these laws. We also welcome Ofcom's decision to open a formal investigation into the use of grok on X under the Online Safety Act, an investigation that must proceed swiftly to protect victims and hold platforms to account. However, my Lords, hard though it is to predict the misuses of emerging technologies, we must collectively find better ways to be ready for them before they strike. There is, I fear, a pervasive and damaging sense of regulatory, legislative and political uncertainty around AI.

And as long as that remains the case, we risk remaining a victim of events beyond our control. From the outset of this Parliament, and indeed in opposition, the government has pledged to legislate on AI reviews and policy documents, including the Clifford AI Opportunities Action Plan, promised a framework to drive adoption and regulatory clarity. But we still have no clear timeline, nor even a clear account of the government's policy on AI. My Lords, by the way, it is worth noting that the legislative tools the government is now relying on to implement its proposed new offences, such as the creation and solicitation of non-consensual intimate images, are the product of amendments introduced by this House to the data bill.

Ministers have repeatedly argued both that binding AI regulation must come, and that the existing regulatory framework is sufficient evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee late last year confirmed that the Secretary of State would not commit to a specific AI bill. Instead, speaking of considering targeting interventions rather than an overarching legislative framework. This may indeed be the right approach, but it's unclear. Presentation and communication drive uncertainty that undermines confidence for investors, for businesses, for regulators, but above all, for citizens.

Progress on other AI related policy commitments seem to have stalled. Two I don't at all underestimate the difficulty of the problem, but work thus far on AI and copyright has been pretty disappointing. I'm not seeking to go into that debate now, but only to make the point that it contributes to a widespread sense of uncertainty about tech in general and AI in particular. And this uncertainty, my Lords, has been compounded by frankly inconsistent political messaging.

Over the weekend, reports emerged that the government was considering banning ECS altogether before subsequently softening that position, creating, in my view, wholly unnecessary confusion. At the same time, the government has, in my opinion, Mischaracterised X's decision to move its unification tools behind a paywall as a means to boost profits. When the platform itself argues, I think, reasonably persuasively, that this is a measure to ensure that those misusing the tools cannot do so anonymously, nor has there been much effective communication from government about its regulatory intentions on AI.

This leaves the public and businesses unclear on how AI will be regulated, and what standards companies are expected to meet. Political and legislative uncertainty in this case are having real consequences. They weaken our ability to deter misuse of AI technologies, they undermine public confidence, and they leave regulators and enforcement agencies in a reactive posture, rather than being empowered to act with a clear statutory direction. We support, of course, efforts to criminalise harmful uses of AI. But under the government's current sentencing bill, most individuals convicted of these new AI related offences against women and girls will be liable only to suspended sentences, meaning they could leave court free to continue the use of the technology that enabled their crime.

This is concerning. It cannot be right that someone found guilty of producing non-consensual sexual imagery may walk free, unrestrained and with unimpeded access to the tools that facilitated their offending. My Lords, as I say, we support Ofcom's work. We support the use of existing powers. But law without enforcement, backed by a coherent, predictable regulatory regime, will offer little real protection without proper sentencing, regulatory certainty and clear legislative direction for AI. These laws will not provide the protection we need, so we urge government to publish a clear statement of its intentions on comprehensive AI regulation.

Perhaps building on the AI white paper we produced in government to provide clarity for both tech companies and for the public, and to underpin safe adoption of AI across the economy and society. Because, my Lords, we must assume that new ways to abuse AI are being developed as we speak. Either we have principled approaches to deal with them, or we end up lurching from one crisis to the next.
20:12
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat benches welcome the Secretary of State's statement and her commitment to bringing the new offence of creating or requesting non-consensual intimate images into force and the intent to make it a priority offence. However, my Lords, we ask, why is it taken this specific crisis with grok and X to spur such urgency? The government has had the power to commence this offence for months, my Lord. So why have they waited until women and children were victimised on an industrial scale? And my Commons colleagues have called for the National Crime Agency to launch a urgent criminal investigation into X for its facilitating the creation and distribution of this vile, abusive deepfakes.

Deepfake imagery. The Secretary of State is right to call X's decision to put the creation of these images behind a paywall insulting. Indeed, it's the monetisation of abuse, and we welcome Ofcom's formal investigation into sexualised imagery generated by grok and shared on X. But, my Lords, will the Minister confirm that individuals creating and sharing this content will also face criminal investigation by the police? And my Lords, doesn't the Minister find it strange that the Prime Minister needs to be reassured that X, which is used by so many parliamentarians and government departments, would comply with UK law? My Lords, now, while we welcome the move to criminalise Nidification apps in the Crime and Policing Bill, we're still waiting for the substantive
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page