Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, this Bill is a complex and sensitive one which will deserve careful and detailed scrutiny in Committee and on Report. I intend to concentrate my remarks at this stage to those parts of the Bill that relate to kinship care, an often overlooked and underestimated aspect of the state’s responsibility for children in difficulties in their earlier years. In so doing, I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Group on Kinship Care. Several parts of the present Bill touch on kinship care, but not always, I suggest, as clearly or as decisively as is desirable.

First, I thank the Minister who opened the debate today for the very wholehearted contribution she made on kinship care when replying to a question on 3 April. That was very welcome, and so were the supportive remarks made on the same subject by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who at the time was a Minister, when she replied from the Dispatch Box some months earlier. So there is an element of bipartisanship—demonstrated by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, in the reference in his speech to kinship care—about that aspect of the subject, although perhaps not some others, which I suggest ought to continue.

Why is kinship care so valuable and at the same time so neglected and underfunded? If one looks at the way the state contributes to the problems of abused and neglected children—foster care, institutional care and kinship care—one sees clearly that the third category receives the fewest resources, and at a time when resources are singularly stressed. Kinship care gets less, even though it is even more cost effective than the other two. That is not to denigrate the other two, which often provide valuable relief, even if they have their serious weaknesses, particularly in the case of institutionalisation.

Then there are the complexities and the costs of the legal hoops which must be gone through before kinship carers can gain recognised status for their role. Little wonder that many are scared off setting off along the course of kinship care, or abandon it halfway through. Similarly, complexities and obstacles are a discouragement to local authorities, which are now, rather belatedly, being encouraged by the Government through a series of pilot efforts.

When one looks at the relevant parts of the Bill designed to address these problems, it is easy to doubt whether this is being done with sufficient clarity and decisiveness to produce effective results. Yet here is a useful provision being hidden in plain sight. It surely needs some changes on the face of the Bill to remedy that obscurity.

Here are three examples in the Bill of provisions that can and should be strengthened. The first are the provisions about family rights groups. There is a real opportunity to reform the child welfare system by giving a new mandate to local authorities to offer families the chance to come up with solutions for their children’s welfare, to help them avoid entering the care system. There are currently 153,000 kinship care children in England alone, but the expectations for councils to include families in shaping and promoting their local kinship offer are minimal. Would it not make sense to offer kinship children the same right to reasonable contact with their brothers and sisters as they currently have by law with their parents?

Secondly, family group conferences, an idea that emanated from New Zealand and has been developed by Leeds council, should surely be explicitly encouraged. A cost-benefit analysis found an average saving of £755 per family when compared with business-as-usual social care without family group conferences.

Thirdly, there is a lack of recognition and understanding of what kinship care is and its different forms. A third of local authorities do not have a kinship care policy setting out the support they offer to families in their area. Surely that too needs to be remedied.

I hope the Minister in her response will give a general recognition of the need to strengthen and make more explicit in the Bill the provisions for kinship care and undertake to respond in Committee and on Report to the points that I and others have raised. There is a real chance here to promote a cost-effective way of helping some of the most vulnerable children in our country.

Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept my thanks for having widened the crack she opened about a week ago when this matter was first raised in this House? That was welcome. I also thank her for the very whole-hearted way in which she endorsed kinship care in her responses just now. Does she recognise that in the education Bill, whose Second Reading will be on 1 May, which deals with some aspects of kinship care, there are obscurities and weaknesses in that? I hope that, between now and 1 May, she can give some very careful thought as to how that could be made more precise in the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am looking forward to 1 May, when we can start the adventure of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I am undertaking to continue my learning about the provisions within that Bill over the Easter Recess and, as I have learnt in this House, I have no doubt that we will both get into the detail and be informed by considerable experts on all parts of that legislation. I look forward to explaining more about how that Bill will support kinship care and to learning more about the challenge and what more this Government need to be able to do to put that into operation.

Schools: Special Educational Needs

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Some of the best practice that we are seeing in mainstream schools occurs where they are able to develop in-school resource centres with particular specialisms. That is why the Government have provided an additional £740 million-worth of capital to improve the capability for specialist centres like that and specialist places within mainstream schools, and in special schools where necessary. So my noble friend makes an important point. Last week, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State launched a call for evidence on best practice in inclusive practice which is nevertheless maintaining the specialist support that children need. I hope we will find more examples through looking at the good work that is already happening, which, through the increased investment and the reform that we are making in the special educational needs and disability system, we can ensure is spread more widely across our schools.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the adoption and special guardianship support fund may run out of funds entirely by the end of this month? What action are the Government thinking of taking to avoid that extremely damaging situation?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Due to the enormously difficult fiscal position that we inherited from the last Government—

Covid-19: International Response

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, this is an important and necessary debate on the day that the World Health Assembly is holding its annual meeting. Here are some observations and questions, which I hope the Minister will be able to cover in her reply.

First, no one should try to argue that the international community and multilateral organisations have so far put in a stellar performance during this crisis. There have been gaps in the international response, slowness in reacting and failures. These are lessons to be learned and applied when the next pandemic comes along, as it will.

Secondly, neither denial, as in the early stages in China, or as in the US, Brazil and Russia, which has proved pretty disastrous, nor scapegoating, as with the US freezing of its contributions to the WHO, has done other than make a bad situation worse. That US action was deplorable. Are the Government standing by the WHO and joining with others to repair the damage?

Thirdly, it makes no sense to blame multilateral organisations—the UN, the WHO and the EU—for not exercising powers that their members have not been prepared to give them.

Fourthly, on health aspects of the crisis, do the Government agree that the research into vaccines and into antibody and other tests should, as a matter of principle, be open-sourced and available to researchers worldwide?

Fifthly, do the Government agree that, once developed, these remedies should be patent-free and that a major effort should be made to boost availability to the poorer countries?

Sixthly, do the Government see merit in the idea that all Governments should accept a legal obligation to stock PPE equipment, modelled loosely on the response to the 1973 oil crisis?

Seventhly, on the economic and financial consequences of the pandemic, do the Government accept that not only debt postponement but debt write-off will be needed for developing countries and do they support the unlocking of special drawing rights that are being unused?

Finally, do the Government agree that the highest priority needs to be given to keeping open world trade under the rules-based system of the WTO? A protectionist response, which in the 1930s turned a financial crisis into a world slump with disastrous political consequences, is an avoidable catastrophe.

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Tuesday 4th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, some seven years ago I chaired, together with the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, an inquiry at whose heart was the issue of whether it was in this country’s interest to remain within the scope of the European arrest warrant. The evidence we took demonstrated overwhelmingly that it was in Britain’s interest to do so. I am glad to say that that view was shared by massive majorities in both Houses and we did, indeed, stay within the European arrest warrant.

I note from the impact assessment with which we have been provided for the Bill—for which I express my gratitude as impact assessments for Brexit-related Bills are rare birds indeed—that in 2018 and 2019, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, just mentioned, 1,412 arrests related to European arrest warrants were made and a substantial number of possible criminals returned to their own countries for trial. I suggest that those figures show that the European arrest warrant has come through with flying colours. It is for that reason, if for no other, that I personally welcome the Bill, one of whose objectives, if I understand it rightly, is to enable us to continue to operate something that could perhaps loosely be called a European arrest warrant-type procedure, even now that we are no longer a member—and will no longer be a member—of the European Union. I would be most grateful if the Minister, when she winds up, could answer the following questions. They cover similar ground to those of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown and my noble friend Lord Anderson.

First, is it correct to think that the Bill will enable us to operate something that could loosely be described as an EAW-type procedure, even after we have left the European Union and even after we have exited the transition period?

Secondly, will the powers in the Bill actually be needed during 2020 with respect to EU member states, while we are still in the transitional period provided for in the withdrawal agreement, or does that agreement suffice for the calendar year 2020?

Thirdly, if by mischance—I think no one who has read the Prime Minister’s speech made in Greenwich yesterday could doubt that mischance could happen—we found ourselves without a new relationship agreement with the EU at the end of this year, would the powers in the Bill enable us to respond to requests from any of the 27 EU member states in a manner similar to the way we have responded to European arrest warrants?

Fourthly, as several noble Lords have asked, will we, in the negotiations that will begin in March, try to achieve some degree of reciprocity with the 27 member states so that they too will operate something similar to a European arrest warrant procedure, even if the conditions for that are not yet agreed in the new relationship, or if the possibility of a new relationship has collapsed? I know that the answer for this Bill is that it does not and cannot provide those powers.

These are important matters. I think we can reasonably ask the Government simply to say now that, yes, when we sit down in March and work with the European Union on a security agreement that covers this area, we will be asking for reciprocity and we will be offering procedures that are as solid as we can make them and similar to the European arrest warrant. If, as I hope, the answer to all four questions I have posed is positive, I would be a strong supporter of the Bill. It will send a good signal that we are entering the post-Brexit negotiations in a positive spirit and with a determination to continue the closest possible co-operation with our former EU partners in the fight against serious international crime.

[Lord Bethell]

My Lords, I can confirm that the new clocks are now working, and those are the ones we will use.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I said that it is not a replacement for the EAW, but of course the Government can make that request of Parliament. I was going to come to that point a bit later; in fact, no, I think I answered it. The Government can request Parliament, through the affirmative procedure, to add countries.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but I simply do not understand why she spent a huge amount of time telling us that this has nothing whatever to do with the European arrest warrant—that it has no relevance and is not in the same context. She has told us that again and again. Why on earth did this point elude police officers who wrote about this measure? Why did it elude a large number of extremely well-informed—much better informed than me—people in this House who think it relevant? I simply do not understand why she is so determined to say so. All my questions, which she has not answered, were designed to get a positive answer, which would increase support for this measure—for example, if she said that it was a step that would enable us, in certain circumstances, where we have definitively lost the European arrest warrant, to do things that might then enable us to have reciprocal arrangements with other members of the European Union. She has not said a word about the security negotiations with the European Union.

Nobody asked that this measure should not be reciprocal; I did not and neither did any other noble Lord. We asked whether we will use this legislation—these powers—to persuade the other members of the European Union that we need a solid reciprocal arrangement if, by any chance, we get to the end of this year and such an arrangement has not been negotiated. Can the Minister explain why she is so keen not to refer to any of these issues?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope that I talked about the other EU instruments we are negotiating on; I think I did so at the beginning of my closing speech. I was asked about reciprocity twice, which is why I answered. I also stated quite clearly that it was our intention to do this with or without our membership of the European Union, which is why the Bill was put forward. I am not trying to deny anything about the European arrest warrant; all I am saying is that we are doing this with or without our European Union membership because it is a gap in our capabilities regarding category 2 countries.

Visas: European Union Students

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not think there is much that can bypass Parliament these days. Perhaps I might apologise for saying to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that the scheme is to be implemented next year; it will actually be in 2021, the year after next.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that a much simpler way to approach this, and one which it could be hoped that the Government —whoever form it after the election—would embrace, is to make it clear that any student who receives a clear offer of a place at a British university registered under the Higher Education Act will be admitted to this country?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the system that we have at the moment works very well, and the number of students coming to this country is clear proof of this.

ISIS: British People

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Sorry, that was a bit of a Brexit dig. When the Home Secretary makes the decision to revoke someone’s citizenship, they may not render that person stateless. They must, therefore, take legal advice at the time, which they are doing. I know the exact point that my noble friend makes but the Home Secretary cannot render someone stateless.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister address the issue of the British orphans in the part of Syria that is now under attack? What are the Government doing? Does she recognise that there is real urgency here because if the truce is being extended for a bit, as was reported today, that could provide an opportunity to get some of these children at least as far as Iraq on their way back here, where they ought to be?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I not only recognise but acknowledge and agree with the noble Lord’s point. I appreciate the time that we had to talk about some of these difficult issues. Where a child is a British citizen, we will work with partners to try to find a safe route to return them to this country, as he says.

Freedom of Movement

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord has asked me a question that is a little out of the Home Office’s purview. Until a deal is done, it is very difficult to tell what the future economic landscape will look like, and in fact the best way to advantage the economy is to get a deal done.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, why have the Government still not taken full advantage of the various provisions that exist under free movement to member states to return people who do not have a job, as the Belgians do? Given that we are still in the European Union until 31 October and will be under European legislation until the end of 2020 or perhaps longer, why are the Government not taking advantage of the flexibility within European free movement?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will of course correct me after Questions when I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the Government are fully abiding by the provisions under EU law and will continue to do so until we leave the EU.

Overseas Students: TOEIC Tests

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the issue at the heart of this was not the questioning of people’s competence in English but the fact that a fraud was committed. I cannot say to the noble Lord how many people found themselves in detention, because we do not disaggregate those sorts of figures. Of course, as for individual cases, I am not at liberty to discuss them.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I am entirely prepared to await the reports now under consideration which the Minister says will be the object of Statements in both Houses when their conclusions are reached, but could we please not elide the action taken quite correctly by the coalition Government to close down a huge number of dodgy language schools—which all of us strongly supported and where we believe a good job was done—with what is going now? Let us start a little bit later than that and see what is being done now. For example—perhaps the Minister could reply to this, too—it is not sensible to create the impression that a huge number of people on education visas are overstaying. We now have statistical evidence that it is a tiny number, yet for years Home Office Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box saying that it was a huge number. The interest of our universities, which are a major national asset, was not well served by stories of the sort that we are hearing now. As I said, it is perfectly reasonable for the Minister to say, “Wait, please, till the NAO has reported; wait till the Home Secretary has had a glance at that”, but can we not rake over all these old stories when we come to the report but start from somewhere a little nearer the present time?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that point, because we need to start from where we are now. The system in place was a very old one and, as he said, the coalition Government did much to close down those dodgy colleges, as he called them. The same NAO found that well over 97% of students are compliant with their visas, which is very good news. We would not want to conflate our welcome for those coming to this country to study with what was a very dodgy process—fraudulent, in fact. I welcome what the noble Lord said, and I would not want to conflate what happened then with a very good news story now: a 28% increase in the number of international students since 2010 and a 10% increase in only the past 12 months.

Brexit: Economic Impact

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that it was a little odd to produce three rather theoretical options but not to test them against the present situation? Why did the Government not do that? That would be the normal thing to do. Could it have been that they were frightened to show that all these options were a good deal worse, some of them very much worse?

[Lord Bates]

In some sense they did that, because the analysis benchmarked against the status quo—our membership of the European Union. It then went through the options and said that, over a 15-year period, if the White Paper model were accepted there would be a 0.6% impact on GDP, 2.1% modelled on White Paper sensitivity, 4.9% on a free trade agreement and 7.7% on no deal.