Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts(5 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 119 tabled by my noble friend Lord Agnew, to which I have added my name. He spoke very persuasively for it.
I did read the Minister’s response to the debate last Thursday on Amendment 82, which would similarly have made it compulsory for children in kinship care to be offered such a place. I agree with her answer in pretty much all respects. She recognised the positive impact that boarding schools can have, but they should not be the default for all children living in kinship care. She cited the importance of stability in education and friendships to well-being and educational outcomes. Moving schools would, of course, be potentially highly detrimental.
I ask the Minister: could she work with me and my noble friend Lord Agnew to word this legislation to remove any sense of default? My aim is simply to make this option available to all, as this is currently not the case. The arguments and evidence—for making the boarding school option available to both children in kinship care and children in local authority care—overlap significantly in these amendments. My noble friend Lady Berridge eloquently made the case for Amendment 82 when I was unable to be here, so I will not repeat it.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendment 134B in my name and to support a number of amendments in this group. I make it clear that this is a probing amendment. I appreciate that the Government have a wider agenda in relation to planning—so it may be that this Bill is not the right vehicle—but I did want to pick up on a proposal from the Government’s policy statement Green Paper, Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, which the Minister has already mentioned. It states that the Government will look at
“options to reform the planning process to enable providers to more easily set up homes where they are most needed”.
Specifically, it says that they will
“consider potential legislative options or further changes to support the delivery of small children’s homes”.
We know that we have seen a move away from the larger homes, with the most recent government statistics showing that homes registered within the previous year were for three places on average, and four places was the average for all active or suspended children’s homes as of March 2024. We also know—and it has been quite clearly demonstrated—that we need more capacity and that children are being placed in unsuitable accommodation.
On this point, I very much support my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 118, as well as Amendment 114, which attempts to deal with the problem of unregulated homes. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, have said, it is quite hard to believe that these homes exist, but exist they do. That is a capacity issue and something that, frankly, we are just going to have to do deal with. I appreciate that the Government announced investment into the children’s homes estate last week; that is, of course, welcome and a good thing. However, there are additional measures that could deal with capacity, and these relate to planning regulations.
The CMA’s 2022 study, which has already been mentioned, found that one of the main barriers to opening new homes is planning permission. The study’s authors heard repeated concerns about failed planning applications, often due to local opposition, which, in its words,
“appears to be based on outmoded or inaccurate assumptions about children’s homes and looked-after children”.
Given that we have now moved towards smaller children’s homes, the issue is further complicated by the fact that these are the exact same type of properties that families are searching for. As a result, when providers face delays due to the planning process, even if they have been successful in getting permission, very often they can lose the property to a rival bidder for whom planning is not a consideration.
Consequently, the CMA suggested that the Government should review the planning requirements and consider whether smaller children’s homes, which can accommodate fewer than a specified number of residents at any one time, should be required to go through the planning system. It believes that that could be a helpful corrective to the market by increasing the number of children’s homes being opened. My straightforward question to the Minister is: is that something the Government are still considering, as suggested by their policy statement of last year? If so, would it be possible to give any guidance as to which other legislation they think might be more suitable?
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts(5 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Children’s homes: transparency of costAll local authorities must annually publish the prices they pay for private placements in children’s homes.”Member's explanatory statement
This intends to enhance transparency and enable local authorities to negotiate effectively with providers to secure the best placement for children at the lowest possible cost. It implements a commitment in the Government’s Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive policy paper.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 134A, in my name, which is in one sense a fairly limited amendment compared to some of the other proposals in this group. I understand all that, because what we are trying to deal with in this group is one of the most controversial realities in children’s social care—the reliance on private provision, and in particular the role of private equity firms.
More than 80% of children’s homes are run by for-profit companies—a rise of more than 20% since 2010. A large proportion are owned by private equity groups carrying large debts and creating instability in a sector meant to protect the most vulnerable. It was the concerns about the market that the Minister has mentioned that led to the CMA launching its market study, completed in 2022. It identified a shortage of suitable children’s homes in the right places, as well as high costs. It says that, with local authorities paying excessive fees to private providers,
“the largest private providers of placements are making materially higher profits, and charging materially higher prices, than we would expect if this market were functioning effectively”.
As we have discussed in the previous group, we have seen a rise in the number of children placed in unregulated homes as the pressure to find placements has intensified.
As noble Lords might expect, in the Explanatory Notes for this Bill, and as the Minister has stated, one of the aims is to improve local authorities’ ability to shape the children’s social care placement market and to tackle profiteering. There are a number of measures to address this in the Bill: there are new powers for Ofsted to find unregulated homes across multiple settings in the parent undertaking—although, as we have heard, this may not go far enough; and the Secretary of State will have the power to cap the profit that providers can make. However, as is made clear in the Explanatory Notes, this is a power that would be used only if the other market interventions outlined in Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive do not sufficiently improve the functioning of the market. Yet, as with the previous amendment that I mentioned, some of the measures mentioned in this Green Paper have not been brought forward in this Bill.
One notable exception is the proposal to improve the data that individual local authorities hold on the prices paid for private placements, and to improve the sharing of that data—hence this amendment, which would require local authorities to publish annually the prices that they pay for private placements in children’s homes. This would
“ensure that local authorities are supported to better understand, shape and commission placements that suit the needs of children in their area and bring transparency to the cost of placements”.
That last bit is a direct quote from the Government’s own policy statement, so I am rather hoping that the Minister might agree with me.
If I may, I would like to give an example of why this data is important and how the current system works in the interests of the larger providers while threatening the viability of the smaller operations. I have a friend who runs a children’s home. He has one property; he runs it well and, as a result, has children who often stay with him for a number of years. Every year, he has to fill out a spreadsheet to justify any price uplift to the local authority for existing placements. He is told that this information is supposed to ensure that uplifts are transparent and fair across the board—but it is not transparent, as it is not shared with him, nor is it fair. Typically, his uplifts have run at about 2%, although one year it was only 0.2% However, if you are in a home with regularly changing children, it is possible to set the price for placements each time. As a result, and only through a chance conversation, he discovered that he was being paid £1,500 per week less than one of the large private providers in his area offering the same one-to-one support for a child with very similar needs.
The net result of all of this is that my friend continually struggles to keep his head above water, despite being a responsible provider running the type of home which we are all agreed we need more of. If he was able to see the data on payments made to other providers in the area, it would help him negotiate more equitably with the local authority, which in turn would shore up his perennially fragile position. There are benefits on the other side, too, for the local authority. As in the words of one practitioner, “If we were all more transparent then there would be less chance that private providers can pick us off one by one, re prices”.
The Government have said that they will engage with the sector to bring about greater cost and price transparency, but, as we know, local authorities are not great at sharing data. Would the Minister consider mandating the publishing of this data as part of this Bill? I understand—it has been mentioned previously—that Governments are rightly cautious about the number of requirements that they place on local authorities, but given the level of distortion in the market and the urgent need for more suitable homes, there is a solid case to be made in this instance.
I suspect that in her response the Minister will point me to the regional care co-operatives, which will of course lead to greater data transparency. However, what it does not do is to solve the problem for the smaller providers. As with other measures in this Bill, it is another late-stage intervention, so it is a step to be taken, such as imposing fines, when things have already gone wrong. What seems to have got lost along the way are some of those positive preventive measures that originated from the Government’s own policy paper; they have just fallen by the wayside. To be honest, I am slightly puzzled as to why that is the case, but perhaps the Minister can shed some light on the matter, or perhaps, dare I suggest, she might consider reinstating them into this Bill.
I turn to some of the other amendments in this group. My amendment does not go as far as Amendment 174, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which seeks to remove private companies from the market as has happened in Wales. I think that our mutual agreement thing may have fallen down now, because I do not think that it is feasible or desirable to ban private provision; that would only increase the capacity shortfall, and we need responsible private investment. I do not think that we should disincentivise private providers from investing in new capacity or do anything to further destabilise the market. That is why I understand the concerns of my noble friend Lady Barran about the proposed profit cap, which the CMA thinks would be unworkable. It is also why I support her Amendment 142A, which would exclude individuals from financial penalties.
While I have purposely limited my amendment to children’s homes, the same principle of data sharing to create a fairer market certainly applies to fostering agencies, where there is a similar problem. While private investors operate less in the space of supported accommodation, it is not unheard of, so I understand the reasoning behind Amendments 140 and 142, which would include supported accommodation a little more in the Bill.
Finally, on Amendment 141, from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I am afraid that this is not my area of expertise, but I look forward to hearing his reasoning behind it. I beg to move.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 140, in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lord Storey for adding his. It would extend the scope of Clause 14 to cover independent providers of supported accommodation. This is a really important group of amendments: the whole area of financial oversight and profit caps is incredibly important, and I suspect we are not all going to have exactly the same views on it.
To put things into context, I welcome the raft of measures in the Bill to strengthen regulation and oversight of the care system, particularly the new provider oversight measures, Ofsted’s new power to fine providers of unregistered children’s homes, the financial oversight mechanism, and the profit cap. I firmly believe that these measures are welcome steps in the right direction in addressing some of the structural problems facing the care system and the sort of issues we have talked about so often in this Chamber: excessively high profit levels and rising care costs, at a time when local authorities are under huge financial pressure; the power imbalance between local authority commissioners and the largest private providers; the risk of sudden market exits due to high debt burdens from private equity-backed providers; and the growth in unregistered children’s homes, which we have already rightly focused on. That is a pretty toxic mix, and we really have to take the opportunity the Bill provides to do something about it.
That is the big picture, but turning briefly to my amendment, as we have already heard, in the last six years there has been a very significant rise in the number of children in care aged 16 and 17 who are living in supported accommodation. It is important to be clear what we mean by supported accommodation. It is for young people, 16 and 17 year-olds, who may have already started to make some sort of transition to more independent living but who still require a fair degree of support. Many supported accommodation settings, such as children’s homes and foster homes, are run by private companies, many of which are very large. Local authorities currently have no way of knowing the debt level being carried by these large private companies and whether there is any risk of the company or provider failing financially—which, of course, could have drastic implications for the children living in these settings. So, given the significant and growing number of children living in supported accommodation, it is important that the new financial oversight measures in Clause 14 are extended to independent providers of supported accommodation as well as providers of children’s homes and fostering agencies. My amendment would achieve this, and in so doing would provide a consistent approach across the different care settings and a safeguard for local authorities, so they can identify and mitigate the risk of providers suddenly closing multiple supported accommodation settings.
Finally, nine times out of 10, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I agree on pretty much everything. We often support each other’s amendments and speak in the same debates, but I do not quite share her position on removing the profit motive altogether from children’s social care. Far more needs to be done to regulate it, but there is a place for the private sector in the children’s social care market; it just has to be properly regulated.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, and I thank all noble Lords for a really interesting debate. We said it would be controversial, and so it proved. I will not speak for long as we are getting late again, as usual, but I say very quickly to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that I genuinely have real sympathy for the children she mentioned and how it makes them feel. I am a big believer in the voice of the child; it would be hypocritical to say otherwise.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that in some senses this is a reactive Bill, while we are dealing with problems that we have here and now. As my noble friends Lord Nash and Lady Barran said, a root cause of a lot of the problems that we have spoken about on all these days in Committee is capacity. We have to address the fact of capacity and its geographical spread.
I particularly thank my noble friend Lady O’Neill because she brings her experience and is able to tell us what it is really like and what actually happens. I was really pleased that she said she thought this could be helpful in grappling with some of the problems that local authorities face, because if my noble friend says it could be helpful then it probably will be helpful. I was very encouraged by that, and it might be helpful in other areas.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I think I was slightly ill advised on the extent of the supported accommodation market and the levels there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made some really interesting points. I was going to suggest that the Government take her up on the offer of the round table because I was very interested in social value procurement, but they are doing that already.
I kind of knew, having sat through last Thursday’s debate, that I was going to end up in the Minister’s “not everything’s for legislation” box, and so it proved. I take the point. Of course there is a wider body of work; on the last amendment that I spoke to, I mentioned the money that the Government had put in and the wider body of work, and I am very happy to acknowledge that. I just think the difference here—everyone says this—is that while it is great to have better data and to have that improvement with local authorities, I am not clear how it will help the smaller private providers and therefore the problems of capacity that we have mentioned. Unless we mandate that publishing, I do not think it will happen—and that feels a little one-sided, so I am afraid this is back out of the “not everything’s for legislation” box. On that note, and with that in mind for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Independent Review of Children’s Social Care
Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
The right reverend Prelate’s final point is right; Josh MacAlister’s review has set out very clearly the scale of the challenge we face and has worked through the financial impact of getting this right. However, none of us is in any doubt that our primary focus is getting it right for children.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome this review and its focus on supporting families earlier in the process. To echo an observation made by the author and journalist Polly Curtis, the word “love” was used 42 times in this review and “loving” 50 times. As she says, this is pretty radical for a set of formal proposals. It is most welcome, because is that not what the system is for—making sure that children are loved and cared for when their parents cannot take on that role? As has been mentioned, kinship carers play a fundamental part in this, so will my noble friend reassure us that, as the review proposes, there will be increased legal, practical and financial support for kinship carers to match the scale of what is offered to foster carers and adoptive parents?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is right to pick up on all the “love” and “loving” in the report. Kinship carers are an incredibly important part of providing that to children, and I send them my thanks for everything they do. The department already works with the charity Kinship and supports it in creating more support groups for kinship carers. There are some very important recommendations in the report and I can absolutely say to my noble friend that we will consider each of them and they will be part of our report at the end of the year.
Schools: Extremism and Intolerance
Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the right revered Prelate for his question and for pointing out the success of integration in primary schools; I am happy to share in his welcome of that.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
As the right reverend Prelate said, it is a complicated situation, but the podcast itself—the reporting as per the original Question—was at times quite worryingly skewed. Does my noble friend think that schools are doing enough to challenge extremism, or, as a result of this podcast, are they afraid of being labelled racist?
Child Safeguarding
Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
The issue of children being out of school is an important one. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that schools are an incredibly important protective factor for many children. That is why we are so keen as a Government, public health permitting, to keep our schools open with a real focus on attendance and working very closely with schools and children’s social care so that where children are not in school that is followed up and properly understood. In terms of the details of the review in relation to Arthur’s own attendance, as I said, the terms of reference are being set at the moment and I am not aware of the details.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, there are so many distressing factors involved in Arthur’s death, but perhaps one of the most upsetting is that he had family who loved him and who raised their concerns. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government will consider giving more focus to raising the awareness and status of kinship care, as recommended in The Case for Change?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hope my noble friend will be pleased to know that in the Government’s independent review of social care we will be looking at how we can further support kinship families for all the reasons that my noble friend touched on. There are about 150,000 children in this country living in kinship care arrangements, so it is a really important element. In recent years, we have provided extra support to kinship carers who are looking after a child who was previously in care under a special guardianship order. Those carers can now access therapeutic services funded by the adoption support fund to help those children deal with the trauma that they have experienced. We have also recently changed the school admissions fair access protocol so that more children in kinship care will have access to schools that will support them with their kinship placement.