Schools: Music and Dance Scheme
Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts(4 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This year, as has been the case since 2010, we have maintained the value of the funding for the music and dance scheme, and we have provided an additional £4 million to support parents having to pay for the impacts of VAT on private schools. We have done what was necessary to maintain it this year and, as I said previously, we recognise the significance of this scheme and we will do all we can to support it in the future.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I declare my interest: I might myself have the voice of a frog but I have Chetham’s School of Music, which provides wonderful choristers for my cathedral. Does the Minister agree with me that there seems to be an anomaly? Last week the Government were able to announce significant money over four or five years for the built heritage of this country. However, when it comes to an equally important part of our heritage, our music and drama heritage, we are told that the most we can expect is another year and then, perhaps, later on, something longer. Why can we not have a similar length of settlement for the music and dance schools now as we had for the built heritage last week?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is not right to say that the only support provided to music and the arts is through the music and dance scheme. That deals with a particular issue about how we ensure that, whatever your income, if you are highly talented, you can learn at the very best private schools, including Chetham’s. Alongside that, this Government have taken action on the national curriculum to support the place of arts and music. We are investing in a national centre for arts and music as well. So there is a long-term commitment from this Government to arts and music—somewhat in contrast to the last Government, I have to say.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts(4 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s sensible proposals in Amendment 121A—they obviously have cross-party support. The Bill proposes a power for local authorities to withhold consent to a child being removed from school in certain circumstances and my noble friend’s amendment would strengthen that principle by giving a local authority the power to refuse consent if a child has ever been subject to a child protection plan or if they are currently defined as a Section 17 child in need because of abuse or neglect.
It is important to remember that although education in this country is compulsory, schooling is not. For some parents this is a very important principle, which is why I support other amendments supported by my noble friend to require a local authority to give its reasons for withholding consent and, importantly, to simplify the huge amount of information a parent choosing to educate their child at home currently has to provide.
My noble friend Lord Lucas, who is in his place, asked an apposite question in Committee:
“What is the Government’s purpose in seeking to be … so intrusive and punitive towards elective home education”—[Official Report, 20/5/25; col. 173.]
in this Bill? The vast majority of parents do not choose home schooling for their children, but for those who do, it is an important freedom. I say to the Minister that I am flagging up a possible situation beyond this Bill. Although parents may choose home schooling, for some it is becoming not a principle but a necessity. I am looking at the parents of children with special needs who are forced into home schooling because the local authority cannot afford to provide for their child, or offers unacceptable alternatives, such as return journeys of 90 miles to a school every day or private tutoring in a public place. Of course this is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is a warning note because we may find that there then is established another category of home schooling for parents who have been offered an unacceptable solution to their problem.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I will be very brief. It is an old, apparently African, adage that it takes a village to raise a child, but it is no less true for that. What that captures in a few words is that raising a child is a balance: a partnership between the parents on the one hand and the wider community on the other. I think that is what we are trying to get at in this group of amendments: what are the appropriate powers for the state to have and what should be simply left to parents?
It is a long-standing principle in this country that parents have the right to home-educate their children, but where that becomes a proxy for hiding the children from the state and putting them in a place where they are potentially at risk and at danger then clearly concerns must be raised. Having listened carefully to this debate, I will, if they are pressed to Divisions, support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in Amendment 121A and maybe later in Amendment 131A. They are probably as nuanced as we are going to get in a complex situation where we can all find bad balls for which we should not be setting the field.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 164B, 164C, 167A, 170A, 170B, 175ZD and 175ZE in my name. All these amendments are rooted in one concern, and we have had a lot of debate already that touches on this: that it is not whether the state may act, but how it does so. It is not whether safeguarding matters, because it does, but whether the systems we design can tell the difference between care and control, and between help and coercion.
I welcome those of the Government’s amendments that strengthen scrutiny, including by using the affirmative procedure. That kind of restraint does not weaken authority; it makes it legitimate. Where I differ is where further processes, or compulsory steps, are placed on parents simply to complete a sequence. Support should be available, but it should not become mandatory and it should not become a gateway to enforcement.
“(fa) an institution—(i) that is only providing religious instruction or guidance,(ii) where parents or guardians of attendees have registered at their Local Authority that they provide suitable out-of-school education separate from or in addition to any attendance at the institution, and(iii) where the institution demonstrates to the Local Authority that it provides the required safeguarding measures;”Member's explanatory statement
This Amendment seeks to mitigate the adverse impact on institutions providing religious instruction, but not wider or general education, as identified in the Equality Impact Statement.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, this amendment is a repeat of one that I tabled in Committee, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Oxford spoke in my absence. I am deeply grateful to him, and to the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Marks of Hale, who have added their names to it on Report.
My concerns with the Bill in its current form relate to those noted in the equality impact assessment, which singled out and named the particular issues that might arise for the Haredi Jewish community. As a Lord spiritual, I see my role as including speaking out when members of another religious community’s beliefs and practices are at stake. Among several groups within Judaism, the practice for boys—it is just boys we are talking about here—during their teenage years after their bar mitzvahs, is a combination of home schooling alongside religious instruction, the latter being provided by a yeshiva. At present, yeshivas are not treated as educational institutions, but the Bill makes it likely that they will be in future.
We need to reflect that we are legislating at a time when, after 7 October 2023, Jewish communities here in the UK, and in many other parts of the world, feel particularly threatened and vulnerable. The steep rise in antisemitic crimes is making some people I know who have been long committed to Britain wonder whether they are still welcome and safe in the UK. New laws that threaten their long-standing traditions simply play into that fear. The Jewish community—I went to school among Jewish boys—is a precious and vital constituent of British life. I sincerely believe that we must make every possible effort to allay their fears.
In working on this amendment, I have become more aware than ever that there are different voices and practices, even among the ultra-Orthodox communities. I do not pretend to speak for all of them, but those I have met with have given me assurances. For example, they have no problem with the institutions that their boys attend being in scope for safeguarding oversight and inspection. I am assured that the theology of these groups means that those who study their faith at a yeshiva are not being radicalised and are not drawn to political extremism. Indeed, the very opposite is true: they are members of a deeply law-abiding community. Many who come through this combination of home schooling and religious instruction emerge as excellent citizens, well equipped to flourish in British society and to become entrepreneurs, business leaders and assets to our community.
I am grateful for the conversations that I and noble colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—it is good to see him looking fully recovered after his surgery before Christmas—have had with civil servants and Ministers since Committee. That has significantly cleared the ground and resolved a number of issues along the way. These conversations have explored considerable detail. Some were about when exactly boys are expected to attend a yeshiva, during what would otherwise be normal Monday to Friday school hours. Others were about what precisely an institution that comes under the regime set out in the Bill will be required to include in its teaching and work. I am grateful for the assurances we have received that there is no intention to require such bodies, which are not equipped for it, to comply with the national curriculum.
Some of the groups I have met or corresponded with are concerned that, if a carve-out is not in the Bill, there are risks that secondary legislation will not provide sufficient assurance. They fear that a future Secretary of State would be free to make regulations that would, in effect, outlaw their way of life. I have listened carefully to those concerns; I understand their fears—my amendment would allay them.
However, it is the very complexity of the issues that has led me to conclude that these matters may be better dealt with through a period of careful consultation with those affected, prior to regulations being laid. To that extent, I have several questions for the Minister—I sent them to her yesterday—that I hope she will be able to answer in responding to this debate. Subject to that, I expect to be able to withdraw my amendment, as I have come to think that getting the regulation right on these matters of detail may be the better way.
First, can she assure the House that there will be ample time for consultation ahead of any regulations being issued, and that the groups referred to in the equality impact statement—of whom I have spoken this evening—will be engaged with, listened to and heard?
Secondly, can she affirm that the Bill does not require the same regulations to be applied to all institutions that fall under its remit? What may be appropriate for an acting college might be very different for a yeshiva. If that is correct, can the Minister assure us that the avenue of bespoke arrangements for particular classes of institution will be fully and openly considered and explored?
Thirdly, can she confirm that regulations should be based more on the whole lifestyle of the children involved, rather than being narrowly focused on particular times of day and days of the week? These divisions do not always carry the same status in some of our minority communities. The boys I am speaking of are not allowed on social media or on the kind of devices that while away the time of many of our teenagers.
Finally, will she agree with me that due attention must be given in any regulations to the teachings of faith communities regarding sensitive matters, such as relationships and sex education, so that young people are equipped to live in a pluralist society, without being told that their faiths and beliefs are wrong or somehow not British? I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Hale (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 175A. The Government and the Secretary of State for Education in particular have rightly been vocal in confronting antisemitism in education, but that commitment must extend beyond condemning violence or bans towards Jews. The Government cannot condemn violence and bans against Jewish people and then ban or close down their faith institutions.
The Government make no secret of the fact that Clause 37 consciously seeks to close down or entirely alter yeshivas. In their analysis of the Bill since its launch, the only faith community they ever mention is the strictly Orthodox Jewish one. The Bill leaves no lawful space for long-established religious institutions, which provide only religious instruction and operate alongside registered home education.
Yeshivas are safe and safeguarded institutions. They are not schools. They do not provide academic education and cannot be turned into schools without destroying their religious purpose. They exist to inculcate a lived faith. That some noble Lords may raise an eyebrow at that purpose says more about the distance of our own society from faith traditions than about the yeshivas themselves.
Alongside attending yeshivas, these boys are home-schooled. That home education is serious and improving. I have seen their new communal platforms personally, and they are now in active use.
The amendment before the House is narrow and proportionate. It ensures the continued safeguarding of yeshivas; requires registered home education, regulated, of course, by the local authority; and prevents the misclassification of religious institutions. In short, it allows the Government to achieve their aims of maintaining child welfare and education while recognising the lawful set-up of the Haredi Jewish community.
Report is the final opportunity to correct this in primary legislation. To use biblical imagery, the Government’s heart and lips must be aligned. The Haredi Jewish community and its yeshivas must continue to flourish, their children safe and home-schooled. The amendment is the only way that this can happen.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have taken part. I will not delay us long. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that there have to be some limits to what a faith community can do. I believe we can achieve that if we work hard over the next few months on how these kinds of institutions are going to be regulated. We can make sure we are providing space for bona fide organisations that are clearly having the outcome of producing wholesome young people without opening the floodgates to all sorts of negative patterns of upbringing that we might wish to be wary of. I am hugely grateful for the reassurances received and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, perhaps I am a simple-minded and naive bishop, but it seems we are getting into a debate we probably should have had in Committee on the different ways of approaching a quite specific issue, and I would rather we did not spend all night doing that. Yet we are where we are.
The very fact that we are mostly discussing Amendments 94A and 94B is a symptom of the fact that these issues have really come to the fore of the public’s concern in relatively recent times. I have got to the point where I am thinking, “I don’t care which amendment we pass tonight, as long as we pass something that then allows some time for things to go back to the Commons, for them to give consideration and for it to come back here”. Let us have that process. Even though we are at a relatively late stage of a Bill, we can have a good process beyond today, rather than trying to resolve the matter once and for all on the Floor of the House this evening. That is my main point.
My second point is on why we are perhaps in a better place now than we were a few months ago. It has worried me that we have not taken action against the big tech companies in the USA in recent times. We know that the US Government put this Government—us, our nation—under extreme pressure. Nobody has mentioned that today. It feels as if it is the elephant in the room. Perhaps we need to now show our courage and, particularly given all that is happening in and around Greenland, perhaps now is the time to say that we are not pusillanimous any more and that we are standing up for Britain and for what Britain needs, whatever the tech bros think is in their interests.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, because I am going to mirror his words in many ways. Before I start, I thank our warm-up act, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. It is a fantastic result. I hope that the Minister gives her all that she wants. She should be proud of herself that she has done it in just a couple of years, because the child born when I first raised it is probably in tertiary education by now, so two years is a very good timeframe.
I had written quite a different speech before I saw the Government’s consultation announcement. That made me rather angry, because it does not concern itself with the gaps in provision or enforcement of the Online Safety Act, nor the emerging or future threats that we repeatedly raise. It does not seek to speed up enforcement or establish why non-compliant companies are not named in Ofcom research or while they are being investigated. The consultation is entirely focused on two amendments that this House might send to the other House, which its Back-Benchers might agree to. The consultation’s purpose is to stave off a Back-Bench rebellion. It is not about child safety or governance; it is about party management. The UK’s children deserve better than that.
We have two amendments before us. Neither enjoys the support of all those who care about child safety. As the right reverend Prelate said, what a gift that has been to the Government, because it allows them to kick the issue down the road. The United Kingdom—once at the forefront of tech safety, commended on its AI Safety Institute, the age-appropriate design code, the Online Safety Act and the provisions for bereaved parents, all first and best in class—has squandered its advantage. Instead, we are becoming a case study for those who would like to prove that the tech sector is beyond national laws and is a law unto itself. Regulation has failed not because it cannot work but because the regime envisaged by Parliament was weakened by lobbying and critically undermined in its implementation. It is not regulation failing in principle; it is political will failing in practice.
There are very good reasons why all the child safety experts and organisations have urged the Government not to settle for a social media ban. Their collective view is clear that a ban is blunt and partial, fails to tackle root harms, shifts the burden from tech to parents and children and abandons 16 and 17 year-olds. Possibly the biggest thing they are saying we must hear is that it sends a dangerous message to a demographic that already experiences widespread disaffection that while the future is all digital and AI, they are not invited. I agree with every single one of those points.
However, over the last 15 months, the Government have ignored the howl of pain from parents and children, preferring to sup with big tech. Many have come to the view that if they cannot have the digital world that they were promised for their children after a decade of work on the Online Safety Act, they would rather have nothing at all. I say this reluctantly, but all the social media companies caught by Australia’s ban are already in scope of the OSA, so today marks a very low day for Ofcom. We are rehearsing in these two groups exactly what Ofcom was supposed to solve.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 35 in my name, and I thank my noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Mohammed and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for adding their names to it. It seeks to extend the remit of Staying Close to include support in helping care-experienced young people to access services that provide financial support and literacy. I want to say immediately that I was delighted to see the Government’s amendments introduced on Report that will amend the information that local authorities must include within their care leavers’ local offer to cover financial support and services that provide financial literacy. This builds very much on our discussions in Committee, and I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward those government amendments. This change will provide greater transparency and will help young people to understand their rights and entitlements better, as well as encouraging local authorities to think about the support they provide to equip care leavers to manage their finances effectively.
In our previous discussions on this topic, we highlighted how young people leaving care are much more likely to be living independently from a young age than other young people with greater financial responsibilities and often without a safety net—the bank of mum and dad that so many parents provide certainly is not there for them to fall back on. These factors, combined with young care leavers often feeling unequipped, unprepared and unsupported to manage the financial responsibilities that come with living independently from a young age, can put care-experienced young people at risk of facing unnecessary financial hardship and insecurity, falling often into rent arrears or debt, all of which can have a long-term impact on their well-being and security.
By seeking to expand the remit of Staying Close, my Amendment 35 would have plugged this gap even further, ensuring that young people who are leaving care are supported. I feel that this change would have real benefit, but the fact that the Government have brought forward these two amendments is an example of how constructive the debate was in Committee on this legislation. I thank the Government for that and for being open to amendments such as my Amendment 35, which would do a lot to improve the lives of care-experienced young people. Perhaps when the Minister responds, to provide absolute clarity, she will be able to confirm that government Amendments 39 and 40 will have the same effect as my Amendment 35, which, obviously, now I will not be pushing to a vote.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am very grateful that these amendments have been proposed. They may not go as far as my Private Member’s Bill did a few months ago in terms of seeking a better financial deal for care leavers, but Amendment 40 takes us some considerable way towards that. At least it will make local authorities be honest about what they are and are not doing. My only regret is that it will not completely get rid of the postcode lottery that besets so many young care leavers, particularly if they move from one authority to another. But I am grateful for the amendments the Government have tabled, and I hope that they will be swiftly passed.
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank my noble friend Lady Tyler for all the work she has done on this important topic. It shows the real power and strength of this House that, by talking to each other, listening and supporting, we can bring about real change, so I thank the Government for putting down these amendments. As my noble friend rightly said, there are so many young people living independently by themselves, and the most important thing is that they have an understanding of how finances work. I do not like the term “financial literacy”, but it is important. The national curriculum is going to bring that in for every young person, but for these young people it is even more important. So, I thank the Minister for getting to a place where we can all support and get behind this important issue.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments and I am extremely sympathetic to the case that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has just put forward for his amendments.
Amendment 59, in my name, seeks to enable care-experienced young people to remain living with their former foster carers under what are called the Staying Put arrangements to the age of 25. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for adding their names. Staying Put arrangements currently provide an important opportunity for young people to remain with their former foster carers until the age of 21, if they wish to and their foster carer agrees. Evaluation of the programme demonstrates that continuing to live with foster carers beyond the age of 18 can benefit care-experienced young people in a range of ways, including providing a more positive and planned transition from care to independence, a stronger support network and relationships, increased stability, stronger health and well-being, and a reduced risk of homelessness, as well as greater likelihood of remaining in full-time education.
While it is welcome that the introduction of the Staying Close support, through Clause 7, will apply to young people whose final placement was in foster care, this does not enable them to continue living with their former foster families. Many young people and foster carers across the country would like the children they are fostering to stay with them past the age of 21, but cannot at the moment because there is currently no provision in law for this or funding to support it.
Extending Staying Put arrangements to the age of 25, which is what my amendment is about, would provide more continuity for young people leaving foster care in their transition to independent living at a time that is right for them. We all know that strict age points do not work for everyone—everyone is different. It would provide a more stable home, family environment and support network for them as they start adulthood after what has been a difficult start in life. It would align Staying Put with other care leaver entitlements, such as Staying Close, which runs to age 25. I urge the Government to support this amendment.
I have also added my name to Amendment 95, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a document called the national care offer, which would set out minimum standards of information that local authorities must publish in relation to Section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. I am going to leave the right reverend Prelate to set out the case—I do not want to steal his thunder. I simply want to say that this is a great opportunity, in my view, for the national and the local care offers to be strengthened. I very much hope that that opportunity will be taken.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group. We are continuing, as the Bill makes progress, to strengthen the offer that is made to care leavers. In the previous group, we discussed matters that, assuming they are voted on in a little while, will improve conditions and improve what local authorities have to publish.
My Amendment 95, which I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for signing, would simply extend that to make sure that care leavers have a clear understanding of what their local authority is willing to offer and what it is not, particularly given that so many care leavers at age 18 or 19 end up leaving. Some, I am delighted to say, go to university and end up in a different town in perhaps a different part of the country entirely; others, for whatever reason, may decide it is appropriate to move and perhaps go back to be closer to friends from former times.
It is therefore not just the people who are already in a particular local authority who need to really know what the care leaver offer is; it is young people who might be considering moving to that area. As became clear in discussion of my own Bill a few months ago, that is often where people fall through the gap: they move for good and solid reason from one part of the country to another, and in that new part of the country they find that the services they expected are not there because that local authority either chooses not to provide them to anybody or, as is sometimes the case, chooses to provide them only to young people who have been in its care through the previous years.
I hope that we can get some support for Amendment 95. Understanding procedure—I am slowly learning this place, after about six years in—I know we probably will not get to a vote on this tonight, so maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and I can agree between now and Wednesday whether this matter should be put to a Division or not.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. Having signed his amendment in Committee, I did not manage to catch up on Report, and I encourage him to think about putting it to a vote if necessary when it gets to that stage.
I support all the amendments in this group, but will speak to Amendment 59, which is about continuing the Staying Put arrangements to the age of 25. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, I have signed this amendment, along with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who is not currently in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson. You could say that that is the broadest possible range of political support imaginable for this amendment.
I spoke extensively on a similar amendment in Committee, so I will not go into it at great length here. I cross-reference the horrific tale I told in Committee about Duncan, who was dragged with no notice at all out of his fostering arrangements and dumped into wildly unsuitable accommodation. That is the kind of thing that is happening to young people now. If we are to think of the state as a statutory parent, as it is to children in care, surely we should expect the same kinds of things from it that we expect from other parents, such as the societal expectation that parents will often have their children at home until age 25 or later. That is a reality that the state should be making provision for.
To pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, even this amendment would not finally cover the financial issues here. The Fostering Network notes that three-quarters of foster carers who continue caring after 18 end up financially worse off. The idea that housing benefit or wages—we know how low wages are for young people—might be able to top that up does not reflect the reality of our society.
I was discussing this morning the intrusion of private equity into the fostering system. A quarter of all places in fostering are now provided by private equity-based companies, which are making massive profits. There is a commodification of fostering. We would really like to think about how we can address that issue more broadly and whether there are ways to ensure that massive profits are not being made from this important additional provision that the state should be providing.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I have promoted a number of amendments in this group and signed others, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has so elegantly given. I will not waste your Lordships’ time by repeating them. I simply say that, over these last few years, I have become all too familiar with the acronym ACE—adverse childhood experience. We know that any child who has had four or more of those experiences is effectively traumatised, in one way or another, for life. It is a major thing to deprive them of their liberty, so whatever we can do to support these children and ensure it happens as little, for as short a time and with as careful scrutiny as possible will be vital. I therefore urge noble Lords, if these matters are put to a Division, to support them.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I too support these amendments. The debate in Committee threw a light on the working of the deprivation of liberty jurisdiction, which, one could not help noting, was not altogether familiar to many.
Typically, these orders are made when parents cannot provide good enough care and the child concerned needs protection from outside pressures and their own risk-taking behaviour. Before they come to court, the local authority, the guardian and the court have to do their best to provide placement in appropriate settings and to enable the child to maintain significant relationships, both of which are easier said than done. Problems that follow the initial order can include unstable placement and repeated changes of placement. These are not easy to manage. I have read of a child saying that it was pointless to try to build up any relationship in the setting in which she was placed because she knew that she would be moved again or the staff would leave. That is a very unhappy state of affairs.
There can be review hearings by the court, but they are not always satisfactory in my experience. Therefore, sensibly, Amendment 54 would require review by the director of children’s services to ensure proper monitoring and adherence to the objectives of the original authorisation to deprive liberty. Therefore, among this package before us, I strongly support this amendment, which would also comply with the child’s right to regular reviews in accordance with Article 25 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
“(12) The relevant Secretaries of State for Education and for Health and Social Care must collaborate to lay before Parliament, annually, a review of the impact of the measures contained in this section.(13) The review must, as a minimum, consider and report on the following matters—(a) the numbers of new section 25 orders made during the last year in England and in Wales, the ages of the children placed under them, and an analysis of whether and where the rate of use is increasing or decreasing;(b) the durations of child detention or other restriction of liberty under such orders (minimum, maximum, mean and median);(c) the types of accommodation in which section 25 orders have been applied, including their registration status with Ofsted or the Care Quality Commission; (d) the approval and use of “recovery plans” for all children to move on from section 25 orders in a short a period as safely possible; (e) the involvement of Independent Reviewing Officers, independent advocates and children themselves in the making and reviewing of section 25 orders;(f) the types of accommodation where children live following the end of a section 25 order.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review to be laid before Parliament, outlining the quantity and impact of section 25 orders that year.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, we made good progress this evening. None the less, having an annual report laid before Parliament would bring together the information that we need in a coherent form, which would allow this House and the other place to properly scrutinise what is going on. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(e) to have due regard to the need to remove or minimise the disadvantages suffered by looked-after children and relevant young persons.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment strengthens the current duty to be “alert to” the needs of looked-after children by requiring public bodies to have due regard to removing or reducing the disadvantages they face. It builds on awareness by turning it into action, ensuring that understanding leads to measurable improvement.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate this evening. I will keep it fairly short, given the time.
Amendment 75, in my name, simply seeks to change the current duty of being “alert to” the needs of looked-after children to one requiring public bodies to have “due regard to” removing or reducing the disadvantages they face. There are lots of things that I am alert to; that does not mean that I take any great notice of them. I am alert to them, but I can choose to ignore them. What we need is something that requires local authorities to take this seriously, and the concept of “due regard” is well understood in many other aspects of law. As a bishop, I am used to there being policies of the Church of England to which I am required to have due regard. If I simply had to be alert to them, I do not think that they would get the attention and focus they need. Instead of a duty of being alert, Amendment 75 would put in place something that I think we all understand to be a higher bar, but something that I think is achievable.
Amendment 76 says:
“A relevant authority exercising the duty … must take reasonable steps to avoid, reduce or otherwise mitigate any adverse impact of its policies and practices on looked-after children and relevant young persons”.
The key here is that we are not asking for anything unreasonable. This concerns what it is that it is reasonable for a public body, particularly a local authority, to do, beyond just being aware. The word “aware” is really no better than “alert”. How are they going to take reasonable and practical steps to prevent harm that is being done when some policy is being implemented? This would complement the aims of the Bill and provide a clear framework for shared action and accountability.
Finally, Amendment 96 concerns equality impact assessments. I know it is not practically possible to make being care-experienced yet another protected characteristic in the law, but we need some way of understanding the particular impact that those bits of the law have on children in care, or people who have been in care. There is a misprint, I fear, in the text as printed on the Marshalled List. The very famous Equality Act was of course enacted in 2010, not 2020 —it has been around rather longer than the amendment says. I am sorry; it was my people who put the wrong year in there.
The amendment is asking that we look at the impact on persons under 25 who are looked after by local authorities. Again and again we have tried, through various aspects of the Bill, as I did in my own Private Member’s Bill a few months ago, to say that the impact of care experience needs, at the very least, to be tracked through to the age of 25. We need to support young people up to that age. As was said on an earlier group this evening, most young people are still heavily dependent well beyond the age of 25—including, I fear, my kids, who were still heavily dependent on my wife and me well beyond that age. We are talking here about young people who do not have the bank of mum and dad or traditional parental support. We really need to do our best for them.
I will not delay your Lordships any further. I urge the Minister to give me such assurances as she can possibly give me this evening that will persuade me that I do not need, at this late hour, to test the opinion of the House. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, who has supported these amendments. I hope that he will have something to add in a moment or two.
Lord Moraes (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to introduce Amendment 77 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Lister, who tabled a similar amendment in Committee. I apologise to the House for not being in Committee to speak to this amendment due to a period of illness last year.
The amendment concerns a new statutory duty for corporate parents to be alerted to matters concerning children’s well-being. In this respect, there are a group of children in the UK who are entitled to citizenship but for various reasons do not achieve it. This is not widely understood generally, nor even among parents, foster parents and corporate parents of those children. Achieving their citizenship under British nationality law is good for the children, who gain stability, and for society, which sees the integration of children often in vulnerable situations. Here, I should declare that I am a patron of the non-profit Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens.
We want to ensure in this amendment that there is no duplication of duties on the Secretary of State, while ensuring that duties on corporate parents under Section 21(1) concerning the well-being of young people include appropriate consideration of nationality rights. We do not want to see children being wrongly categorised or treated as if this is wholly a matter of immigration or discretion.
In Committee the Minister placed an emphasis on Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act, which states that the Home Secretary should be the one discharging citizenship in relation to the safeguarding and welfare needs of the child. But this places the sole duty on the Home Secretary; it does not apply to the corporate parents to whom the new duty is to apply. Our amendment understands the importance of Section 55 but would ensure that care providers to whom the new duty is to apply are not left without the protection of any statutory duty altogether in relation to these child citizenship applications.
In Committee the Minister suggested that the Government are reflecting on the requirement to support children in gaining citizenship. That is welcome, and it is welcome that the Government are considering what further steps to take in this area. But this amendment would support those efforts by ensuring that corporate parents could act on whatever new policy or practice was brought forward by the Home Office.
While we welcome the Government’s steps to improve local authority practice in relation to child citizens, the experience of credible practitioners on the ground, such as PRCBC, is that these rights are not widely known or acted on, and any improvements that are seen are not uniform, with some local authorities showing evidence of no improvement at all.
My noble friend the Minister is probably aware that a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Lister, have been pressing the case for children in this situation for many years. Government support for this amendment would ensure that these important children’s rights are not overlooked by local authorities in their role as corporate parents.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, through the Bill, for the first time, key public bodies, from Secretaries of State to schools, NHS organisations and regulators, will be required to be alert to matters that affect looked-after children and care leavers when shaping policy and services. These new corporate parenting duties aim to drive a culture change, tackle stigma and improve outcomes for some of the most vulnerable in our society.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, that the voice of care-experienced young people is crucial in this. The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and I are two people in this Chamber who have experience of being corporate parents—I do not know how many others there are. We know just how serious that is. I understand the reference to language, but the responsibilities that come with this are real and important and need to be taken very seriously indeed.
Amendments 75 and 76 in this group were tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Again, I completely understand where he is coming from, and we have debated this in this Chamber under other debates. These amendments quite rightly seek to strengthen the corporate parent duty by requiring relevant authorities to have due regard to removing or minimising disadvantages faced by looked-after children and care leavers and to take steps to avoid or mitigate any adverse impact of their policies and practices.
We fully share the intent behind these proposals oftackling disadvantage and ensuring that care-experienced young people are not adversely affected by public policy. This is central to our vision for corporate parenting. However, as discussed in Committee, the new corporate parenting responsibilities are broad duties that apply in relation to a corporate parent’s existing functions and can be implemented in a way to fit the unique circumstances of each corporate parent. We believe that our existing measures achieve the aim of tackling disadvantages experienced by looked-after children and care leavers.
Just for a bit of clarity, the current responsibilities require corporate parents to be alert to matters which adversely affect the well-being of the cohort. This will require them to take action as appropriate. I just give the reassurance that this is not just a means of being aware; it comes with responsibilities. Therefore, we anticipate that corporate parents would already consider disadvantages experienced by these young people and how they may be addressed.
We will support implementation through statutory guidance, which will set out the responsibilities and include best practice examples for tackling disadvantage among care-experienced young people. Best practice will draw on not only relevant authorities but wider organisations, including local authorities that have taken action such as representation on governance boards, financial support and discounts, and treating care experience as a protected characteristic. This is the best way to deliver impactful change, not through this amendment, which, as I have outlined, is already sufficiently covered by the clause as drafted. I am delighted to say that we are in contact with Terry Galloway, who is very supportive of the direction we are going in. With his vast experience he will be an invaluable resource, ensuring that we keep moving in the right way.
Amendment 96, also tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to place a duty on public authorities to include in equality impact assessments an assessment of the impact on persons who are being or have been looked after by a local authority. We are determined to tackle the stigma and discrimination faced by care-experienced young people. This is why the Bill introduces corporate parenting duties for Secretaries of State and public bodies, already requiring them to consider the needs of care-experienced young people with the aim of improving outcomes. Clauses 21 to 25 aim to embed this cohort’s challenges into policy and service design. We will commission an implementation partner to support implementation through provision of training and circulation of best practice, including training on how to effectively assess the impact of policies and practices on looked-after children and care leavers. For this reason, the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment 77 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Moraes, who I am very pleased to see back in his rightful place in the Chamber. It seeks to amend the exemption on immigration, asylum, nationality and customs functions in respect of looked-after children so that action that would be taken in adherence with the corporate parenting responsibilities in the exercise of these functions would still be taken where it is not already required by Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. It also seeks to distinguish functions in relation to the acquisition of British citizenship by statutory right from other nationality functions when exercising duties under Section 55 and Clause 21.
While I understand my noble friend’s intent with this amendment, I emphasise that, as my noble friend the Minister noted in Committee, our measures require that public bodies named in this legislation be alert to matters affecting the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, regardless of immigration status, except when performing asylum, immigration, nationality or customs functions. We fully intend on partnering with the sector and care-experienced young people in the immigration system to make sure that our statutory guidance covers their specific needs and vulnerabilities. We will also ensure that our implementation partner develops and delivers training on this cohort to all new corporate parents. As we have heard, my noble friend the Minister recently met with my noble friend Lady Lister and partner organisations, who were greatly reassured by our proposed actions in this area. I hope that this is sufficient reassurance for my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Additionally, Department for Education officials will work closely with the Home Office as it develops its proposals in the immigration White Paper to reduce the financial barriers to young adults who have lived here throughout their childhood accessing British nationality.
Local authorities already follow a separate set of corporate parenting principles and are best placed to take steps to consider whether a young person in their care needs support to seek British citizenship. The Home Office has taken significant steps in recent years to support local authorities in ensuring that children in their care are able to access British citizenship, including by introducing an exception in June 2022 that removed the requirement to pay a fee for an application for citizenship registration by children who are looked after by a local authority.
I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that we will continue to work with the Home Office on how we can improve the experience of looked-after children and care leavers in the immigration, asylum and nationality system, building on existing measures that the Home Office has taken in this space. The further efforts will include working on proposals set out in the White Paper published on 12 May, Restoring Control Over the Immigration System, to ensure that children who have been in the UK for some time then turn 18 and discover they do not have status are fully supported and are able to regularise their status and settle. This will include a clear pathway for those children in care and care leavers.
The White Paper also sets out that the Home Office will consider measures to reduce the financial barriers to young adults who have lived here through their childhood accessing British nationality. Applying the duty to the asylum system would not require the Home Office to decide asylum claims for young people as soon as possible. Given the steps we are taking in this area to ensure that looked-after children in the immigration system benefit from the corporate parenting measures, we do not see the amendment as necessary.
Amendment 79A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to ensure that the corporate parenting guidance issued under Clause 24 is laid in draft before Parliament. This amendment has of course been helpfully raised in reference to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report. Our response to the recommendation explained that guidance issued under Clause 24 will not introduce requirements on corporate parents beyond those enabled by this legislation.
The guidance will help corporate parents understand how the duties could be implemented, using examples of best practice. We will develop statutory guidance in partnership with corporate parents and this will then be subject to consultation. This gives all those affected by the changes, including corporate parents, local authorities, looked-after children, care leavers and all of the above an opportunity to have their say. We will also draw on the expertise of the care-experienced community and representative bodies from within the sector, including those who have campaigned for these amendments, to support guidance drafting.
I can assure the noble Lords that their input will form the backbone of guidance. I hope that with those comments I have addressed the right reverend Prelate’s concern and that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am very grateful for the short debate that we have had this evening. It is clear that we are all passionate about the same thing—we would not be here at this time on a Monday night if we were not. We are passionate about getting the best deal we can for care leavers and young people in care, and I am very grateful to hear that. The fact that we are hearing that from all the Front Benches gives me some assurance that this is not something that would float away were there to be a change of Government—at least not one to any of the parties in this Chamber tonight.
Moving on quickly, I really appreciate the guidance that has been spoken of, and I accept the assurances of the Minister that there are many matters that we sought to put in the Bill, as is proper on Report, but which can be dealt with in that way before the Act is implemented in due course.
Were I merely alert to the fact that it is late at night and I do not have the support of the Front Benches, I might still waste your Lordships’ next 15 minutes by pushing this to a Division, but I am not only “alert to”, I am “having due regard to” those factors. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 75 and will not press Amendment 76 either.
Equality and Human Rights Commission: Draft Updated Code of Practice
Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think the noble and learned Lord knows that the full draft updated code was received by the Government from the EHRC on 4 September. Officials started work immediately after that. Having made clear to the EHRC that information about the impacts on businesses and public functions would be important, both in the previous iteration of the code and the one delivered on 4 September, the formal ask for that was made on 9 October.
I have already outlined in my previous answer why it is important and necessary for the conditions around impact assessments laid by, and presumably followed by, the previous Government to be carried out appropriately. Given the significance of this code, it is right that the Government take the time to get it right, rather than satisfy those who are calling for it to be laid in an untimely fashion.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
Like many, I am grateful that the interim advice that was issued and caused such widespread alarm was withdrawn, albeit belatedly. As the Minister has just said, we need to get this right rather than done quick. With that in mind, can the Minister assure us that the forthcoming appointment of the new chair of the EHRC will be taken as an opportunity to reset an organisation that has, of late, lost the confidence of many?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The EHRC continues to do important work, but I take the point that the right reverend Prelate makes. The new chair of the EHRC, who will start in her role at the end of this month, has an important opportunity to build on that work and to ensure, as I know she will, that she builds trust among a wide range of stakeholders and supports the Government—and, in fact, all of us—in ensuring that the provisions of the Equality Act, in the breadth of their application, are implemented as effectively as possible, because we all benefit from that.
Universal Credit (Standard Allowance Entitlement of Care Leavers) Bill [HL]
Lord Bishop of Manchester ExcerptsFriday 14th March 2025
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit (Standard Allowance Entitlement of Care Leavers) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Universal Credit (Standard Allowance Entitlement of Care Leavers) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, as this will be my last opportunity to address your Lordships’ House on this Bill, I crave your indulgence for a couple of minutes. There are something like 92,000 care leavers in the 18 to 25 age bracket at any one time. While it is hard to be precise about how much this Bill would cost, the best estimate is that it would probably add something like £25 million a year to the total costs on the Government. That would enable a young care leaver who is in receipt of universal credit to get an extra £80 a month, which is 25% more than they currently get. It would be life-changing for them. It would make, I would argue, very little difference to the state of the nation’s finances.
Notwithstanding that, I understand that this is not the way that Governments like bills to be added to the Treasury and I fully anticipate that the noble Baroness, my good friend on the Front Bench, will say that in a moment or two. But I urge that, if there is any possibility of this being discussed in the other place, that be permitted, because I have learned so much about care leavers in the course of leading this Bill through your Lordships’ House. I have begun to realise how being in care adds a further adverse childhood experience to young people who have probably, because they have been in care, already had other adverse childhood experiences at an earlier stage. Their lot and their life chances are typically poorer. We know that some even make it into your Lordships’ House, and that is fantastic, but many suffer disadvantage well into adult life.
I am very grateful for the support from around the House at the earlier stages of the Bill and I thank all noble Lords who participated in that process. I am very grateful to the charities, particularly Become and Barnardo’s, which work very extensively with care leavers and young people in care. I am even more grateful to the young care leavers who came to Parliament for Second Reading and who met me in advance of that and shared with me some of the challenges they faced in making the transition from the state being their corporate parent to often being told that they now have to live entirely independently at the age of 18. I am also grateful to Sarah and Will in the parliamentary office of the Church of England here in Westminster, and to my own staff, Abi, Anne and Lucie, in my diocese in Manchester. With that, I think I have probably addressed noble Lords for long enough on this matter.
Household Support Fund
Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I remember that very well. In fact, I read the Hansard of the last time this came up and noticed that the noble Lord made that point. When I looked at how the financing had been provided, I saw that the money had been provided for only six months. Therefore, there is currently nothing in the budget to go beyond that. But I take his broader point about cliff edges and short notice being unhelpful. As I said, we need to get back to a space where we can support councils with longer, multiyear funding to give them the kind of stability they need but simply have not had recently.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
Something like seven out of every eight local authorities now use this money to alleviate holiday hunger among our children. Can we have any hope that the Government will look at a more strategic way of helping children cope with hunger during the school holidays? Many of the churches in my diocese, and those of my right reverend friends here, are having to put on voluntary projects to support children during those periods. What can we hope for?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Church and other faith organisations, which do such important work with children, families and their communities. I commend them for that. The question of holiday hunger, and indeed of children and food, will clearly be considered by the child poverty strategy and the task force when it gets together. We will set up a child poverty unit in the Cabinet Office that will work with the task force. We have already begun talking to stakeholders of different kinds, asking for experiences and getting expertise from inside and outside government to look at the best ways we can make this better. But we are also making some specific starts. For example, we are committed to making sure we have breakfast clubs in every single primary school. That is a simple measure that helps with the cost of living for families and helps children to start the school day able to concentrate because they have had something to eat. So I fully accept the importance of ensuring children have food and of being consistent; that will be part of what we look at.
Care Leavers: Universal Credit
Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential benefits of bringing the rate of Universal Credit for care leavers under 25 in line with the rate for over-25s.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have assessed the impact of raising the rate of universal credit for care leavers under 25 in line with the rate for the over-25s. While we are not currently planning on changing the rate, we understand the challenges that care leavers face. That is why we continue to provide additional, dedicated support to simplify and improve their interaction with the benefits system and help them into sustained employment and rewarding careers.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Care leavers are those for whom the state has been the corporate parent. Parenting does not stop at the age of 18; indeed, the rationale for the lower level of benefits for under-25s was always that they should continue to be supported by family until they achieve that full independence to which the Minister referred. I have to say that my own local branch bank of Mum and Dad is still very much taking on new business even though my kids are in their 30s. Will the Minister commit to looking again at the evidence, including that in the recent YMCA report on young people in supported accommodation, something that care leavers disproportionately need to access? Will he consider how we can be a better parent to the many wonderful but vulnerable young people who leave our care system each year?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
This is an important subject. As I said earlier, we recognise the challenges that care leavers face as they move out of the care system. We look forward to continuing our very close partnership with the Department for Education, to ensure that care leavers can access the right skills, opportunities and wider support to move towards sustained employment and career progression. It might be helpful to the right reverend Prelate to know that we are providing over £250 million across this spending review to support care leavers on a whole range of issues, including housing, improving access to education, employment and training, and to help them develop social connections and networks, which can be very helpful to them as they set out in life.
Household Support Fund: Children’s Bed Poverty
Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Household Support Fund on children’s bed poverty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, an evaluation of the current household support fund scheme is under way to better understand the impact of the funding. In the Spring Budget, the Chancellor announced an extension to the household support fund in England for a further six months, meaning that the Government will ensure that targeted support is available for those facing the most challenging financial circumstances as inflation falls. Subject to local decisions, this funding may be used to purchase beds and other household essentials for those in need.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
I thank the Minister for that Answer, and indeed for the fact that the Government extended the household support fund for another six months. But this morning the Government’s latest statistics on child poverty have been published: 4.3 million children are now growing up in poverty. That is an increase of 100,000 since figures were last published, equivalent to the population of a town the size of Eastbourne. With the household support fund due to end again in September, will the Government use these next six months to carefully consider a longer-term strategy than funding settlements for local crisis support, which is a lifeline for children and their families?