Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I am now a member of the Northern Ireland Curriculum Taskforce Advisory Committee. I support amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran, and I support and echo some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, my noble friend Lord Young and others.
To put it in context, we are one of the most permissive countries in the world on home education. We have a strong default presumption that parents should be able to home-educate if they choose and no expectation of tight supervision of that. When I was chief inspector, my counterparts in other countries were often astonished at the degree of freedom that parents in this country have. There are countries where home education is simply illegal, and there are many countries where there are quite significant controls on quality.
To take just one example, in Belgium, I recently talked to the Flanders chief inspector. Parents must have their child do the end of primary school test. If they fail, they have one further opportunity; if they do not pass either time, they must be registered in a school. Similarly, there are provisions that if parents repeatedly refuse to allow a local authority employee to visit them at home, the child must be registered at school. I am not advocating these things specifically, simply putting it in context.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, made a important point that this is not a single community. People have referred a number of times to communities. There are communities of what you might characterise as the archetypal home-schoolers, many of them excellent, which include many parents of children with special educational needs of various kinds. They are strongly represented in forums, support groups and lobbying, and they are valuable and important people. There are also many parents who do not take part in these kinds of forums. They are the parents of children in illegal schools where children are nominally home-educated but actually in illegal institutions. They are parents of children who have been essentially forced out of school and off-rolled, who typically have substantial behavioural problems and often significant educational needs, whose parents are disproportionately unlikely to be able to give them a suitable education. There are parents who have simply withdrawn their children to avoid prosecution for non-attendance, and there will always be a few sad exceptional cases, but I will not go into that.
My Ofsted work made me strongly supportive of a register, and I spoke regularly about this over many years, but it is important to be clear about a couple of things. My understanding is that this is not reversing that historic presumption that parents are free to home-educate. So, if we draw out the questions that a register helps local authorities to answer, they are, first: “Is there any reason to think that this child will not be getting a suitable education?” It is not microassuring that, yes, it is definitely suitable; it is slightly the other way. Secondly and similarly, it is not aiming to provide absolute certainty around safeguarding; it is asking, “Are there warnings or flags that suggest that some more work might be needed?” Thirdly, it is about gathering some of the administrative data that central and local government need in order to understand what they need to provide and where rules and incentives need to change.
Quite a lot of what we have heard today has been on the assumption that this is about completely reversing that presumption and moving to microjudgment of the quality of what every parent is doing at every stage. I do not think that that is there, but it would be helpful for it to be explicit that that is not the case. It is important that this does not become just a register of concerns. The requests for exemptions are, sadly, a little misguided because they would narrow this down to being a register of concern. Broadly, it is much clearer if it is simply an objective that the register of children in school plus the register of children not in school adds up to the totality.
I started today intending to support the pragmatic amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran around limiting the information that has to be collected to the things that genuinely support those purposes. What I have heard has led me to think that there is a simplification that the Government might consider that would help to draw together and streamline the thrust of the points that have been made on carers, for example, and those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. It is that if it is information that we would normally expect to be collected in the administrative data section of a school register, it should also be in the not in school register. We are perhaps over- complicating it.
On what is collected about the education itself, I have another point. It is important not to push this too far. To the extent that this register contains subjective information about how children are being educated and about how much time children who are being educated with flexible models spend on maths, English or whatever it might be, it will not work well. Different parents will interpret it very differently. It is the kind of information that it is hard to do well even when constructing a research study. I suggest that there is room to take this back a bit in the light of the purposes I outlined and to commission research studies and sample studies where appropriate.
Similarly, lovely as it would be, the register will never provide all the information that a social work department might need to decide that an investigation is necessary. We need to think about what is straightforward to collect and not subjective to answer and what will help to create the join-up we expect, while not creating an administrative monster with information that turns out to have relatively little value in practice.
That is all I wanted to say. I support this register strongly, as I said, but one iteration further could be done with these provisions to make the register as clean, effective and supportive as it should be.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I wish to follow on; in fact, my noble friend has given an introduction to the comments that I wanted to make in relation to Amendment 260 in the names of my noble friend Lady Barran and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. She mentioned phrases such as “not push it too far” or “take a step back from this”, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, outlined on a previous group that this should be proportionate reporting and information collection, which is really important.
On Amendment 260, we get down to the clauses— I am a lawyer by training and have been in government as a Minister, and I know that government loves such clauses—which require the collection, if it is reasonable to obtain it, of
“any other information about the child’s characteristics, circumstances”
or needs. The only caveat to that is that those should be included in the register
“for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education or welfare of children”.
My first point in relation to that is that that is new paragraph (m), so we have already asked for an awful lot of information before we have our lovely “scoop it all up” clause. But is “characteristics” limited to protected characteristics? That is a separate paragraph in Clause 31, so I suspect it is not. What kinds of characteristics will be asked of families in relation to their children, what kinds of circumstances and what limit on that or on their needs? Obviously, we are not talking about special educational needs because that, again, is somewhere else. It is an enormously wide power for them to be able to reasonably obtain this information.
The only limit on it is
“for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education or welfare of children”.
Part of that limitation is well known. It apes the Children Act, which says that we are there to promote and protect the safeguarding of the welfare of children. But here it is about the safeguarding of education, a slightly new concept that is there as a key limitation, in the way the paragraph is put together, on what local authorities can ask of families.
So I strongly support Amendment 260 on that kind of “scoop it all up” information about parents in these circumstances, particularly parents who may have, for good reason, withdrawn their children. I can see all kinds of headlines and problems if this kind of information, on such a broad basis, is asked of parents by the local authority. I think that there will be legal challenges to define such a broad clause that the Government seem to want, and that it will be the subject of complaints of intrusion. Although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, obviously this is not to take back that presumption that it is the parents’ right, but such a wide clause that gives the local authority such extensive powers to ask for basically any other information risks changing that presumption, or at the very least it creates a perception for parents that it has been changed.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 160 to this important Bill. Amendment 159 relates to the establishment of a child protection authority and is also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. These amendments, grounded in the belief that every child, no matter where they live and what challenges they face, should be guaranteed a basic level of protection. Amendment 159 proposes the creation of a child protection authority, in direct response to one of the most urgent and widely endorsed recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Amendment 160 seeks to establish national thresholds for children in need support under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Neither of these proposals is theoretical. Both are urgent responses to real-world system failures that we have seen repeated with devastating consequences across our country.
Amendment 159 calls for the creation of the child protection authority, as recommended by the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. That inquiry, after seven years, 325 days of public hearings, and testimony from over 7,000 victims and survivors, concluded that existing child protection mechanisms are fragmented, inconsistent and insufficiently accountable. Among the 20 recommendations, the establishment of the independent child protection authority was second only to mandatory reporting.
This body would have four core responsibilities: to improve child protection practices across public and private institutions; to provide expert advice to the Government and the sector; to conduct inspections of institutions and systems where safeguarding concerns are raised; and to monitor the implementation of the recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other major safeguarding inquiries. Critically, this authority would be independent and established as a non-departmental public body, similar to the structure of the National Crime Agency. Its independence would give it the mandate and credibility to act across departmental and institutional silos.
We cannot ignore the repeated failures of the current framework. The names of Sara Sharif, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson will remain etched in our nation’s conscience for years to come. Each of those children was known to professionals and each was failed by a system that saw the risk but lacked the clarity, co-ordination and accountability to prevent harm. The Government’s response has been to strengthen existing structures rather than create a new body. Although that is understandable, it risks reinforcing the very fragmentation that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse warned about. We must be bolder, take a systematic view and act decisively.
Amendment 160 is on national standards for children in need support. Let us begin with the children in need framework. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 empowers local authorities to offer services to children whose health or development would suffer without additional support. Yet, in the absence of a national threshold or quality standards, this power is deployed deeply inconsistently. In her 2022 report, the Children’s Commissioner for England uncovered stark regional disparities of how children in need plans are used. For example, in Knowsley and in Blackpool more than 60% of children known to social care were supported through a child in need plan, in stark contrast with Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, where the figure is less than 20%.
Let us be clear: this variation cannot be explained by demographics or the level of need alone; it is a result of fragmented local practice in the absence of national guidance. That creates a system in which access to help is determined not by a child’s vulnerability but by their postcode. The situation is compounded by variations in the quality of those plans. Many are vague, lack time-bound goals and fail to specify what support a child will actually receive. Social workers have expressed frustration with a system that burdens them with process but does not enable them to deliver change.
This amendment seeks to fix that. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake a national review of how Section 17 is currently implemented, including an analysis of demographic variations and effectiveness; to issue statutory guidance establishing clear minimum thresholds for child eligibility and a template for high-quality planning; and to use automatic referral triggers, such as a parent entering prison, in-patient mental health care or a child being arrested, to ensure early intervention where risk is identifiable. This is not about removing local flexibility; it is about setting a national baseline of protection so that a child’s right to support is not dependent on what they have.
This Bill is an opportunity to do more than pass yet another set of well-intentioned clauses. It is a chance to confront two crucial, long-standing failures: the lack of consistent, enforceable thresholds for when and how a child receives support under Section 17—on that note, I add that the Children’s Commissioner has today come out in support of my Amendment 160—and the absence of a single, independent body tasked with improving, inspecting and co-ordinating our child protection infrastructure. We often speak in this Chamber about opportunity, fairness and levelling up. These amendments are a test of whether we mean what we say because, for children growing up in hardship and at risk of harm, fairness begins with visibility and opportunity begins with protection. Let us give these children more than words; let us give them a system that supports them and keeps them safe where they live. I urge noble Lords to support my amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling Amendment 159, to which I added my name. It is a probing amendment, so I hope the Minister has not been equipped with various intricacies on the drafting. I believe that His Majesty’s Government intend to consult on child protection.
As the noble Lord outlined, this is a recommendation from IICSA, which envisaged the child protection authority having an inspection function of certain settings within its purposes. However, there was another recommendation from the independent inquiry, which said:
“All religious organisations should have a child protection policy and supporting procedures, which should include advice and guidance on responding to disclosures of abuse and the needs of victims and survivors. The policy and procedures should be updated regularly, with professional child protection advice, and all organisations should have regular compulsory training for those in leadership positions and those who work with children and young people”.
Although the child protection agency will be led by the Home Office and the honourable Member Jess Phillips, this second recommendation sounds like a description not only of charities but of out-of-school settings. I am aware that, since the amendment was laid, a call for evidence went out from the Department for Education on safeguarding for out-of-school settings, but how are they intended to fit together?
In addition to religious organisations, sports clubs, informal educational settings, summer clubs and private tutors seem not to be within a regulatory framework at the moment. Is this not what the independent inquiry envisaged that the work of a child protection authority would be, or could be? Those organisations are outside Ofsted and, despite the excellent work of the Charity Commission—many of them will be charities but not all of them—the threshold for intervention by the Charity Commission on the grounds of safeguarding is statutorily very high. It is not an inspectorate, it seems, or an accreditor of safeguarding training.
If one looks momentarily at the scrutiny function that the Church of England is trying to set up, that function, which should be independent, looks as if it should be inspection, audit, accreditation and an end of complaint process facility. In these informal settings, out-of-school settings or charities, who accredits the safeguarding? Who does the inspecting? Who holds low-level concerns regarding staff and volunteers? Many of those settings will be a single charity under no umbrella organisation—and I thank the safeguarding charity Thirtyone:eight for its excellent work on safeguarding. If you are the trustee of a stand-alone charity and you begin to have concerns about a volunteer or a staff member—the kind of low-level concerns that are that are dealt with in Keeping Children Safe in Education—where is the umbrella organisation that will keep track?
We have to keep one step ahead of people who have this intention to get access to children. They will disappear from one independent stand-alone charity and have the potential to pop up, maybe in a different place—a different church or sports club—but who is keeping track of those concerns? You might informally tell another charity such as thirtyone:eight, but who will be collating that information? Could the Minister consider arranging a meeting for any interested Peers at which we can talk about the scope of the child protection authority and the call for evidence for out of school settings?
The call for evidence is, I believe, like a survey that you fill in. I promise the Minister that I will fill out the survey and go through that facility. But could she also confirm to noble Lords that the child protection authority will go out for consultation? What will the scope be for that and how will it fit together with this large gap—or number of small gaps—we have with out of school settings? This is an important moment to finally cover the many loopholes that still exist in relation to child safeguarding, particularly in out of school settings.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I find these two amendments extremely interesting, and I very much support the spirit of them. But I am not at all happy, I have to say, about exactly how they are put forward. I think it is important that the Government reflect on Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and the extent to which it could be updated and improved. I am delighted that the Government are taking steps to find out rather more about it.
I was extremely interested in the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, but I am not sure that they come into either Amendments 159 or 160. It does not mean that it is any less important. This is a wider issue of some real importance. I am not quite sure where it should come, but it certainly needs to be regarded .
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am grateful to be able to respond, as this is Committee. With the child protection authority, the question is about what scope that will have. If it is to have an inspectorate function, which is what was recommended by IICSA, will it have a role to inspect out of school settings? That is the way that, I would say, it comes within the scope of the amendment. But I accept it is a probing amendment. We need to make sure that we put the DfE and Home Office together to keep children safe .
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, on his powerful speech. I listened to his maiden speech, and this is the second time I have heard him speak. I see that he will be an important addition to the expertise in your Lordships’ House.
In relation to his Amendment 159, I am slightly puzzled and look forward to the Minister’s response. As the noble Lord said, the Government have accepted the recommendations of IICSA to create a child protection authority and this will initially, as I understand it, form part of the child safeguarding practice review panel. My noble friend Lady Berridge made good points about out of school settings although, in general, I worry about the extent of regulation that might fall on very small organisations and the impact that might have. I remember thinking about this when in office. One of the organisations we met with said there were no incentives in the system today to encourage organisations to do the right thing; there are just penalties if you get it wrong. Maybe that is a constructive path for the Government to consider.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Amendment 131, in my name, appears in this group. I will not quite say that it is a pleasure to follow the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, but it was a terribly important contribution, and I can only very much agree with what she said. The issues that she has outlined—about children as young as seven, with two-thirds continuing still at six months—are hugely disturbing.
My amendment seeks to address a particular issue concerning children subject to deprivation of liberty orders and children in care in general. As I said to the Ministers when they very kindly had a briefing on the Bill, this arises from a campaign that I encountered in 2023, called Hope Instead of Handcuffs. This campaign came from a small group of people—a single operator of the provision of secure transport for children—who were calling for a ban on the automatic use of handcuffs. Yes, I did say the automatic use of handcuffs, which some privatised providers of secure transport were using on children who were subject to deprivation of liberty orders—or who, as it was described, were on the edges of care. They were being put in handcuffs to be transported. These are not children who have been accused of any crime; these are simply children—very vulnerable children, obviously—who have been subjected to something that I think any of us would find traumatic and disturbing.
This reflects testimony that was given in 2021 to the inquiry of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on protecting rights in care settings. Serenity Welfare testified that, as I have just said, many providers of secure transportation services for children who were on the edge of care were using handcuffs as standard. I quote from its testimony:
“The practice is unregulated and unmonitored, as there is no obligation on these providers to report any instances of handcuffing to the appropriate authority”.
As a result of that campaign in 2023, I and a number of other Members of both Houses wrote to the Government inquiring what was happening. The response we got was, “We will look into it”. To the best of my knowledge, none of this has progressed since then, so I particularly wanted to put down this probing amendment to draw attention to the issue.
I have not addressed just transport, because I want to know what is happening in other settings for these children as well, which is why I have included them in the amendment. This is perhaps a much more limited issue than the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was outlining, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government are planning to do something about it if, as I have no reason to doubt, it is still continuing, and to stop it.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 126, in my name, is in this group. This amendment relates to a discreet issue for children who are under a High Court deprivation of liberty order but who are not also looked-after children under the Children Act. Approximately 96% of those children under a High Court deprivation of liberty order are also looked-after children under the Children Act, but then they end up at the High Court, as there is a shortage of Section 25 secure accommodation. Only in Section 25 accommodation under the Children Act can a looked-after child be restricted of their liberty—that currently means a secure children’s home—so they are also put under a High Court DoL so that the local authority can deprive them of their liberty in non-Section-25-type accommodation. It seems that by the move to the phrasing “relevant accommodation” the Bill will regularise in law their situation, which is that 96% of these young people are currently under that inherent jurisdiction deprivation of liberty order. However, there are currently 4% of children under a High Court deprivation of liberty order who are not also looked-after children under the Children Act.
I want to thank the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane. I believe that it was his work that brought in the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, when High Court DoLS—as we would call them—began to be used as a jurisdiction. It is due only to that work that we know that, within that group, we have this little group—the 4%—who are not also looked-after children. Even an amended Section 25 of the Children Act refers only to looked-after children having their liberty being restricted in what would now be known as “relevant accommodation”. They would still be left under the High Court jurisdiction, with fewer safeguards. The whole purpose of Clause 11 is to bring from the inherent jurisdiction these children under a statutory system of protection, safeguards and reviews.
This 4% of around 1,280 children last year are often children coming out of the mental health estate. They have been taken into hospital for their own protection and for treatment; then they are discharged but, for health reasons, their home is no longer suitable. In my view, they are not going to pass the threshold test under the Children Act 1989 to be a looked-after child, because the threshold test—philosophically and in practice—is about harm by the care or neglect of the adult who should be caring for them or the fact of their being out of control. Neither of those circumstances seem in most cases to apply to a young person who has gone into the mental health estate and then been discharged.
While I recognise the imperfections of the current drafting of Amendment 126—for instance, it might trigger other provisions of the Children Act if we deem these children to be looked after-children—I chose that mechanism to try to bring them under the safeguards that we will have for children under Section 25 who are looked-after children, and not leave them still to be under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. I hope that that serves to be a mechanism for the Minister to explain what the situation is for that small group of children.
I imagine it was envisaged by Sir Andrew McFarlane that he would get the data through the Nuffield work, so that we would come to Parliament, legislate and take this into statute law, out of the inherent jurisdiction. It seems to me, from Amendment 126, that unless we do something for this small group of children, he is going to have to continue needing Nuffield, because there will be a need for this type of deprivation of liberty order under the inherent jurisdiction for the group of children I have just outlined.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, what the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has just said is entirely sensible, and, if I may, I add my voice to it.
I did not know about this group of children. It seems wrong in principle that they should not be treated in exactly the same way as all other children in this particularly vulnerable group. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, pointed out, they are quite obviously the most vulnerable of all the children. I declare my interest as patron of the Atkinson unit in Exeter, which is secure accommodation.
What I am really standing up for on this is not only to understand and support in principle what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is saying but to express some concerns. I will just take, as an example, Amendment 120. If this child under the age of 13—and that is a very sad circumstance to have a child under 13—is under an order of the court, the Secretary of State would not be able to deal with it further than suggesting that the court order should be reversed. It is important that, when looking at these amendments, one has to bear in mind that it appears that deprivation of liberty may be able to be made without the introduction of the court. In so far as the court is concerned, I remind the Committee, as a former lawyer and judge, that neither the Home Office, the Department for Education nor any other government department can actually change the law of England other than through the parliamentary process. I have no doubt at all that the Minister knows that perfectly well, but it seems to me we have to be a little careful about the extent of the suggested use of these amendments.
I entirely understand what is intended, and it is entirely laudable, but we just need to be very careful as regards in what circumstances and whether there will be a court order. My recollection is that, in the past, Section 25 orders were also made in the family proceedings court. Not a word has been said about that now, and it may be that that does not happen any longer, but certainly there continue to be orders under the inherent jurisdiction, so I just make that warning to your Lordships.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I thank the Minister. Can she simply confirm in the letter that the position may be that we are left with a residual group of children who will still need the inherent jurisdiction? It might be that the legislation just does not reach quite far enough at the moment.
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.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 82 would provide further opportunities for children in kinship care to have access to boarding school places where appropriate. The Government should be applauded for their commitment to raising the profile of kinship care as a vital part of the ecosystem for children from broken families. As we heard earlier in the week from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, there are more than 150,000 children in kinship care in England. Kinship carers are unsung heroes, without whom it would be almost inevitable that the care system would buckle.
For most of Part 1 of the Bill, I have taken a back seat as I do not have direct expertise in the many complex areas that it seeks to tackle. However, for this proposal I was the Minister responsible for boarding schools, both state and private, when at the DfE. Noble Lords participating in the Bill will know what a huge task confronts kinship carers when taking on children, more often than not from broken homes and carrying the emotional scars of the unhappiness that has emanated from this breakdown. We have heard how the level of support for kinship carers is patchy at best and often almost non-existent. For many potential kinship carers the prospect will simply be too daunting, even if they might be the best solution in a given set of circumstances.
That is why I am so keen to give much more oxygen to the prospect of offering boarding school places to children in kinship care. Where it works for the child—and, of course, this is not always the case—it can provide a vital partnership to the carer in the upbringing of the child. At the simplest level, the day-to-day caring responsibilities for the kinship carer are reduced to around 16 weeks a year from 52 when boarding school is providing a home for the balance of the time.
I believe it is a dramatically underutilised resource. There is an unexplained squeamishness across many directors of children’s services to use it more. However, when I was the Minister in the area in 2018, we published a small longitudinal report showing just how impactful it could be. By coincidence, it was work led by Norfolk County Council, where I live, and the results were remarkable. We at the DfE then jointly published the report—it is no longer available on the DfE website, which is a shame. I urge the Minister to not only read it—I can send her a copy—but ask officials to put it back up again.
In essence, it tracked 52 vulnerable young people for between two and five years. Over that time, 33 of these young people were able to come off the risk register completely following placement in boarding school. Dr Claire Maxwell, who contributed to the report, then a reader in the sociology of education at UCL, highlighted three specific benefits. First, the setting can provide amelioration from risky emotional and physically stressful situations—for example, a circuit breaker from a local gang culture. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, a moment ago about the number of children from care ending up in prison—it is appalling. Secondly, there is improvement of educational outcomes. Thirdly, it is a more cost-effective solution than other forms of care intervention. Dr Maxwell’s view, and that of charities in the sector, was that successful boarding placements can help strengthen families experiencing significant difficulties. The longer school day that is part and parcel of boarding school life can provide a form of round-the-clock care and is part of the reason for the improved emotional and educational outcomes.
In this study, the 52 children were placed in 11 different boarding settings, a mixture of state and private provision. Some 21% of these children achieved a formal GCSE qualification in maths and English—above grade C, in old money. This compared with a national looked-after children pass rate in that year of 17.5%. These are not dramatic differences, but put alongside the substantial reduction in the numbers being removed from the risk register, it makes for a very positive story. This study also compared costs against more institutional forms of care beyond kinship. At the time of writing the report, the Norfolk Boarding School Partnership had an average cost between £11,000 and £35,000 a year, compared with £56,000 for a looked-after child in a normal or more standard setting. This translated into a saving of £1.6 million over four years for this group.
Obviously, kinship care is more affordable because carers get less support, but my argument is that if boarding was offered to potential kinship carers, the take-up would be much higher, therefore reducing local looked-after children costs. Today, the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation offers bursaries for looked-after children attending private boarding schools. We know that the educational outcomes for looked-after children remain way below the national average, and this is not a silver bullet—but, combined with the other benefits, as I have outlined, I believe it is a vital additional tool in the box to support these vulnerable children who never chose this harsh route into life. I hope the Minister will support me by agreeing to my amendment to provide more awareness of these opportunities.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I was pleased to be asked to speak to Amendment 82 by my noble friend Lord Farmer, who is unfortunately not able to be here today. As well as the evidence I will refer to, I was in your Lordships’ House back in 2014 when my noble friend gave his maiden speech. A Conservative Party treasurer perhaps brings a certain stereotype to mind. However, you could have heard a pin drop, as a globally successful metals trader spoke of being a young teenager in a chaotic home with an alcoholic single mother. But he went to the boarding house at the state-run Wantage Grammar School. It rescued him.
It made me reflect on the role of boarding schools. I was born and bred in Oakham and I have had to deal for many years with the annoyance of, “You’re from Oakham? So you went to Oakham School, then?” “No”, I reply, “there is a state comprehensive as well in the town, called Catmose College”—which was rated “outstanding” in every category in an Ofsted inspection in 2024, if noble Lords will forgive the shoutout for my state school.
This testimony by my noble friend is supported by the 2023 study by the University of Nottingham’s School of Education, commissioned by the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation, which found that children in or on the edge of care who attend state boarding or independent schools experience significant educational and financial benefits. They are four times more likely to achieve good GCSE passes in English and maths and five times more likely to pursue and succeed in A-levels, leading often to higher education. The study estimates that, for every 100 children attending boarding schools, lower social care costs and increased future earnings mean there is an economic return on investment of approximately £2.75 million. The report stated that, when vulnerable children in boarding schools were interviewed, they said such opportunities were life-changing.
This amendment would also make it significantly easier, as my noble friend Lord Agnew outlined, for kinship carers to step forward to offer a home to a child who might otherwise enter the state care system. Not every family will want or be able to house the child 24/7, 365 days a year. That can be a daunting task. They know of course that their own children will be greatly affected, and their house might not be big enough for that extra child. Kin altruism can be greatly aided and encouraged when a child can be educated in this way in the state boarding sector, giving the carer breathing space to attend to all their other responsibilities, while knowing that the child is safe and cared for in the state boarding sector. I hope the Minister will look at the evidence carefully in relation to this matter.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we have no amendments in this group, but we are very sympathetic to them. When you look at all the statistics for children in care, your heart goes out to those young people, and we should do everything humanly possible to help them, develop them, encourage them—and any other adjective you can think of.
I will deal with a few of the amendments. First, I want to deal with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. He may not know Liverpool College, but it is a very successful independent school with a dynamic head teacher, a Dutch American who came to England and did two things. First, he made Liverpool College an academy, and then he decided to make a boarding facility available. He came to an agreement with the local authority that he would offer a percentage of the places to children in care. The results have been spectacular. It is a model that should not be shunned for party-political reasons—“We are not in favour of independent schools or boarding schools”—but should be welcomed, embraced and encouraged.
Secondly, I want to make a point about Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. Again from personal experience, not only did we create a virtual school in Liverpool, but the then director of education, Colin Hilton, said, “I am going to be the virtual parent of these children”. He set up a steering committee of children in care in the local authority and he met with them once a month to hear their issues and their problems. Some might think this was flag waving, but, by taking on that role, he nailed his colours and the colours of the local authority to the mast, and again the results were amazing.
I am in favour of all sorts of information being made available, because it is only by getting information that you know what you have to do and how you can achieve it. Surprisingly, I am the chair of Liverpool’s education, employment and training scrutiny committee; the Labour authority has made a Lib Dem the chair of two of its select committees. The local authority sets a series of targets, and for education those are obviously training, employment and so on. In each quarter, we look at the results next to the targets we hoped to achieve, and I was surprised that children in care were not separated in those figures. I asked for the figures to be separated and that has now happened, so you can track the progress that those children in care are making.
So all these amendments, in one way or another, can only help to further the support that we as a nation want to give to those children in care. On the question of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, again, why not? All these issues are important, so I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to them.
School Accountability and Intervention
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Given the noble Lord’s background as a teacher, I am sure that Ofsted will listen to his response to the consultation, which I hope he will make. While I have some sympathy with the concerns of teachers about the arrival of Ofsted—having experienced it myself, as I have already said—I am not wholly convinced that students can afford to wait nine months between the preparatory conversation and the point at which some judgment is made. Frankly, if things are going wrong, it is important for students and parents that those are identified at the appropriate time, and, if things are going right, it is important that those are shared as widely as possible.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, on the move from the duty to intervene to the power to intervene when a school is inadequate, the schools the Minister outlined that have taken a long time often have complicated land or financial issues, as I am sure she is aware. Trusts already go in before the legal status has changed, and for schools that go through the process relatively quickly, there are occasions when the fact that everybody knows there is a duty to academise speeds things up. The Minister will be aware that, by virtue of these contracts, the Department for Education is now a regulator; it regulates schools. Is there another example of a regulator, such as the Charity Commission or the FCA, that does not have a duty to intervene and merely relies on these powers?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know from her experience that the ability to academise a school does not depend on a duty in every case, and nor did it do so under the last Government. The 2RI policy was a power for academisation to happen in those cases, not a duty. I am not sure I would characterise the department in quite the way she did; nevertheless, it comes back to this point: what is the most appropriate range of interventions that can be used to ensure that the improvement we see in the schools that need it is as speedy, well supported and appropriate as possible? For example, the distinction between schools that have the leadership capacity to improve themselves, and those that do not, is an important one. The RISE teams, with their targeted interventions for schools that need it, and their broader universal offer to direct schools looking to improve in the right areas, are an important addition to ensure that all our schools are improving quickly.
Free Schools and Academies
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lady Evans for securing today’s debate and getting an opportunity to talk about the good news of English schools in the midst of such bad global news. I was one of the Schools Ministers in DfE in the midst of the terrible global news of the pandemic. I hope the Minister will bring forward further changes to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, building on the changes announced by the Prime Minister today.
I think it is a sign of good government and putting children first that you change your mind, and it was that spirit and focus on children that led Michael Gove to take on the idea from Andrew Adonis—the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—and others and turbocharge the academies programme. By the time I joined in February 2020, that turbocharged programme had created more than 2,400 charitable trusts running schools in a contractual relationship with the Secretary of State, and most children in England by that time were in an academy or free school. By statute, failed schools were no longer allowed to languish in local authorities, which were at best reluctant to admit failure, at the expense of the children. It was not a conspiracy—just human nature and local authorities having other priorities.
The academies’ freedom to work across local authority boundaries enabled the creation of different faith schools within the free school system. There are now numerous Sikh, Hindu and Muslim schools with wider catchment areas. Sir Hamid Patel of Star Academies served Muslim and other communities with excellence and integrity, and there were new Church of England secondary schools such as Fulham Boys School. It was a sadness, though, that no black-led Church denomination managed to establish a successful school, despite these denominations having a long history of Saturday schools. That freedom to work across local authority boundaries also assisted the creation of the specialist schools, the UTCs and the specialist maths sixth-form colleges.
No one promised that there would not be failed trusts, but school and trust failure is revealed swiftly, and that is a much-needed achievement. Children do not have another chance. Getting in quickly is imperative, so I join with other noble Lords: I am concerned about the discretion being added to an academy order when a school has failed.
Sorting out DAOs remained a priority even in a pandemic: those disadvantaged children, already in a failed school, were then faced with a pandemic, so it had to be. Of course the system still has weaknesses. I think I used to describe single-academy trusts as often in splendid, outstanding isolation: they were often some of the best academic schools but with woeful levels of free school meal pupils, and many were grammar schools. I really had hoped that, instead of focusing on the academies, this new Government would sort this. It is possible to sort the low admission of free school meal pupils.
Just over a month into my service, the Prime Minister closed all schools, except for vulnerable children and children of key workers. For someone for whom school was a place of safety, I knew what this could and did mean. Local authority priorities became children’s social care, public health, refuse collection, children’s social care, adult social care and children’s social care—I hope noble Lords get my drift. Inadvertently, the academy system came into its own. In the pandemic there were areas where the local authority encouraged trusts to “do schools”—hubs were set up, best practice was shared across the schools and the local authority got on with children’s social care. The best MATs did all the back-office functions and schools just did discipline, safeguarding and education. That was invaluable in a pandemic.
What of the Department for Education? Due to that contract with the Secretary of State, there were teams of civil servants called, I think, regional directors. The DfE was operational. It was not just policy and delivery. Those teams knew English schools, the leaders, the local authority and the trust that in one instance had lost its finance director, who had died in the February before the pandemic. They knew how to plug that gap. Without REACT teams, I cannot imagine how schools and local authorities would have coped.
It may seem a strange time to send this postcard from DfE sanctuary buildings, but I wish to encourage His Majesty’s Government to utilise, embolden and encourage these academy trusts. When you are planning the biggest local government reorganisation for decades, why is the mood music for the local authority now more on schools? Even if that is your overall direction of travel, why not wait? The eye of many a local authority will be off the ball during such a reorganisation —it has to be. The people running local authorities are only human. I hope that some will be humble enough to call on their academy trust to “do schools” and focus, in the midst of reorganisation, on children’s social care.
Primary Schools: Swimming Lessons
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I strongly agree with the noble Lord. As he says, there are 500 fewer public-access swimming pools operational in England now than there were in 2010. Alongside that, there has been a 7% increase in the pay-per-swim cost in the last year. Whether in schools, where we need to make sure that teachers are supported with the skills to develop children’s basic swimming skills, or in the provision across our communities more widely, there is more we need to do to support swimming.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has spoken about the correlation between ethnicity and poverty. We often talk about the cost of a school uniform, but there is no need for swimwear or anything of that nature to be branded. Are His Majesty’s Government looking at whether the cost of additional items such as swimwear is part of the barrier to kids, who grow so quickly, accessing swimming lessons, as well as the lack of facilities?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness identifies probably one of the many barriers that prevent parents and their children being able to swim if they are living in poverty. I am not aware of whether expecting branded swimming items is a barrier to children being able to swim, but if it is that is clearly wrong. I suspect that would be covered by the provisions in the Bill that we will receive in the near future to ensure that school uniform is not a barrier to children being able to learn, in this case, a very important skill.
Children’s Social Care
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
First, I congratulate my noble friend on her new role, to which I know she will bring an enormous amount of experience. She is exactly right: this issue goes wider than children who come within the ambit of children’s social care; we need to ensure that we are supporting parenting, children and maternal health, and that we are intervening and providing preventive measures at the very earliest stages of children’s lives. As I suggested in my first response, that is some of the important work that family hubs are doing, but it is certainly very much part of the principles that this Government have set down. We need to continue that investment, as my noble friend says, in evidence-based practice at the very earliest stage for children and families.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, while I welcome the focus on trying to regulate private placements, that is also going to depend on the capacity within the given local authority. I was disappointed that there was not much focus on a strategy or solution, given that just under half of local authorities, when inspected by Ofsted, were rated not good; we need them all to be outstanding. I also welcome the focus across government and beyond, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, outlined, on 18 to 25 year-olds. Is the Minister speaking to the Deputy Prime Minister about this? If you are going to build social housing, how you design those houses can help create the support networks for vulnerable young people. As someone who skirted the children’s social care system and ended up in a privately financed, self-financed placement, I know that it is just happenstance —you happen to walk past someone’s window, you happen to be seen by people, who then may take an interest in you. You cannot compel them to, but how you build properties, how architects construct them, can make that more likely. Buildings shape people and can shape the support for some of our most vulnerable children.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point about the relationship between this work and the work of MHCLG. Just a week or so ago, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and the MHCLG Secretary met with the Care Leavers’ Association. We are working with MHCLG on planning provision for additional children’s placements, in order to ensure that high-quality placements can be developed more quickly. I take her broader point about the way in which we literally build our communities in order to protect our children, and I am sure that good planners and good local authorities will be thinking about that.
Education: Early Years Attainment Gap
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, this is a workforce with a large number of 18 to 21 year-olds. Following my noble friend’s question, will the department consider whether those increased costs are going to be absorbed? If the department decides to do that, what will be the implications for, for instance, hospices, which are charities delivering NHS services? Once one moves to support one sector to absorb the national insurance and minimum wage increases, is there not an issue of principle that other sectors should be supported too?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
With respect to services delivering healthcare, my noble and honourable friends in the Department of Health and Social Care are considering the implications and will bring them forward. I point out to noble Lords opposite that there is no point demanding improved provision and arguing for, for example, a childcare entitlement that will involve considerable additional spending—which this Government have found in last week’s Budget—while being unwilling to find the money necessary to fill the £22 billion black hole that we inherited from them.
Government’s Childcare Expansion
Baroness Berridge Excerpts(11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Absolutely. The name of our recruitment campaign to encourage more people to come and work in this area is “Do Something Big”. Our argument is that there is little that you can do that is more important for changing somebody’s life than working with them in their very earliest years, whether through caring or through early years education and development. That is why the investment that this Government are putting in is so important and why we will celebrate the people who carry out that really important role.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, is it not also the case with the staffing of early years that there may be a staff surplus in some parts of the country? One has seen the statistical collapse in the number of young children in the inner London area, yet places such as Oxfordshire have apparently double the number of children than childcare places. Is part of the strategy to enable people already in this sector to relocate?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. I am not sure that it is for the Government forcibly to relocate staff in this area, but let me take that back to those working on the childcare strategy as we think about how to reform this as a place to work and ensure that it is a positive place to work. We seek to meet demand where it is needed, because not only are there shortages of staff in some areas but there are shortages of provision. We will certainly make sure that we are focusing support on those areas that most need both the staff and the provision.