Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Baroness Smith of Malvern(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will clarify that in the letter.
On Amendment 131 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the important matter of the use of restraint on children in care and subject to deprivation of liberty orders, it is vital that children are safe and that restraint is used only where appropriate, including when they are moving between settings and services. We take these concerns very seriously. We will consider guidance on restraint in due course.
However, the question about children being handcuffed remains, and I will endeavour to get more detail about that and to come back to the noble Baroness. Providers, in conjunction with placing authorities, are under an obligation to use the minimum appropriate restriction to keep a child safe.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I may be a little too soon, but I wonder whether the Government are minded to ensure that there is, as my amendment would provide, some kind of reporting mechanism to keep track of things. There may be cases where that is necessary. Surely this is something there should be an annual report on so that we can see the direction of travel and whether there is a problem that needs to be tackled.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Noble Lords are very premature today. I was coming not quite to that but to something that I hope will be satisfactory in relation to that reporting mechanism.
Ofsted, as the independent regulator of children’s homes, manages incidents of restraint on a case-by-case basis under its inspection framework. The children’s homes regulations place a requirement on homes to record any incidents of restraint and on the registered person to inform Ofsted of any incident in relation to a child that they consider to be serious. We think that Ofsted inspectors are best placed to scrutinise individual incidents of restraint and the circumstances around them and to ensure that care providers are minimising its use. We are not clear that a yearly report to Parliament aggregating that data would add anything in this case, although it would create an additional burden and risk distraction from this important work. It would, in fact, probably be significantly less effective in safeguarding children and recording the incidents than the Ofsted approach currently being used.
Amendment 133 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, seeks to promote family and other social relationships for children subject to deprivation of liberty orders by publishing local authority plans to support children in that regard. As mentioned in respect of earlier amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I reiterate the Government’s agreement that, wherever possible, it is vital for a child’s welfare to have positive family and social relationships. Given that the Children Act 1989 and the supporting guidance already seek to ensure that family and other relationships for looked-after children are promoted while keeping children safe, and that this forms part of Ofsted’s inspections of local authorities, I am not sure it is appropriate or necessary to increase the burden on local authorities by mandating them to publish that information. I recognise the points made by the noble Lord, or it may have been somebody else speaking on his behalf, about the effectiveness of the lifelong links programme. I think we referenced that previously, and I can see the enormous benefit that can come from it.
Amendment 134C tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure the affirmative procedure for regulations made under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important to ensure that regulations on this matter are subject to the correct scrutiny. She referred to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report in which this was raised. We are grateful to the committee for its scrutiny. We are carefully considering its recommendations and will respond in due course.
Amendment 506B in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson seeks to delay commencement of Clause 11 until regulations are made to ensure that non-means-tested legal aid is available in relation to applications to deprive a child of their liberty under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989. I assure my noble friend that where an application is made to deprive a child of their liberty as a result of any measure the Bill brings forward, those children will be eligible for state-funded legal aid representation using the same criteria that currently apply to all children subject to orders under Section 25. This means that children will be able to access legal aid without needing to satisfy means testing.
I hope that noble Lords think I have provided nearly all the detail requested in these amendments. On that basis, I commend the government amendments to the Committee and hope that noble Lords feel able not to press theirs.
Universities: Free Speech
Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Baroness Smith of Malvern(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is wholly wrong if those events are not able to take place on our campuses or if there is interference in the very important research that our universities are taking part in. That is primarily the responsibility of the higher education institutions themselves, but I am absolutely clear that that is an important part of what should be happening in our universities.
Schools: Citizenship Education
Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Baroness Smith of Malvern(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The ability to take part in citizenship education in both primary and secondary schools, as the noble Baroness says—of course, in secondary school it is a compulsory part of the national curriculum—is an important part of ensuring that young people are engaged. On her first point, the need for broader support of and engagement with young people is the reason why the Government launched plans in November 2024 to create a new national youth strategy for and by young people, as part of our mission to improve opportunity.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, debate in your Lordships’ House in recent weeks has often focused on the issue of poor mental health, particularly among young people. In general, we know that it is good for your mental health to have agency and control over your own present and future. Would the Minister agree that bringing in votes at 16 or younger would be good for mental health and that education to accompany that would be excellent as well?
Children’s Social Care
Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Baroness Smith of Malvern(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. She is absolutely right that we are seeing profiteering in this market. The Competition and Markets Authority found profit levels of nearly 23% for the 15 largest providers of children’s homes. There is good provision in the private sector and there will still need to be private sector provision as we develop, but a 23% profit level is not appropriate competition.
The first solution, as my noble friend said, is to increase the supply of placements—this is where the £90 million is important—and we can use local authorities, the voluntary and charitable sector and ethical investors to do that. That has to be the first step. In making this Statement, my right honourable friend has also made it clear that we will not stand by if that message and action do not provide the necessary placements and we continue to see the profiteering that is breaking the banks of local authorities, when it comes to providing the care that children need. We will take action on that profiteering, if necessary, and we will have the legislative ability to do it in the children’s well-being Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I follow on from the questions from the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Laming, and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong. There is lots in this Statement to agree with about early intervention and tackling problems before they escalate. However, I had a meeting last week with groups supported by the Crossroads Women’s Centre, who are very concerned that parents affected by poverty, particularly single parents, are simply not getting the support they need at an early stage. They referred to Section 17 of the Children Act, which this Statement does not refer to: the general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, which rests with local authorities.
Of course, local authorities are terribly cash strapped. The Statement talks about future investment in preventive services. Can the noble Baroness assure me that local authorities will get the funding they need to provide that early support, so that poverty does not put children on this path—particularly the children of disabled parents, where I heard particular concerns about a lack of support that was desperately needed?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point, taking us even further back in the process to the situations that families find themselves in that put them under the sort of pressure that sometimes—not always—brings potential harm to their children. Of course it is important that we think about child poverty in a holistic manner, which is what the task force with my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is working on now. It is also important that we support local government in providing some of those broader services. At the moment, we are seeing enormous increases in spending on children’s social care but relatively small increases in benefits for children. That is why we need to reform the system, alongside ensuring that the money is there.