Committee stage in the Lords
Lords Committee examined profit caps and financial penalties for children's social care providers, agency social worker regulation, corporate parenting duties (including immigration exclusions and Jobcentre Plus), child employment and performers' protections, a proposed child protection authority, and free breakfast clubs, school food standards, and binding child poverty targets.
B(Having received clarification from the Minister that supported accommodation will indeed fall within the profit-cap provisions, I am content and will not be pressing Amendment 142.My Lords, Amendment 142 is in my name. It sets out to make the case for the inclusion of supported accommodation in the scope of the proposed profit cap. Following clarification from my noble friend the Minister, including in answers to questions in earlier groups in Committee, I am content that that is the case, and that the intention is to include supported accommodation within these measures, so I will not be moving this amendment.
Clause 15 gives sweeping profit-capping powers whose impact the Government have not properly assessed. The Competition and Markets Authority itself warned that capping profits would reduce the incentive to invest in new capacity — yet the Government's own regulatory impact assessment admits it cannot monetise the effect of any future cap. My Amendments 142A, 142B and 142C would exclude natural persons from personal financial penalties, cap any fine at 10% of turnover (or £100,000 for an individual), and my Amendments 504A and 505A would delay commencement until a proper impact assessment on placement capacity is published. The Government's £310 million EBITDA figure covers only 19 of the largest providers — please set the record straight and stop sending Ministers to the Dispatch Box with out-of-date, incomplete data.My Lords, Amendments 142A to 142C, 504A and 505A are in my name. I will not speak to Amendment 142 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and I thank her for giving me advance notice of her intentions. I will also probe the merits of Clause 15 standing part of the Bill. Amendment 142A mirrors my earlier Amendments 138D, 138E and 139A, which would have excluded natural persons with a role in the management of a business from receiving personal financial penalties. I have reread the Minister’s remarks in Hansard from our debate on Tuesday, and I confess I am still not entirely clear about the status of a natural person who is registered at Companies House. The Minister said earlier that the figure of 10 operators out of over 2,700 was based on Companies House data. Forgive my ignorance, but I do not know what legal status an organisation registered with Companies House has if it is not a company. If it is a company, I am not sure what the status of a natural person is. The reason for these amendments is simple, as I set out before. It is based on a concern that, without these amendments, the Bill will limit the number of people who are prepared to take senior management responsibility in such providers and will lead to providers exiting the sector. I may have misunderstood what is meant by “an operator”—namely, that it is the owner of a business rather than the senior management—but perhaps the Minister could clarify both those points when she sums up. Amendments 142B and 142C would limit the maximum fine for a provider to 10% of its turnover and, if imposed on a natural person, to £100,000. We have heard that margins in the children’s home sector average 22%, although in the LGA-commissioned report this figure is taken from, the range of margins is very wide. If we took 10% of a company’s turnover and accepted an average margin of 22%, that would be almost 50% of its profits, which surely is a very strong incentive to avoid being fined. Can the Minister s…
What exactly does the Government consider to be 'excessive profit' in this sector? These services exist because the state cannot or will not provide them itself — the whole Committee should want to understand what level of return is deemed reasonable before the cap is set.My Lords, the noble Baroness’s speech makes me think that looking at what “excessive profit” means, or at least what the Government think about it, would not be a bad idea, because we are agreed that these services are often gone to because the state cannot or will not provide them. What we consider to be reasonable to pay for them is something the whole Committee should be concerned about. I am sure—or at least I hope—that the Government have given this some deep thought, and finding out in a little more detail what that will be will help consideration on this and forthcoming business. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The CMA found the children's social care placement market dysfunctional, with the largest private providers making margins of 19–36% — well above what a well-functioning market would produce. Crucially, those excess profits have not driven sufficient supply, which undermines the argument that capping will reduce it. Clause 15 provides a vital backstop: we hope not to use it, but providers should see the writing on the wall. On Amendments 504A and 505A, the required consultation before any cap is commenced — subject to the affirmative procedure — already delivers the transparency those amendments seek. On Amendment 142A, a sole trader or a personally culpable finance director must not be a loophole to avoid a profit cap; Clause 17 already requires proportionality in setting any penalty.My Lords, as I said in Committee on Tuesday, in 2022 the Competition and Markets Authority found the children’s social care placement market to be dysfunctional. It found that the largest private providers were making profit margins significantly above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. Most significantly, notwithstanding the profit levels that are being made, we know that there are still insufficient high-quality placements for children who desperately need them. To that extent, the profit levels being made are not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, suggested, driving the sort of supply that we want to see. The amendments in this group cover Clauses 15, 16 and 17, which implement important legislative elements of our children’s social care placement market reforms: the new profit-capping powers and their associated financial penalties. Introducing profit-capping powers will ensure that we have further powers to curb profiteering if the wider package of measures that I outlined on Tuesday, which we expect to rein in excessive profit-making, do not have their intended effect. This is a power to have in place if other elements of the programme do not work. I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on whether Clause 15 should stand part of the Bill. Having outlined the broad intention of the profit cap, I want to be clear that, although some private providers are clearly doing brilliant work, we want to ensure that all providers deliver high-quality placements at sustainable cost. As I say, we know that this is not always happening. The Competition and Markets Authority found the market to be dysfunctional and estimated that the largest private children’s social care placement providers were making profit margins of between 19% and 36%—well above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. As I have said previously, excess profits have not led to sufficient supply in this market. Furthermore, making these levels of pro…
- If the Government believe profiteering from children's trauma warrants a profit cap, why limit it to children's homes and fostering agencies? Sexual assault referral centres for children are generating margins above 25% after tax — higher than the figures we are debating — yet the Minister says there is no intention to extend this. That is not coherent. And the CMA was clear it regarded profit capping as a bad idea: citing it selectively does not make it good policy. I also correct the record: I never suggested current margins were driving supply — I said margins are uneven and actually falling.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. On the point of principle—why you would put a profit cap on one area of the economy where you think there is profiteering on the back of vulnerable children, but not on another—the Minister said that there was no intention to extend this; indeed, she said that she hoped it would not be used. I certainly agree with that, but I do not really understand why, where children have been sexually assaulted or raped and companies are making far higher profit margins than the ones we are talking about here, the Government would choose to apply a profit cap on one and not the other. That does not feel very coherent to me. I also felt that the Minister was slightly selective in the quotes she chose to identify from the Competition and Markets Authority report. The CMA was clear that it thought that a profit cap was not a good idea. I would also like to clarify something for the record. I think the Minister suggested that I said that current margins were driving supply. I said that current margins, according to the recent data, are uneven and actually falling, so I did not suggest that they were driving supply.
- The point I was making was simply that excess profits have not driven supply in this market — not that you claimed otherwise.
The noble Baroness cited analysis that expressed a concern that by capping profits, you would somehow or other reduce supply in the market. I was simply making the point that the converse—that is, excessive profits—has not driven supply in the market.
- There is a real risk that the cap produces exactly the opposite of what the Government want: providers exit, capacity falls further, and prices in the remaining market rise even more sharply. You cannot say margins are unacceptable without saying what margin is acceptable — defence and pharma commissioning show that is perfectly possible. On natural persons, we are no longer talking about ten sole traders: we are talking about finance directors of corporate structures, which is a much more serious concern. I need the Government to write with the correct sector-wide profitability figures, not just data for 19 providers.
I understand that, and I stand by what I said. There is a risk that this will result in an exiting of capacity, and that the reverse of what the Government rightly want to happen will happen: that in some areas that will put even more pressure on capacity and price. I do not accept that you can say on the one hand that these margins are unacceptable, but, on the other, you cannot say what is acceptable. What we are seeing is a failure of commissioning. One of my amendments in an earlier group—I think it was Amendment 119ZA, but I may be wrong—sought to align the interests of children and those of operators. The commissioning model we have today is not working, and that needs to be fundamentally addressed. Maybe the Government could reconsider their response. We have examples in defence and pharmaceuticals of commissioners setting what is an acceptable margin, and providers bidding or not bidding based on that margin. I do not understand why the Government cannot say what an acceptable margin would be. I accept that the Minister’s response to my Amendments 504A and 505A goes at least some way towards what I was aiming for. I was more troubled by her response on natural persons. I thought we were talking about 10 sole traders, but we are now talking about finance directors in businesses, so I think that my concerns are entirely valid. On financial penalties, my recollection, which may be wrong, is that we have a limit on fines in the Online Safety Act. The Minister will correct me if it is in regulations but, if it is in that Act, I do not see why it cannot be in this Bill too. That matters because we need local authorities, charities, social enterprises or the private sector to add capacity in those areas and, without certainty, they could be forgiven for hesitating. A striking omission in the Minister’s remarks—perhaps she could respond in writing on this—concerns what was said at the Dispatch Box on Tuesday about the level of profitability in the sector. I think I…
- The current regulation of agency social workers under the September 2024 statutory guidance already aims at the same goals as Clause 19 — controlling costs, improving quality, reducing turnover. As of September 2024, agency social worker numbers are at their lowest since data collection began (6,500) and the vacancy rate has fallen from 22% to 17%. What exactly will regulations add that the existing statutory guidance does not? The Bill's powers over pay in proposed new Section 32A(4)(b) and (c) could allow the Secretary of State to set rates from Whitehall — is that really a good idea? And will there be local discretion to pay above the national rate during a regional staffing crisis?
My Lords, this stand part notice is to probe, and therefore understand, what changes the Government intend to make to the regulation of agency social workers and how those changes will work in practice. I am very well aware of the concerns about social worker recruitment, but I was in fact slightly surprised when preparing for this debate to find that, as of 30 September 2024, there were 34,300 children and family social workers in total, which I gather is the peak since data started to be collected in 2017; and 6,500 agency social workers, which is the lowest since data collection started. Vacancies fell by 6.9% year on year, there was a drop in staff turnover of 13.8% and the average caseload fell to 15.4%. The vacancy rate is still high at 17%, but down from 22% in 2022, and 76% of vacancies were filled by agency social workers. Retention has improved, with the number leaving to work in an agency falling by 38%, while the number of social workers leaving the profession entirely fell by 5.3%. So I know the situation on the ground is extremely difficult, but I think it is helpful to have a bit of context. As I understand it, in terms of the current regulatory environment, agency children and family social workers are covered by the Agency Rules: Statutory guidance for Local Authorities on the Use of Agency Child and Family Social Workers of September 2024. As I understand it, this has the same aims as the proposed regulations: to control costs, improve quality, reduce turnover and ensure that governance is retained by local authorities. Two main requirements are planned to be implemented this year: first, there must be data collection by local authorities on the number of agency workers, with the first submission having happened in April and May 2025; and, secondly, that local authorities must submit plans on locally agreed price caps by this October. The main thrust of Clause 19, therefore, is to make regulations for what is already covered in statutory guidance.…
Local authorities spend £500 million a year on agency social workers — on average 60–70% more per worker than permanent staff — and agency workers are three times more likely to leave a case mid-assessment. That is real risk to children. But the figures the noble Baroness cited are also an indictment of the previous Government. The deeper question is: why don't people want to go into social work or teaching? Training is worthless if nobody takes it up. We need to make both professions genuinely attractive.My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave the background in terms of the statistics and figures, which make for quite a salutary understanding. Agency workers are, as we know, three times more likely to leave a case mid-assessment compared with permanent staff, which obviously would increase risks to children. Let us remember that local authorities spend £500 million annually on agency social workers—on average 60% to 70% more per worker than on permanent staff. Inconsistencies of local policies allow agency staff to move frequently between councils, undermining safeguarding and continuity and, of course, causing resource churn—what a phrase, “resource churn”. Some rural and high-need areas rely on agency workers due to staff shortages, with poorly defined regulation risks shrinking this vital stopgap workforce. Do we ensure that the training, supervision and caseload standards for agency workers are the same as those of permanent staff? I worry considerably that we see permanent local authority staff taking early redundancy payments and then reappearing as agency workers. In some cases—I do not know whether this is the case with social workers; my research has not shown me that yet—they are then reappointed by other local authorities. That surely cannot be right. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right to raise that, but—I hope she will not take this the wrong way—the figures that she cited are as much the responsibility of the previous Government as they are figures that the present Government have had to inherit. Towards the end, she mentioned some of the initiatives that her Government had started; I do not know whether the Minister has a briefing on them, but it would be interesting to know whether they have at all been helpful. One thing I cannot understand—well, I can understand it—is that many public services face a shortage of public service workers. It is not just social workers; it is right across the board—teachers spring to mind. Yet at the same…
The lack of continuity is the real problem — children and families in court proceedings need familiarity. The phenomenon of a permanent social worker leaving and reappearing as an agency worker for a different authority is something I see directly in the cases coming before the courts.My Lords, I agree with all the questions that have been asked by the previous speakers. The use of agency workers is apparent when we see the variety of people who come to court to give evidence. Obviously, there is a problem of lack of capacity, but there are two real problems. The first is the higher cost of agency workers and the second is the lack of continuity which their use involves. Continuity is particularly important when one is considering work involving families and children, who need familiarity and continuity. The noble Lord is quite right. Surprisingly, sometimes the same worker reappears, no longer as an employed social worker but as an agency worker, and one is frankly pleased to see a familiar face. But also, too often, it is somebody completely different who has not grasped the basics of what has been happening hitherto.
Raise social workers' pay. The gap between what permanent staff earn and what agency workers earn is precisely what is driving the exodus.My Lords, I urge the Minister to increase the incomes of social workers, so that they are not tempted to become agency workers, who are of course paid a lot more than social workers. The pay levels of these workers need to be addressed.
- Clause 19 — now Clause 21 in the Bill — will extend the regulation-making power beyond the current statutory guidance, which covered only child and family social workers. A newer problem has emerged: agencies supplying whole project teams at £50 an hour or more per worker, with additional management charges on top. We need the wider framework this clause provides. The goal is to free up local authority budgets currently consumed by agency premiums and reinvest them in permanent workforce quality, training, and career progression — but that broader reform is happening in parallel.
My Lords, through the introduction of a regulation-making power, Clause 19 allow the Government to take stronger action to alleviate the significant affordability and stability challenges that have arisen from the increase in the use and cost of agency workers in local authority children’s social care in England. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, identified some of the progress being made in the staffing of children’s social care. I can confirm that the current level of agency use in the sector stands at 16.2%, a small fall on the previous year, but she is also right, of course, that this varies considerably from authority to authority. What I would say about that 16.2% is that, in essence, more than one in eight of the people who are working in children’s social care do not have the long-term association with their employers that we would expect to see in any service where we were able to provide the training, the stability and the certainty about future costs that we would want. It is considerably higher than in similar sectors, whether in the health service or in education. Agency work continues to be a considerable issue within children’s social care. That is not to say that there is not excellent work being carried out by individual agency social workers—I know from my previous experience in Sandwell Children’s Trust that there are many excellent agency workers. Nevertheless, the cost and stability issues that I have outlined remain serious for local authorities and those providing children’s social care. This clause ensures that while agency workers will remain an important part of local authority children’s social care, they will not become a long-term replacement for a permanent, stable workforce. It will allow the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on the use of agency workers in English local authority children’s social care services. I accept that progress has been made since the introduction by the last Government of the statutory guidance relati…
- I still haven't heard the Government's estimate of the number of wider social care agency workers — beyond child and family social workers — and the cost to local authorities. Could the department write and place a copy in the Library? Building on the statutory guidance we introduced in government, we hope this works. The world of work has changed — social workers can now do a couple of days' agency work from home — and these are challenges the Government will need to navigate.
I thank the Minister for her response and her explanation. I think I understand now the scope that the Government intend in terms of the wider social care workforce, although I did not hear her give the Government’s estimate of the number of agency workers involved in that area and the cost to local authorities. Maybe if the department has that data, it could write to us and put a copy of the letter in the Library. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly raised the issue of social workers retiring and then reappearing, magically, as agency social workers, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, highlighted the impact of that in a court setting, with the obvious cost to the local authority and the disruption and lack of continuity. Given that this builds very much on the statutory guidance that we prepared when in government, we hope that this works really well for the Government in achieving greater affordability and continuity of staff. I guess we are in a world where the working environment has changed, and social workers can now do a couple of days a week of agency work and work from home the rest of the time. Those are challenges that I am sure the Government are wrestling with, and we wish them every success in so doing.
Amendment 146B, in the name of the Bishop of Manchester, would create a legally enforceable, lifelong 'due regard' duty on public bodies to remove or minimise disadvantages faced by anyone who has ever been in care. The case of Nonita Grabovskyte — whose preventable death was caused by systemic failures that 'due regard' obligations might have averted — and UCL research showing care leavers are 70% more likely to die prematurely and live on average 20 years fewer, demonstrate the urgency. 'Alert' is not enough; 'due regard' requires active, preventative impact assessments. Amendment 147A would make the duty operative — schools would have to consider how their policies disadvantage children in care and take steps to mitigate that, not merely be aware of it.My Lords, I move the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. In relation to Amendment 146B, 120 councils around the country have already committed themselves voluntarily to embrace the “due regard” implementation, but this amendment intends to create a legally enforceable, legislative and lifelong safeguard across government for anyone who has ever been in care. The tragic case of Nonita Grabovskyte starkly demonstrates the urgent necessity for this amendment. Nonita’s death highlighted severe systemic failures by the corporate parent and associated agencies, as identified by the recent inquest. These failures directly contributed to her preventable death, underscoring how critical it is that public bodies proactively mitigate the disadvantages faced by care leavers. Had all parties exercised due regard to eliminate these disadvantages, Nonita’s death might have been prevented. Ground-breaking research from University College London reveals that care leavers are 70% more likely to die prematurely than their peers, living on average 20 years fewer. Adults who spent time in care between 1971 to 2001 were significantly more vulnerable to premature mortality, including unnatural deaths such as suicides or accidents. Terry Galloway, who campaigns passionately for these changes, personally embodies these stark statistics. Terry and his siblings, Hazel and James, were all care experienced. Tragically, Hazel and James died prematurely, embodying the cruel reality highlighted by UCL’s research. Shortly before Hazel was murdered by domestic violence, she and Terry made a solemn promise to change the care system to prevent others from enduring their experiences. Terry’s journey through care was marked by abuse, repeated separations from his siblings and frequent moves involving over 100 different placements. Children who have experienced abuse and neglect prior to, or during, their time in care may remain at heightened risk of similar abu…
Amendment 146B makes sense — a stronger legal duty will drive the culture change that looked-after children need. Amendment 151, which I co-signed, would add Jobcentre Plus to Schedule 1 as a relevant authority for corporate parenting. With 41% of care leavers aged 19–21 classed as NEET and 923,000 young people not in education, employment or training across England, the network of Jobcentre Plus staff and their third-sector delivery partners is precisely the wrap-around support these young people need to make the transition to work.My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions thus far. Amendment 146B in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester seeks to strengthen the duty on the local authority to ensure that it has due regard to that very duty to either remove or minimise the disadvantages faced by looked-after children. In applying this language, the local authority has a stronger legal duty to support the looked-after children in its area. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for putting the case so well. Amendment 147A, also in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, builds on the previous amendment in the right reverend Prelate’s name, and would require local authorities not only to be aware of the disadvantages that looked-after children in their area face but also to take steps to avoid and reduce these disadvantages. It is vitally important that local authorities fully support the looked-after children in their area and that they take all the steps and precautions possible to prevent looked-after children from being harmed in any way by the policies they introduce. These amendments seem entirely sensible, and we thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing these issues to the Committee. Amendment 151 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which I have signed, seeks to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of relevant authorities in Schedule 1. This amendment seeks to ensure that the future career opportunities of looked-after children are considered as a priority, which is most appropriate. There are an alarming number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, and this amendment seeks to quite rightly place importance on finding young people who were previously looked-after children appropriate career development opportunities. I hope all noble Lords would agree that giving disadvantaged young people the best career advice possible and helping them on that route-t…
- Making sure every system takes corporate parenting seriously — and goes further — is critical. Children who lack a strong parental safety net fail, and often dramatically. Including Jobcentre Plus is exactly the kind of expansion of the support web that is needed; go a little further than you have already gone.
My Lords, these amendments go to one of the most important points about just how important the parent is in a child’s upbringing. Many years ago I came across a piece of black humour that never seems to stop giving: the first thing that a disabled child, or a child with special educational needs, must do to be a success is to choose their parents correctly. Without that back-up, you are asking a lot of any system. Making sure that all the systems take that seriously is key. The situation has got better and there has been progress, but we are not there yet. The statistics—which we all have in front of us and have all talked about—prove that. Still, people who lack that strong body of support tend to fail, and often quite dramatically. Success—even moderate success—within that group is celebrated, so it is important that we go forward with this work. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—who is my friend—and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, were right to table an amendment saying that jobcentres should be brought into this. That would expand the web of support and make sure it goes wide and goes through. If people do not have the central drive, we will need a wider net to pick them up when they slip. I hope that the Government will give us some positive response to this approach, because it is needed. They have gone far; go a little further.
Add Jobcentre Plus to Schedule 1. They already deliver services aligned with every aspiration in this Bill. I visited the Margate task force — Jobcentre Plus, police, immigration, and social services all in one room, knowing every young person at risk. That is the model that works. Their formal inclusion would ensure accountability and consistency in helping care leavers into sustainable employment.My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 151. My friend—the noble Lord, Lord Addington—has done my job for me, but I will not be done out of my few moments to speak. I am absolutely thrilled that the Bill seeks to strengthen the support provided to looked-after children and care leavers. I seek to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of organisations classified as a relevant authority. Currently, the authorities listed—I will not name every single one—include central government, education, health and youth justice. On a previous amendment I gave something of a statistic sandwich, but let me remind noble Lords of those figures. As at May 2025, there were 923,000 NEETs, and 41% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 were deemed to be NEET. Some 66% of young people in Feltham young offender institution, and 25% of the adult prison population, have been in care. That is frightening. Ultimately, the Bill seeks to improve outcomes for looked-after children and care leavers, but the one organisation that is missing is Jobcentre Plus. I have known that organisation for—I do not want to give away my age—35 to 40 years. I know people who have worked there for 25 years; they ring me and tell me about all the things they are doing or are struggling with. Jobcentre Plus has an excellent network of staff and of third-sector and other organisations that, collectively, can wrap these people up in their arms and make sure that we improve outcomes for young people. The rationale for its existence is sustainable employment—which is critical to care leavers and looked-after children—and jobcentres are already delivering services aligned with the Bill’s aspiration. Recently I went to visit the Margate task force. It is in a room not much smaller than this wonderful Chamber, but it has Jobcentre Plus, the police, immigration and social services in there—you name it, it is there. The youngsters and the people at most risk of getting themselves into trouble are known to them all, and when there is a proble…
- All of these amendments help — but expanding duties to more bodies without additional funding risks stretching already under-resourced systems. On a separate point nobody else has raised: children in care who lack British citizenship face detention, loss of rights or removal. The average registration fee of £1,012 is a significant barrier. Immigration decision-making has historically failed to consider children's welfare under Section 22 of the Children Act 1989 — can the Minister address that?
My Lords, all these amendments help in some way and are important. It seems to me that Thursday afternoon in the Chamber has become friends day. I will add just a few thoughts. On the whole issue of children in care, we have constantly said that we should do everything that we possibly can to support those children and young people. To add to the figures that the noble Earl gave, 13% of care leavers go on to higher education by the age of 19, but that compares with 43% of all young people. They also have higher rates of homelessness, unemployment and mental illness. The noble Earl mentioned those young people not in education, employment or training, and those figures are starting to deteriorate rather than improve. We need to watch that situation very carefully. On balance, I support Amendment 151 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, but I just make this additional point: expanding duties to more bodies may stretch already underresourced systems, especially if there is no additional funding allocated to support any legal changes. I will make one point that has not been mentioned by any noble Lord. It is about children in care who do not have British citizenship and lack the support to secure it, risking detention, loss of rights or removal. As we know, the average cost of registration is £1,012, and that is often a significant barrier. Immigration and asylum decision-making has historically failed to consider the welfare of children, particularly those under Section 22 of the Children Act. Maybe the Minister can respond to that issue when she replies.
- The point about resources is well made — but the women and men at jobcentres are doing this work now, informally, because they care. A lady who has worked there 25 years still has people she helped coming back to her before they get into trouble. That is exactly the kind of relationship that formal inclusion would strengthen.
The noble Lord’s point about resources and stretching people too far is well made. I would never want to do that, but these people are doing it now. I sat with a lady who has worked for the jobcentre for 25 years. People she has helped still come to her before they get into trouble, and I just think it is well worth considering.
- For years under the previous Government I tried to find out what training Jobcentre Plus mentors — who are hugely important in this area — actually received. I never got a straight answer.
For a number of years, when the noble Baroness’s Government were running things, I was always concerned about the issue of Jobcentre Plus mentors, who are hugely important in this area, and was trying to probe to find out what training they had. I never got a straight answer, and never found out whether they were equipped with the tools to do the work, particularly in this area.
Formal inclusion of Jobcentre Plus in Schedule 1 need not cost anything: in my academy trust we simply require a report on our 50 looked-after children at every trustees' meeting — an asterisk by the name so the adviser uses a little more empathy. That is all it takes.My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott’s amendment on jobcentres. I hear the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about resource stretch, but from my own experience of this in my academy trust, we have about 50 looked-after children, and I require a report on them to come to every one of the trustees’ board meetings. It does not cost anything, but it just gives a little bit of focus to these very vulnerable children. The same could apply in jobcentres; it just needs an asterisk by the person’s name so that when the advisor is talking to him or her, they can use a little bit more empathy and maybe ask a couple more questions about the status of that child. I strongly support my noble friend and hope that the Government will support her amendment as well.
Jobcentre Plus is already within scope: it is part of the Department for Work and Pensions, so the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions — already named as a corporate parent — covers it. The corporate parenting duty will also apply to bodies exercising functions on behalf of a Secretary of State, including the Prison and Probation Service. Amendments 148–150 are minor technical amendments to clarify integrated care boards, NHS foundation trusts, and to confine the NHS trusts reference to England. On Amendments 146B and 147A, Clause 21 already requires corporate parents to be alert to negative impacts, assess accessibility of services, and seek to provide opportunities — the NHS Universal Family Programme has supported nearly 200 care leavers into jobs; the Civil Service scheme has taken on more than 1,000. Statutory guidance will set out best practice and ways to mitigate negative impacts.My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the very compassionate comments that ran through their suggestions. By way of background, the new corporate parenting measures in the Bill will, for the first time, impose a duty on a number of public bodies to be alert to matters that affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers. This means that every Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, schools, colleges, NHS England, integrated care boards, NHS trusts and foundation trusts, Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and the Youth Justice Board will be named as corporate parents and therefore will be required to take the needs and circumstances of looked-after children and care leavers into account when designing policies and delivering services that affect them. There were powerful comments from all sides, which I hope to address in some more detail. But I start by emphasising that I believe all of us in the public sector or in a position to drive change have a responsibility and, indeed, a moral obligation to do this, levelling the playing field for looked-after children and care leavers, who, as we have heard, are among the most vulnerable groups in our society, have suffered the worst outcomes across a range of measures and deserve this attention to detail, care and understanding, which, quite frankly, is not presently evident in all areas. We have had lots of figures, but I will add some more: some 26% of the homeless population are care experienced, around one-quarter of the adult prison population have been in care as a child and—as we have heard, but this is a slightly different take on it—care leavers aged 19 to 21 are more than three times more likely than their peers to be not in education, employment or training. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln referenced Terry Galloway, and it was my privilege to come into contact with Terry through my previous role before I came into this House. I do not think I have ever met anyone who is quite so de…
- Having an overall duty and having an access point to make it happen in practice are two very different things — government history shows that repeatedly. Could you write to us explaining how the Government propose to implement the Jobcentre Plus element specifically?
My Lords, having an overall duty and having an access point to make sure that it happens are very often different—I mean, it just happens in government. If the Minister could write to us, telling us how the Government propose to implement that, it would remove certain anxieties on this.
- When will the statutory guidance be available? Could you also write to us clarifying the Jobcentre Plus point — or perhaps we could just have a cup of tea and talk about it?
I have no desire to put pressure on the Minister, because I know what it is like to be there, responding to a debate. She is doing very well and giving us confidence. Can she tell the House when the statutory guidance might be available? Can she go back and talk to colleagues and see whether there is any clarification she could put in writing to add to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has just made and to the points in my contribution? Or could we have a cup of tea and talk about it? That might sound better to her; I see that she is smiling.
- I can't give an exact timetable, but I'm happy to keep the conversation going. The corporate parenting responsibilities do not require new services or policy changes incompatible with existing priorities — the culture change, the different way of approaching this, is what matters. I'll engage on the guidance timing.
I am from Yorkshire. A cup of tea and perhaps a piece of cake or a biscuit would be absolutely great. This is a very important point. We want to reassure the House of the level of detail that is going to go into this. I cannot give a guarantee of exact timing, but I am happy to keep the conversations going. While we are on the same page, I think the noble Lord, Lord Storey, made a valid point about the risk of increasing burdens, but I want to reassure him that the responsibilities do not require corporate parents to provide new services or to make specific policy changes that are not compatible with their wider priorities or affordable within their existing budgets. The broad duties can be implemented in a way that reflects the nature and circumstances of the individual corporate parent. I made the point earlier that it is the culture change—the different way of approaching this— that is critical to make sure that this is picked up across the board and drives its way through. I turn to Amendments 146B and 147A, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and brought to the House by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln—I thank him for doing that and for the way that he got over the points that I know from previous experience that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was concerned about. I have been involved in debates with him on these issues over the last few months and recognise his concern and passion for this area. These amendments probe the extent to which the corporate parenting responsibilities will lead to action by corporate parents in removing or minimising the disadvantages suffered by looked-after children and care leavers, or in taking steps to avoid, reduce or otherwise mitigate any adverse impact of its policies and practices on them. I agree with the amendments’ intention, but I am satisfied that this is achieved through the duties set out in Clause 21 requiring corporate parents to be alert to matters whi…
- Nearly a million young people aged 16–25 are NEET. As a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on social mobility I expect this to be a strong recommendation in our forthcoming report. If the Bishop of Manchester's amendments are not pressed, what is the Government's concrete plan within this Bill to address that urgent situation — including for those young people who cannot even leave their bedroom?
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I want to pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, was saying about needs. It is really alarming that nearly a million young people aged between 16 and 25 are not in education, employment or training. I am a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on social mobility. While not wishing to pre-empt what our chair will say in her report, I am sure that this will be a strong recommendation from the committee. We are very keen to know, especially if I do not press the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, what the Government’s intention is within the operation of this Bill to address this urgent and damaging situation for such a significant number of young people, some of whom are not able even to leave their bedroom and have insufficient support. What is the Government’s intention in this regard? I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 152 would remove the exclusion of immigration, asylum and nationality functions from the new corporate parenting duty. Children's organisations across the sector — Barnardo's, Catch22, the Refugee and Migrant Children's Consortium — are united in dismay at this carve-out. The Government's justification is Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act, but the Immigration Law Practitioners Association is clear: Section 55 covers the welfare of all children; Clause 21 is specific to looked-after children — these are neither in conflict nor identical. The effect is to create a two-tier system: one in three young people turning 18 and leaving care last year was an unaccompanied asylum-seeker. This would be the first piece of primary children's legislation since ratification of the UNCRC to distinguish children subject to immigration control as somehow different. Amendment 147 (a separate probing amendment) would require authorities to consider looked-after children's right to British citizenship — many children born here, or who have lived here their whole lives, do not know they must formally register that right, and by 18 it can be too late.My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 152. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who regrets that he cannot be here—perhaps an absent friend, taking what was said earlier—and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for supporting that amendment. Amendment 152 would remove the exclusion of immigration, asylum and nationality functions from the new corporate parenting duty. There is strong support throughout the children’s sector for the new corporate parenting duty, but there is also widespread dismay that it explicitly excludes immigration, asylum and nationality matters. This exclusion was raised with the Children’s Minister by the Education Select Committee in the Commons. In a subsequent letter, she explained that “immigration functions are exempt because the Home Office is already subject to existing statutory duties to safeguard children through Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act”. Not being a lawyer, I sought advice from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, and I am very grateful for its response. ILPA was clear that Section 55 does not justify the exclusion, as argued by Minister Daby. The Section 55 duty is to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children; this is different from the set of duties in Clause 21(1), which is specific to looked-after children. ILPA advises that the new duties are neither in conflict with nor identical to the existing Section 55 duties. The Refugee and Migrant Children's Consortium, to which I am also grateful for its help, likewise argues that the new duties are fully complementary to and compatible with Section 55. They are, moreover, very modest, as they apply only so far as compliance with the duties is “consistent with the proper exercise of a Department's functions” and is “reasonably practicable”. Nevertheless, they are important. Given that this explanation does not really hold water, can my noble friend the Minister explain exactly whi…
Nearly one in ten children in care is an unaccompanied asylum seeker. They are victims who are not in control of their destiny — they must be seen as children first. End the exemption.My Lords, I support Amendment 152 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have put my name. I declare an interest as vice-president of the children’s charity, Barnardo’s. Currently, nearly one in 10 children in care is an unaccompanied asylum seeker. While their immigration status remains uncertain they face significant disadvantages in accessing services. It is good that the Government recognise that extending corporate parenting duties to a range of public bodies has the potential to improve the agency support of children in and leaving care, yet they also decided specifically to exempt decisions relating to immigration, nationality and asylum. Barnardo’s believes that children who have fled persecution and arrive in this country seeking sanctuary must be seen as children first. They are victims who are not in control of their destiny. Amendment 152 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would end that exemption. I very much support it; I hope that the Government will too, and will show consideration and compassion to these sometimes traumatised children.
- The exemption is to a set of functions, not to a group of children — children in the immigration system still benefit from all the new corporate parenting duties for every other function. The Home Secretary is already bound under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to safeguard and promote children's welfare in exercising immigration functions. And the Government's immigration White Paper published on 12 May sets out a clear pathway for looked-after children and care leavers to regularise their status and includes a commitment to reduce financial barriers to British nationality registration for those who have lived here through childhood.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions in this group, which relates to corporate parenting and, in particular, to immigration functions. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Lister for introducing her amendments. Amendment 152 seeks to apply corporate parenting duties to immigration, asylum and nationality functions. As we discussed in the previous group, our new corporate parenting measures will place an important responsibility on each Secretary of State and relevant bodies to support and seek to provide opportunities for looked-after children and care leavers, which in turn will improve their long-term outcomes. This means that Secretaries of State, including the Home Secretary, and relevant public bodies are required to be alert to matters that might negatively affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, regardless of their immigration status, when exercising any functions other than those relating to asylum, immigration, nationality or customs. To be clear, children and young people in the immigration system will absolutely benefit from the additional care and support that new corporate parents will provide. The exemption is to a set of functions, not to a set of children. This Government recognise the importance of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the UK. As my noble friend identified, this is already reflected in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Section 55 requires the Home Secretary to make arrangements for ensuring that immigration, asylum and nationality functions are discharged “having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom”. Statutory guidance linked to this sets out the key principles. This includes that the best interest of the child is a primary consideration when making decisions affecting children. Children should be consulted, and their wishes and feelings taken into account wherever practicable, when decisi…
- I accept the distinction between functions and children — but in practice many corporate parenting functions are inseparable from immigration matters, so it is difficult to disentangle the two. I don't understand why the exclusion is necessary when every children's organisation with expertise in this field is calling for it to be removed. I'll need to return to this. On British citizenship, too many children enter care without anyone securing the evidence needed to prove entitlement — and some only discover at 18 that they are not automatically British citizens, with devastating consequences for their identity and well-being. The White Paper is welcome; I'll need to see the detail.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for making the case and reminding us that we are talking about children first. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for what was actually a very sympathetic response to what I said. I absolutely take the point—I finished with this point—that we are taking about functions and not a group of children. I have not quite finished reading the new study that has just come out, but the trouble is that, in many cases, parts of corporate parenting functions involve asylum and immigration matters, so it is difficult to disentangle the function from the group. I will have to look more closely at what the Minister said, but I have to admit that I am not totally persuaded. I still do not really understand why it is necessary to have this exclusion. I tabled this amendment on behalf of the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, in which there are a lot of children’s organisations. A lot of the people who are briefing on this Bill—Barnardo’s and many others—welcome the corporate parenting duty and then say, “We must not have this exclusion”. There seems to be a disconnect between their reading, interpretation and understanding of what this will mean and the Government’s. We may have to come back to that—I do not know—but I still do not really understand why it is felt necessary to have this exclusion, which is creating such alarm among children’s organisations. On children who are entitled to claim British citizenship, I have been working on this issue for many years, pressing the previous Government and finally getting somewhere. That is not just because of me—it is primarily because of the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, which has been indefatigable in pushing on this, together with Amnesty. I welcome what is in the White Paper and look forward to getting more detail about what is meant. Certainly, after the way things were left under the previ…
- Amendment 152 raises genuinely sensitive and complex questions worth the Minister's response. Amendment 147 is exactly what a responsible corporate parent would do — make sure a child in its care knows their citizenship entitlement and takes steps to secure it.
My Lords, corporate parenting means providing the best possible care, safeguarding and support, ensuring that children thrive and have opportunities to reach their full potential. It involves actively promoting their well-being, health and education, and preparing them for adulthood, mirroring what a responsible parent would do. As such, Amendment 147 seeks to ensure that local authorities must consider the rights of looked-after children to British citizenship, which is exactly what a responsible parent would indeed do. It is important that a local authority is able to focus on the well-being of the child and to consider whether this should apply to citizenship. It is certainly a most relevant issue for the Minister to opine on. Amendment 152, which seeks to remove Clause 22(1)(a), would extend the local authority duty to take care of looked-after children to the Secretary of State “exercising immigration, asylum and nationality functions”. We can see plausible reasons why the Government would choose to include that exemption but it merits further discussion and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to a potentially sensitive and complicated subject.
Amendment 154 simply asks: why does a local authority need the power to require a medical examination of a child before granting them a work permit?My Lords, Amendment 154 effectively asks the question, “Why? What is the justification for such an examination?”. I look forward to listening to the Minister’s response to Amendment 155. I beg to move.
- Child performers and athletes need their own protections. Amendment 168 would require a percentage of children's earnings from performances, paid sport and modelling to be held in a protected trust account until the age of 18 — the US and much of the EU already do this, and earnings can run into millions. Amendment 228 would fix the absurd situation where a licensed child performer is marked 'absent' from school, harming the school's Ofsted record, when the licence already contains an approved education provision. Amendment 376 would require licensing authorities to notify the child's home local authority when a body-of-persons approval or a magistrate's court order is granted for performance abroad, joining up a system where that information currently never gets shared. And Amendment 377 calls for a formal review of the Child Performance Regulations 2014, which were promised after ten years and which a streaming-platform world has left far behind.
My Lords, Amendments 168, 228, 376 and 377 concern child performances and sporting activities. I declare my interest as per the register. On Amendment 168, there is no system in place to safeguard and protect children’s earnings from financial abuse when they are engaged in performances, paid sport or modelling activities. Other countries, such as the US and numerous EU territories, have legislation in place to ensure that employers pay a percentage of the child’s earnings into a trust account where earnings are protected by the state until the child reaches the age of 18. We lag behind the times with this provision, and safeguarding and protection are long overdue. Local authorities can add stipulations to licences—for example, that 80% must be paid into a child’s savings account or 50% used for the child’s benefit. However, these conditions differ throughout Great Britain and are sadly ineffective, as a parent can access and use the child’s money and not necessarily for the child’s benefit or in their interest. Local authorities themselves are concerned about how best to protect these earnings but, sadly, there is no system or law in place to support this. My amendment would ensure that a small percentage of the child’s earnings is held in trust until the child reaches adulthood and is not accessible by a parent, guardian or the child themselves. If this amendment becomes law, trust accounts will protect the child’s earnings until they reach the age of 18. Income will be protected and any tax liabilities more easily calculated. As we enter a world of streaming platforms, social influencers and headline child stars, these earnings can be in the millions of pounds and we have a responsibility to ensure that all children, regardless of which local authority they reside in, have effective means to safeguard their future and their earnings. Amendment 228 deals with a child not appearing on the school register. The Bill as it stands fails to recognise the unique needs o…
- As a head teacher I bent the rules to let a pupil appear in 'Last Tango in Halifax' and 'Nowhere Boy' — children should not have to rely on sympathetic adults bending the law. Online influencer work and digital content creation are now major forms of child employment that current law does not address. The law must protect children and also work for them, enabling talent and ambition.
My Lords, I just remind the Committee that, 12 or 13 years ago, when we were looking at the Children and Families Bill, my noble friend Lady Benjamin took up this issue with great vigour, and quite rightly so. Since then, of course, times have changed, as traditional child employment laws have often failed to address online influencer work, digital content creation and remote gig roles taken up by children. My own experience as a head teacher at a primary school was that I had a number of such children. I remember Josh Bolt, who appeared regularly as a main character in “Last Tango in Halifax”, and the problems that we faced trying to ensure that he could fulfil his acting potential. He was able to do so, and appeared in the film “Nowhere Boy”, about the life of John Lennon. But it was us bending the rules, quite frankly, and not following the exact letter of the law, which allowed him to fulfil his dreams and ambitions. There were other children as well; I think of sports and those children, both boys and girls, who went to football academies, for example. A number of them went on to have successful careers in sport. So we must make laws that not only protect the young person but work for the young person as well, enabling them to enhance their skills and take up the opportunities that are available. According to the Education Policy Institute, part-time jobs can support resilience, time management and confidence. But, of course, unregulated work can harm education as well; it is about getting the balance right. I am looking forward to discussing the amendments on school registration. Some schools can be overzealous on registration and do not take personal factors into account. It is really important that we listen to my noble friend Lady Benjamin, in particular; she has huge experience in this area. If we want to be a successful nation in the cultural industries, which we are, little hiccups such as this need sorting out. One noble Lord mentioned that there are di…
The timing restrictions in Clause 28 — no work before 7 am or after 8 pm — would cut across children in ballet, theatre and film productions. Can the Minister confirm explicitly that those restrictions do not apply to licensed child performers? My first pay packet came performing with Scottish Ballet at nine; that opportunity changed my career trajectory.My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 155. It is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and I agree with everything that she said; I therefore also support her. What prompted me to look at this space were the government Amendments 157 and 158 on the employment of children in England and Wales and in Scotland. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that they do not sufficiently cover the difficulties and discrepancies between what is in the Bill and the on-the-ground opportunities for children in the performing arts. I was especially concerned by the timing restrictions in proposed new Clause 2(1)(d)—as well as in the proposed new paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h)—which requires children not to work before 7 am or after 8 pm. The Minister is shaking her head, so clarification from her that this does not apply to children in the performing arts would be great. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, about the opportunities for children to take part in the performing arts. My first pay packet came as a performer with Scottish Ballet at the age of nine, which introduced me to all sorts of career opportunities that I would not have had in school, including becoming a choreologist. I would therefore welcome anything to clarify that children are encouraged to take up these opportunities. I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify the licensing agreement for performing arts and children being paid as performers. I look forward to hearing her answer.
- The new definition of 'light work' in Clause 28, which replaces the original Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, is less focused than what it replaces. The 1933 Act said simply: a child may not be employed to lift, carry or move anything so heavy as to be likely to cause injury. The new definition tells us only what light work is *not*. Please look again before Report at retaining the clarity and simplicity of the original while updating it for modern contexts.
Since the noble Baroness has mentioned them, I shall also offer some observations on the government amendments in advance of hearing the Minister speaking to them. Amendment 157 and the Scottish equivalent, Amendment 158, are indeed better and simpler than Clause 26 as originally formulated, but I have some reservations about either formulation. The intention is to replace Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. A treasured possession of mine is an ancient copy of the 1933 Act. The original Section 18 provided that “no child shall be employed … to lift, carry or move anything so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him”. That had the merit of clarity and simplicity. The Bill will now say: “A child may not be employed … to do any work other than light work”. One turns to the end of the new section to find, in subsection (8), a rather wordy definition of “light work” in negative terms, which tells us what light work is not. In particular, it means “work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed … is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and … is not such as to be harmful” to their education, through attendance at school or otherwise. That may somewhat widen the scope of the original Section 18 but, frankly, the drafting is less focused. Indeed, whether, as drafted, it is an improvement on the original Section 18 remains to be seen. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider looking again at trying to retain some of the best of the old version in a more modern context. I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I hope that at some point the Government can look at it, perhaps before Report. Meanwhile, I will say a slightly sad farewell to the original Section 18.
- Amendment 154 seems entirely sensible — in what circumstances would a local authority today require a medical examination for child employment? Amendment 155 and the related amendments on child performers are important: we should not inadvertently close off life-changing opportunities. On Amendment 156 — what will 'development' mean in the definition of 'light work'? Will children working in restaurants be able to use tablet devices to take orders, given the evidence that screen use can affect development?
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in this group relating to child employment. Amendment 154 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the ability of a local authority to require medical examinations of children for their employment. This seems like an eminently sensible amendment, and we will be most interested to hear from the Minister in what circumstances His Majesty’s Government expect this power to be necessary. Amendments 155, 168, 228, 376 and 377 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Parkinson and Lord Storey, relate to child performers and seek to protect their ability to perform. We see them often on our screens and on our stages and there can be no doubt that child talent plays a truly integral role in creating excellent productions, whether in film, television, theatre or music, so it is really important that this well-intentioned clause does not inadvertently negatively impact the creative industry but allows child performers to continue to play an active role in the industry where they choose to do so. Amendment 156, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, who sends her apologies, seeks to probe His Majesty’s Government on the definition of “development” in relation to the definition of “light work”, which cannot include anything that is “likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children”, as just referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Our amendment seeks to question how technology will be considered within this definition. There is considerable evidence that suggests that technology and the use of screens hinders children’s development and, as such, we ask the Minister whether children will be able to interact with technology in their employment. By way of an example, many restaurants and public houses use technology devices to take orders. With this definition, would it be possible that any workers under the age of 18 would not be able t…
- The employment changes in Clauses 28–29 do not affect children's ability to be licensed performers — those are entirely separate regulatory frameworks. The government amendments (157, 158 and consequential amendments) extend the more flexible employment rules — including working until 8 pm and an hour before school — to children in Wales and Scotland too, so that all children in Great Britain can benefit equally. We are also updating the definition of 'light work' to apply properly to home-educated children, not only school pupils. We are not in a position to accept amendments that would treat the performing arts licensing regime as part of employment law.
My Lords, I am pleased that we have been able to have a wide debate on the measures in the Bill that relate to child employment. I am sure many noble Lords agree that employment can have a hugely beneficial impact on a child: it can contribute to their development, introduce them to the world of work and help them develop key life skills. However, current legislation needs to be updated to better reflect the world of employment today and to make things simpler and clearer for children, families and employers. I should perhaps be clear at this point that, in this group of amendments, we are talking about two different sets of regulations. We have heard, and I will come to, the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser—by the way, both of them demonstrate the benefits of being a performer, child or otherwise. To be clear, these are two completely different sets of regulations. To respond to the specific point, the changes made in the employment regulations do not impact on the ability of children to be performers. I speak first to the government amendments in this group, which include Amendments 157 and 158 and consequential Amendments 503, 506, 507 and 510 to 514. These amendments seek to bring these changes in employment regulations to children in Scotland and Wales too. Our aim is that all children, regardless of where they live, can benefit from these new employment opportunities. These amendments will ensure that children in Wales and Scotland, as well as children in England, will be able to take advantage of the greater flexibility that this clause allows. This means being able to work more hours on a Sunday, an hour before school, and until 8 pm—crucially, without increasing their overall weekly working hours. This is to ensure that employment does not negatively impact on their health, development and education. We have also made a small amendment to the definition of “light work” so that it better r…
- On Amendment 228: I got the impression the Minister herself isn't sure what purpose the medical examination power serves — I'll write before Report to explore what practical application it actually has. On the register, I hope the Government are determined that children must be recorded somewhere at all times. The whole point of the register is that we know where children are: there must be no gaps.
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for those extensive replies. The delightful reminiscence from my noble friend Lady Fraser conjures up the thought of Report on the hereditary Peers Bill being conducted through the medium of expressive dance, featuring the Committee fly. On the more prosaic question of these amendments, on Amendment 228 I hope that the Government will be determined that children should be recorded somewhere at all times. It would not be an acceptable part of the system if people could drop in and out of being registered at all. The point of the register is that we know where children are. On Amendment 154, I got the impression that the Minister does not know any better than I do what this phrase is doing there or what it would be used for. I will write to her between now and Report to see whether we can explore what practical application it has, because I cannot see that, in the context of our modern attitude to disability, it should be the business of a local authority to say, “No, you’re in a wheelchair; you can’t do this”. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Create a child protection authority — now. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse spent seven years, heard from more than 7,000 victims and placed this as its second-highest recommendation, after mandatory reporting. The current framework is fragmented, inconsistent and insufficiently accountable: the deaths of Sara Sharif, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson are etched into our national conscience. An independent non-departmental public body with powers to inspect, advise, and monitor IICSA recommendations across institutional silos would change that. Amendment 160 adds national minimum thresholds for children in need support under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989: the Children's Commissioner found that in Knowsley and Blackpool over 60% of children known to social care have a child in need plan; in Northamptonshire it is under 20%. That variation is not explained by need — it is explained by postcode.My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 160 to this important Bill. Amendment 159 relates to the establishment of a child protection authority and is also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. These amendments, grounded in the belief that every child, no matter where they live and what challenges they face, should be guaranteed a basic level of protection. Amendment 159 proposes the creation of a child protection authority, in direct response to one of the most urgent and widely endorsed recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Amendment 160 seeks to establish national thresholds for children in need support under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Neither of these proposals is theoretical. Both are urgent responses to real-world system failures that we have seen repeated with devastating consequences across our country. Amendment 159 calls for the creation of the child protection authority, as recommended by the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. That inquiry, after seven years, 325 days of public hearings, and testimony from over 7,000 victims and survivors, concluded that existing child protection mechanisms are fragmented, inconsistent and insufficiently accountable. Among the 20 recommendations, the establishment of the independent child protection authority was second only to mandatory reporting. This body would have four core responsibilities: to improve child protection practices across public and private institutions; to provide expert advice to the Government and the sector; to conduct inspections of institutions and systems where safeguarding concerns are raised; and to monitor the implementation of the recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other major safeguarding inquiries. Critically, this authority would be independent and established as a non-departmental public body, similar to the structure of the National Crime Agency. Its independence would give…
This is a probing amendment — the Government have committed to consult on the child protection authority. But IICSA also recommended that all religious organisations have child protection policies, regular training and independent accountability. Out-of-school settings — sports clubs, summer clubs, private tutors — sit outside Ofsted and the Charity Commission's intervention threshold. Who accredits their safeguarding? Who holds low-level concerns about volunteers before they move to another club? Will the child protection authority's inspectorate function extend there? Can we have a meeting with interested Peers to discuss the scope?My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling Amendment 159, to which I added my name. It is a probing amendment, so I hope the Minister has not been equipped with various intricacies on the drafting. I believe that His Majesty’s Government intend to consult on child protection. As the noble Lord outlined, this is a recommendation from IICSA, which envisaged the child protection authority having an inspection function of certain settings within its purposes. However, there was another recommendation from the independent inquiry, which said: “All religious organisations should have a child protection policy and supporting procedures, which should include advice and guidance on responding to disclosures of abuse and the needs of victims and survivors. The policy and procedures should be updated regularly, with professional child protection advice, and all organisations should have regular compulsory training for those in leadership positions and those who work with children and young people”. Although the child protection agency will be led by the Home Office and the honourable Member Jess Phillips, this second recommendation sounds like a description not only of charities but of out-of-school settings. I am aware that, since the amendment was laid, a call for evidence went out from the Department for Education on safeguarding for out-of-school settings, but how are they intended to fit together? In addition to religious organisations, sports clubs, informal educational settings, summer clubs and private tutors seem not to be within a regulatory framework at the moment. Is this not what the independent inquiry envisaged that the work of a child protection authority would be, or could be? Those organisations are outside Ofsted and, despite the excellent work of the Charity Commission—many of them will be charities but not all of them—the threshold for intervention by the Charity Commission on the grounds of safeguarding is statutorily very high. It is not an in…
I strongly support the spirit of both amendments but have reservations about the precise drafting. The Government are right to reflect on Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and whether it can be improved. The out-of-school settings question is important but sits outside the immediate scope of these two amendments.I find these two amendments extremely interesting, and I very much support the spirit of them. But I am not at all happy, I have to say, about exactly how they are put forward. I think it is important that the Government reflect on Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and the extent to which it could be updated and improved. I am delighted that the Government are taking steps to find out rather more about it. I was extremely interested in the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, but I am not sure that they come into either Amendments 159 or 160. It does not mean that it is any less important. This is a wider issue of some real importance. I am not quite sure where it should come, but it certainly needs to be regarded .
- If the child protection authority is to have an inspectorate function — as IICSA envisaged — will it cover out-of-school settings? That is where it fits within the scope of Amendment 159. We need the DfE and Home Office brought together to keep children safe in those spaces.
I am grateful to be able to respond, as this is Committee. With the child protection authority, the question is about what scope that will have. If it is to have an inspectorate function, which is what was recommended by IICSA, will it have a role to inspect out of school settings? That is the way that, I would say, it comes within the scope of the amendment. But I accept it is a probing amendment. We need to make sure that we put the DfE and Home Office together to keep children safe .
- The Government have accepted the IICSA recommendation to create a child protection authority — it will initially form part of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel. On out-of-school settings, the concern is real but I worry about the burden on very small organisations. One thing I heard in office: there are no incentives in the system to do the right thing, only penalties if you get it wrong. A more constructive path might be to create positive incentives for getting safeguarding right.
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, on his powerful speech. I listened to his maiden speech, and this is the second time I have heard him speak. I see that he will be an important addition to the expertise in your Lordships’ House. In relation to his Amendment 159, I am slightly puzzled and look forward to the Minister’s response. As the noble Lord said, the Government have accepted the recommendations of IICSA to create a child protection authority and this will initially, as I understand it, form part of the child safeguarding practice review panel. My noble friend Lady Berridge made good points about out of school settings although, in general, I worry about the extent of regulation that might fall on very small organisations and the impact that might have. I remember thinking about this when in office. One of the organisations we met with said there were no incentives in the system today to encourage organisations to do the right thing; there are just penalties if you get it wrong. Maybe that is a constructive path for the Government to consider.
- We have committed to establish a child protection authority in England. We will consult on its design — including scope and powers — this year, engaging child protection experts and victim groups. We have already begun strengthening the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and are increasing its resources in 2025–26. And we are taking immediate action on all 12 recommendations from Baroness Casey's audit this week, including a new national inquiry. On Amendment 160: prescriptive national criteria with automatic referrals would narrow the cohort receiving support and remove the local flexibility that Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 rightly preserves. Statutory guidance already requires local authorities to publish their own threshold documents, and Ofsted inspects whether those are set appropriately. Our £500 million-plus investment in family help and multiagency child protection, backed by further spending review funding, is precisely aimed at wrapping earlier support around families.
My Lords, this Government are committed to protecting children from serious harm and ensuring that they can access the right level of support at the right time. That is what the amendments in this group seek, rightly, to pursue and challenge on. Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, is on the establishment of a child protection authority, as recommended in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Just to be clear, this Government have made a series of announcements that demonstrate our commitment to strengthen the response to child sexual abuse and exploitation. Establishing a child protection authority was one that we have, in looking at the recommendations from IICSA, committed quite clearly to. I was a bit unclear about the charge made by the noble Lord that we had not accepted that recommendation. In the Government’s update on our work to tackle child sexual abuse, published in April, we announced that we would establish a child protection authority in England. As the noble Lord says, this will help to make the child protection system clearer and more unified and ensure ongoing improvement through effective support for practitioners. Of course, there will be lots of questions about what form the authority takes and its scope—some were raised today by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, with specific questions on safeguarding. I reassure the noble Baroness that we have absolutely aligned the work on the CPA with the out-of-school settings call for evidence that she referenced. She identified that the design and the delivery of the authority require consultation, including with child protection experts and victim groups to ensure that it has the right constitution and the right powers. We have already begun our work towards a consultation on the child protection authority, and I assure the noble Baroness that we will engage with key stakeholders as part of this process. We will consult on developing the new child protec…
- I welcome the Minister's commitment to the child protection authority and the direction of travel on out-of-school settings. The 60% vs 20% disparity in children in need plans across local authorities still concerns me — I'll continue to press and probe as the Bill progresses.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Barran, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their interventions and comments, some of which I agree with and some I may not agree with—but that is the nature of the Committee; we are here to debate and improve Bills that come forward from the Government. I welcome the comments from the Minister, particularly on the national protection agency. Clearly, the devil will be in the detail about its powers and how it functions, rather than just establishing the authority. On Amendment 160, I clearly still have issues with the disparity between some local authorities having up to 60% of young people in their care with child in need plans and others having 20%, as in the examples I gave. My aim was to raise this in Committee and hopefully for the Minister to look into it. I will continue to press and probe as this Bill travels through your Lordships’ House but, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 161 would allow auto-enrolment of families entitled to the Healthy Start prepaid card — which provides £4.25 a week for a pregnant woman or child aged 1–4, and £8.50 for a baby under one, to spend on milk, fruit, vegetables and vitamins. Many eligible families don't know they qualify. Blackpool council ran a targeted outreach programme and reached 80% take-up — far above elsewhere — proving a national auto-enrolment scheme is achievable. In 2022–23, 12.4% of four- to five-year-olds in the most deprived areas were already obese — more than double the rate in the least deprived areas. The value hasn't been uprated since April 2021, while Scotland's equivalent scheme has been uprated. This is one of the most cost-effective levers available.My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 190 in my name and one or two other amendments in this group. Amendment 161 would allow auto-enrolment of families entitled to the Healthy Start prepaid card. The Healthy Start scheme provides extra cash for families on certain benefits when the mother is more than 10-weeks pregnant or has a child under four years old. The card can be used to pay for milk, formula milk, fruit, vegetables and vitamins. Families receive £4.25 per week for a pregnant woman and for each child aged one to four years old, and £8.50 for each baby under one year old—unless the Government have changed this in the last few days. The value of the payment has not increased since April 2021, despite considerable food cost inflation since then; Scotland’s similar scheme has been uprated. Some supermarkets, such as Sainsbury’s, have topped up the card with an extra £2 a week, which has been shown to increase purchases of these healthy foods. Presumably as well as increasing footfall in the shop, those supermarkets understand the importance of this extra money to the health of a young family on benefits. Even though it is not enough, it certainly helps in light of the inequalities in diet and obesity among young children below school age. In 2022-23, 12.4% of four to five year-olds in the most deprived areas were already living with obesity—more than double the number in the least deprived areas. These payments are an important lever to address this inequality. However, many eligible families do not know about their eligibility for this scheme and therefore suffer more food insecurity than they need to—I know one myself. The House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee last year heard that there are no current figures on uptake due to a “data issue”. That is just not good enough, because we know, anecdotally, that many families are missing out. The committee heard that the local authority in Blackpool was so concerned about it that it launched a programm…
The NHS Business Services Authority, which runs the Healthy Start scheme, holds no data on how many people are eligible — that is surely fixable, and it should be fixed. On Amendment 175: 'holiday hunger' has become a cliché because the reality is so stark. Children who depend on free school meals face a cliff edge every holiday. This amendment would mandate holiday activity and food programmes for pupils in receipt of free school meals — Ireland already runs exactly this kind of programme, reaching 58,000 disadvantaged pupils last year and expanding it next year.My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I attached my name to Amendment 161 on automatic enrolment for the Healthy Start scheme, as indeed did the noble Lord, Bethell—so if we are looking for broad, cross-party-political spectrums, this is one of those. The noble Baroness has already set out the powerful case for this amendment—I will just add one thing. She spoke about the Government’s apparent lack of data in this area. In the other place, my honourable friends asked the Government a whole series of questions about this. The response was that the NHS Business Services Authority, which operates the scheme, does not hold any data on the number of people eligible. That is surely fixable, so it should surely be fixed. I will focus on Amendment 175 in my name, which is kindly supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. It would insert a new clause to provide for “holiday … and activity programmes for pupils in receipt of free school meals”. This would be a lot of pupils. Before the Government’s recent changes, about one in four pupils were already eligible for free school meals. Those were extremely tight criteria; the Government have now opened them up a little. There is some debate about the number of children affected. None the less, these are children whom the Government have acknowledged, and most of whom the previous Government acknowledged, really need the support of hopefully healthy—I will get back to that—hot meals during term time. However, what happens at weekends? There is a reason why #HolidayHunger has almost become a cliché. Those children come from families whose budgets are at the absolute edge anyway. Then, the holidays come, and they cannot be guaranteed to be fed. This amendment would also ensure that there are activities and programmes relevant to those children during the school holidays. One thing we have seen in many of our areas, particularly some of our poorest areas, is that the availability of free activit…
The summer holidays are a cliff edge in every direction for families on free school meals: the childcare disappears and so does the only decent meal of the day. Amendments 175 and 194 address this directly. More money is going into school meals — I acknowledge that — but from what we heard at yesterday's Feeding Britain meeting, the investment hasn't filtered through yet.I shall be brief, because the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has set out comprehensively so much about the amendments that I support, Amendments 175 and 194. Amendment 175 echoes what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said about the need for “holiday hunger” to be sorted out in this country. For a parent the summer holidays are a cliff edge in all sorts of directions. Not only are you deprived of the possible childcare while struggle with your two jobs, your mortgage and so on, but your children are also deprived of possibly the only decent meal that they might get in the day—and I shall qualify the word “decent” when I come back to it in a minute.
The Government have committed £1 billion to school meals since election — that deserves to be acknowledged.I invite the noble Baroness to acknowledge that this Government, since they were elected, have committed £1 billion to school meals. It would be nice if she would mention that, as well as everything else, which I am sure we all agree about.
- I do acknowledge it — and the expansion of free school meals is very welcome. My worry is the evidence that it hasn't reached families yet. I hope it does, and soon.
Thank you—I acknowledge that more money is going in and absolutely acknowledge that there is an expansion of free school meals. I am only worried about the evidence that we have seen. Yesterday, we had a whole-day meeting of Feeding Britain, and I am afraid that a lot of the information that we heard is that this is not there yet. I hope that it filters down, because it is a very straightforward thing to do. I have put a lot of things into the amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Walmsley, on what school standards should be. It is a good thing for the Government to aim at, and I hope that they will look favourably on the amendment.
Amendments 183D and 186A would extend free breakfast club provision to secondary-age pupils in special schools — the current duty applies only to primary-age pupils, but special schools are overwhelmingly all-through settings where children are grouped by need rather than age. Without transport and one-to-one support being explicitly funded, pupils with SEND will be locked out of breakfast clubs before the school day even begins. A third of children with SEND entitled to free school meals do not access them: that figure will be even higher for breakfast. I also support mixed-model provision and robust data collection on who is actually being reached.My Lords, I have Amendments 183D, 186A and 187A in this group. I am delighted that the Bill will deliver on Labour’s manifesto commitment to offer universal breakfast clubs for all primary-age children, which will be a significant step towards ending morning hunger in schools across England. But there is a concern that the policy appears to be designed solely for mainstream pupils and, as a result, risks failing to meet the needs of those with special educational needs and disabilities. My amendments would make school breakfast provision more accessible to SEND pupils and create a more individualised approach to the provision. Although most pupils with SEND are in mainstream education, special provision is vital for many children and young people across the country, for whom there are different barriers to accessing education, which need to be acknowledged and supported by government. The format in the Bill for universal free breakfasts applies only to primary-age pupils, which would mean excluding secondary-age pupils in special schools from breakfast provision. That is inequitable and, within those schools, ultimately unworkable. Special schools are more likely than mainstream schools to be all-through settings, where children can be taught based on need rather than age. My Amendments 183D and 186A would therefore extend the school breakfast provisions in the Bill to include secondary-age pupils in special schools. Many of these children also access school transport funding, and it is vital that schools and local authorities work with families to create flexible transport approaches, so that anyone wanting to access breakfast clubs is then enabled to. Additionally, some children with SEND access one-to-one support during the school day. This support is a vital key in unlocking the education system to these young people. Without funding for this support being extended to breakfast clubs, they face the prospect of being locked out. For that reason, I support Amendme…
The Food, Diet and Obesity Committee's inquiry was a wake-up call: one in five children is overweight or obese when they start primary school, rising to one in four among the most deprived 20%. The holiday activities and food programme, introduced by the previous Government, currently has no statutory basis — Amendment 175 would fix that. On school food standards, the Government's announcement on 5 June that they are working to revise those standards is very welcome.My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 175, 190 and 194. The recent Food, Diet and Obesity Committee special inquiry, very ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was a wake-up call for all of us who served on it. We were shocked by the evidence from parents, campaigners, academics and others about the quality of food in schools. Our recommendations were powerful but are, sadly, unimplemented to date. However, there were bright spots, including Chefs in Schools, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which showed how good food can be delivered at very little extra cost. The Government’s announcement that they want a major shift to prevention in healthcare is welcome, but they need to follow through with children’s nutrition if they are serious about that. Frontier Economics has estimated that overweight and obesity costs the UK economy £98 billion every year. Much of that is due to increased spending on the NHS—money that is then denied to other departments. We have an obesity crisis—especially childhood obesity—in the UK. One in five children is already overweight or obese when they start primary school. That rises to one in four among the most deprived 20% of the population, who are most likely to be receiving free school meals. We also have increasing rates of tooth decay in children, and type 2 diabetes. Before 2000, it was unheard of for children to get type 2 diabetes. Many of the poorest children require a strong nutritional safety net to ensure that they are well fed and well nourished as they grow. Amendment 175 relates to the holiday activities and food programme. The introduction of that programme was a proud achievement of the previous Government. It does what it says on the tin, providing activities and meals to children on low incomes during the summer holidays at a time when they are not able to access free school meals, which many rely on. However, unlike free school meals, the scheme has no basis in legislation; this amendment woul…
- Amendment 187 would require the Secretary of State to promote a mixed model of breakfast provision alongside the breakfast club minimum. Magic Breakfast — with years of operational experience — shows that classroom-based and nurture-group delivery is up to 75% cheaper than a pure breakfast-club model and reaches pupils who cannot access an early drop-off due to transport, SEND needs or caring responsibilities. Only 16% of special schools partnered with Magic Breakfast operate a breakfast-club-only model. If the Government won't accept this amendment, please at least commit in guidance to explicitly encouraging mixed models and supporting schools to go beyond the minimum standard.
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 187 in my name, and I am supportive of others in this group, particularly those in the names of my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to promote and support a mixed model of breakfast provision, already mentioned by my noble friend, which would better meet the Government’s objectives, in the view of Magic Breakfast, which has years of experience of school breakfast provision, and to which I am grateful for its support. I have long been a supporter of free school breakfasts, particularly for children living in poverty, for whom the provision of breakfast can make so much difference to their well-being and their ability to benefit from their schooling. I was therefore delighted that the Government had included them for primary school children in the bill. However, I am persuaded by Magic Breakfast’s argument in favour of a more flexible approach that would embrace other forms of provision as well as breakfast clubs—“breakfast clubs plus”, if you like. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that the duty it places on schools is a minimum. The official guidance for the early adopter scheme makes it clear that schools are encouraged to go beyond the minimum standards. This amendment would signal that more clearly and would support schools in going beyond the minimum. Magic Breakfast very much supports the breakfast club model as a minimum standard, but suggests that, because its inflexibility means that it can limit access to food in ways we already heard about, it is not the best model on its own for tackling hunger and child poverty, which I know the Secretary of State cares passionately about. The two other models that could play a valuable role are classroom-based and nurture-group provision. Classroom provision is delivered within the main learning environment, either straight before the start of the school day or as part of a soft start to…
- Sport, arts, music and youth clubs collapse the moment they are tied only to a school: dropout spikes at 16, 18 and 21 — the end of each educational phase — because the social network disappears with it. Amendment 185 would bring voluntary-sector activity partners into breakfast club and pre-school provision, connecting children to networks that offer belonging and purpose beyond school gates.
My Lords, I would like to say a few words about my amendment, which is about a slightly different area but attached to the same part of the Bill. School activity has taken rather a pounding of late. If you link sport, arts, music, culture, youth clubs and so on only to a school, so they happen only in a school setting, they stop when school stops. If you make it just about education—sport is a very good example of this—dropout ages are 16, 18 and 21, because that is when you leave your educational institution. I hope that here we would have an opportunity to get the voluntary sector back talking to and helping young people. On the amendments I tabled, subsection (2A) in Amendment 185 is at least as important, because it means providing voluntary activity in schools so they can identify with and get in contact with these groups outside. The groups outside want to make contact. Their survival and the survival of their activity depends on getting new people in, and they are giving something positive back. Anybody who has had any experience with anything from an am-dram group to a rugby team knows there is a social network that is interdependent and builds up a sense of community and purpose, and helps that group and those people in it, effectively providing almost a family group at times. It is a place where you can find jobs, structure, help, support and purpose; it is all there. Apart from a diatribe that amateur sport will save the world, it is a fact that we are going to very solid, well-established ground here. I do not think anybody is going to disagree that these things are beneficial. We talk about the health aspect and the need for a good diet, but it is possible to put on weight on healthy food if you do not move. Let us look at how we can expand education not just through the education establishment. We should look to people who are doing positive things on a voluntary basis and helping you get out there. Just to cast an eye on the amendment from the noble L…
Amendment 184 asks the Government to explain the full whole-of-service cost of the breakfast club duty they are imposing on schools. A two-form-entry school with 50% take-up would need seven staff members during breakfast — a regulatory ratio, not an advisory one. That is 15% of a teacher's directed time gone if one has to be diverted. The spending review settlement is welcome, but when you account for expanded free school meal eligibility, SEND costs, teacher pay awards and national insurance increases, there appears to be no additional funding for the national rollout of breakfast clubs. That is a question that remains unanswered.My Lords, while we are still on breakfast clubs, I hope I can jump in to speak to Amendment 184, which relates to the additional costs of breakfast clubs in primary schools, combined with the quality of food expected. The amendment is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Agnew, who is sorry that he cannot be in the Committee right now. Like others in this group, this is, to a certain extent, a probing amendment to understand how much the Government understand about the whole-of-service costs that this part of the Bill will impose on schools and how they plan to meet them, based on conversations with those currently involved in making breakfast clubs work. I support breakfast clubs. I have previously declared an interest as a mum whose daughter goes to breakfast clubs, and I am a big fan of their provision. For me, they provide hugely valuable additional childcare that allows me and my partner to meet our work commitments, but I also recognise the role that they play in ensuring that no child starts school hungry and unable to learn. Turning to the practical implications, let us assume that a breakfast club in a primary school is taken up by 50% of the children in that school. A two-form entry school would require oversight by seven members of staff, and a school with a single form would require four members of staff. This does not include the catering element. That ratio is set out in regulations, so it is not advisory. A single-form entry primary school is highly unlikely to have sufficient unused non-teaching staff resource to handle the new obligation without drawing on directed teacher time. That brings us back to the vital concept of the hard cap on directed time. If, for example, a teacher now has to be diverted for an hour a day to support and supervise a breakfast club, that is around 170 hours a year out of 1,265. Some 15% of the time, they will no longer be available for other duties—most significantly teaching. How are the Government going to accoun…
Amendment 186 addresses a critical gap: the Bill is silent on how breakfast clubs will be accessible to children with special educational needs and disability. Transport may not arrive until the official start of the school day. Food can be a complex and distressing subject for children with ARFID and similar conditions. One-to-one support funded during the school day is not currently extended to breakfast clubs. Without addressing transport, specialist support and food provision specifically, breakfast clubs will not be inclusive — a third of children with SEND who are entitled to free school meals don't access them; the figure for breakfast will be worse.My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this group of amendments and to follow all noble Lords and give more than a nod to many of the amendments that have already been debated. I also wait in anticipation for my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s amendment, which I would have signed if I had been quicker with my drafting pen. I shall speak to Amendment 186 in my name and I thank my friend in sport, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for co-signing that amendment. I am also grateful to all organisations that have been in contact with me on the issues this amendment addresses. The Government have set out their plans for breakfast clubs, but in many ways those plans are silent when it comes to children with special educational needs and disability. There is a whole series of risks with not being clear in the Bill in relation to the issues that are specific to those groups of children: not least the question of food itself and the attendant issues; transport—how those young people get to school in the first instance—and the specialist support that is often required throughout the school day. Without consideration of those three issues, it is likely that the plans will leave children with special educational needs and disabilities with suboptimal—or potentially no—ability to access the breakfast club provisions. Current data shows that a third of children with special educational needs are entitled to free school meals but do not access them. That stat would increase if you considered the specific context of breakfast. The evidence is clear that, as other noble Lords have pointed out, when it comes to good-quality, nutritious food there is an academic benefit and a mental and physical benefit—food for thought, food for sport. If a third of young people with special educational needs and disabilities are not enabled to take the opportunity of free school meals, it seems clear that the Bill needs to be far more specific when it comes to the nature of provision that can…
Amendment 185A is a probing amendment on physical activity: 30% of children in the UK do less than 30 minutes of exercise a day, and a further 22.7% average between 30 minutes and one hour — so more than half our children, some 3.9 million, don't even meet the Chief Medical Officers' already very low 60-minutes-per-day target. We have not left a school sport legacy from London 2012. The Bill mentions well-being but says nothing about physical activity; this amendment sets the scene for later, more detailed amendments on curriculum time, teacher training, facilities and links between schools and local sports clubs.My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Holmes. I am a little surprised that we are making such fast progress in this Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is making her way here as quickly as possible from chairing another meeting, her amendment having been reached mildly in advance of when she thought. She is passionate on this subject. If anybody can get here quickly from a meeting, it will be one of our finest Paralympians in history. I hope that she will be joining us shortly. I welcome that we have grouped the importance of food with that of physical education and activities. To use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, if she had got her act together, I hope she would have also signed my amendment and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. When it comes to activities, it is exceptionally important. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, a passionate sports fan and an exemplar of fitness and well-being from Lanarkshire, would also have added his name to this amendment. It is great to see the Minister for football now taking her seat on the Front Bench for this important debate, even if she is not wholly focused on the importance of the UK Chief Medical Officers’ Physical Activity Guidelines, which are the subject of my amendment. Before I come to Amendment 185A, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that I thought she spoke outstandingly well about the Healthy Start scheme, but while the Healthy Start scheme focuses on nutrition, physical education in schools contributes to physical activity and overall well-being, which are essential to a healthy start in life. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in focusing on provision before the start of the first school session to improve well-being, highlighted an important point about not just community sports but arts and music and their engagement in the schools programme. In my Amendment 185A, I talk specifically about “the provision of activities c…
Whatever the Bill says about food, it will not deliver without leadership from head teachers and governors. Ofsted can comment on food standards but almost never does — that should change. On SEND pupils in autistic units within mainstream secondary schools: the unit can get left behind when it is physically separate from the main school building. The Minister's department needs to focus specifically on that.My Lords, I was not originally planning to trouble this chorus, so I will be very brief. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I absolutely endorse and support his Amendment 185A, which he spoke to just now in very cogent and powerful terms. If we can ensure that there is more sport in schools, that will have a read across to health and well-being and it will help counter obesity. I suggest that one of the most important takeaways from this short debate has been the figures put forward and explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, around the obesity crisis we are facing in this country. It really is quite shocking. The impact that will have on the health service in future generations is something we should all be really concerned about. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also made that point extremely well. During my 32 years as an MP, I tried to visit a school every fortnight. Over 32 years, that is quite a few schools. I saw a great variety—a huge spectrum—of performance in terms of school meals. To be honest, you can have whatever standards you want, but if there is not leadership in schools on the part of the head and the chairman of governors, and there is not determination and will to ensure that food is of a high standard, then even with more money schools will not deliver. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, made a very good point that it is not just about cost, as you can deliver better-quality food with really good ingredients at very little extra cost. That has been proven beyond any doubt. I had a look a moment ago at Ofsted’s responsibilities. Ofsted is not actually responsible for food in schools but can comment on the standards of food. I have read a huge number of Ofsted reports over the last number of years, and I do not recall any of them commenting on food standards, even when it is well known that food standards in that school are at a very low level. It is legally the Minister’s department’s responsibility, but Ofsted can c…
- There are probably more existing breakfast clubs in schools — funded from pupil premium or by local businesses — than the current pilot covers: those schools deserve thanks. The free universal meals for Key Stage 1 introduced by the coalition produced independent evidence of improved attendance, learning and social interaction. I'd like to know when the next phase of breakfast club expansion beyond the 750 schools happens, and what the Government's road map looks like across breakfast, holiday meals, and after-school provision — all of which cost money but are potentially life-changing.
My Lords, I always enjoy the sports love-in we get in these debates. I admire the support we have for each other. I was a great fan of the Blair Government in so far as, on the curriculum, they ensured that in primary schools there was at least two hours of physical education a day—and that happened. They also encouraged swimming and after-school activities, with the setting up of after-school clubs. That was really important but, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, suggested, since those days we have gone backwards. I agree with my noble friend Lord Addington that you can link after-school provision and breakfast clubs to activities as well, and that happens all the time. We have talked about the 400 breakfast clubs, or however many there are, but for years many schools up and down the country have been providing breakfast clubs, either for free or sponsored by a local business or provided by the school itself from its pupil premium or at very little cost. There are probably more breakfast clubs in that category than the current pilot has to offer. We should thank those schools for what they have been doing. I also have a great deal of time for the coalition Government’s decision to bring in free universal meals for all of key stage 1—that is years 1 and 2. The independent results from the provision showed that providing free meals improved attendance and learning, helped children who were in poverty and improved social interaction between children, because when you have breakfast together, you talk and relate to each other, and that is hugely important. The amendments that have been tabled have to be thought through very carefully. They all have something that adds to what we understand. I do not understand, for example, why the Government never consider automatic enrolment. Is it to try to save money? Surely not. I also think that we have got to a stage now where we have the 300 or 400 pilot schemes in the breakfast clubs, and I would like to know when the next pha…
- On Amendments 186B and 186C: can the Minister explain how the exemption application process will work in practice, and why teachers are not included in the consultation a school authority must undertake before applying? On SEND autistic units within secondary schools — they are often physically separated from the main building and risk being left behind when the Bill's duty applies to the school as a whole.
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the provision of food in schools. It is essential that children have a balanced diet to ensure that their development can progress as it should. As such, this is an incredibly important group of amendments, as a balanced diet is the cornerstone of ensuring that our children grow up healthily. I will speak first to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which I have signed. Amendment 186B is a probing amendment that seeks to understand why the Secretary of State would not be able to exempt a school from the duty of providing free breakfast clubs without a prior application from the school. It seeks to question how this application system will work in practice. Can the Minister say what the process will be and whether there will be a time by which the Secretary of State must respond? Amendment 186C probes the same area but seeks to clarify the consultation process that a school authority must take before making such an application. It seems important that teachers are also involved in the process, so will the Minister give greater detail about the process and explain why the teachers are not included?
- The government manifesto commitment is to free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school — not just food, but 30 minutes of childcare before the school day, universally and consistently available for the first time. On SEND: we are working with the early adopters — all 750, including special schools — to understand what works and where the challenges lie, before national rollout. On the Prime Minister's announcement today: new school sport partnerships, an enrichment framework, minimum PE teaching times, and equal sporting access for girls and for those with disabilities. On Amendments 190 and 194: we are revising the school food standards in consultation with sector experts, and we will share details of the consultation process in due course. On Amendment 184: the exemption power will operate on a case-by-case basis for extreme individual circumstances; schools seeking exemption must engage with their community, local authority and the department. The spending review funding for the national rollout will be announced separately from what has already been set out.
My Lords, we know—and it has been expressed several times in this very wide-ranging debate this afternoon—that too many children are not getting the nutrition that they need to thrive at school. We know that hunger affects concentration, behaviour and learning, yet many pupils arrive at school without breakfast. Many schools excel in meeting the nutritional standards expected of their food offer, but some fall short. We also know that excellent schemes such as Healthy Start remain underused, not because families do not need the help but because they are not aware of it. Clauses 27 and 28 seek to close the gap between intention and implementation. Together, they aim to ensure that no child is too hungry to learn and that our school food system works fairly and consistently for all. Amendments in group 7 cover a wide range of areas, from breakfast clubs, school food standards, the Healthy Start scheme and the holiday activities and food programme, and I will respond to all those amendments. To begin with the point about breakfast clubs, the delivery of breakfast clubs is a government manifesto commitment. We have committed to introduce free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school. Of course, I accept that, for very many years, including when I was last in the Department for Education, there have been schools that have offered support for breakfast, or breakfast clubs, in a whole variety of ways in order to support children. However, what there has never been is a consistent entitlement to that opportunity which is universally available for all children and free. That is what this legislation aims to promote. It places a duty on state-funded schools providing primary education to make accessible a free breakfast club lasting at least 30 minutes before the school day, for every pupil from reception to year 6, helping them start the day ready to learn. This is of course about food, but it is not only about food. Free breakfast clubs will mean that every prim…
- Is the funding for the national rollout of breakfast clubs already within the DfE's comprehensive spending review settlement, or will there be additional funding announced on top of that settlement?
I appreciate the detail that the Minister has gone into and that further information about the national rollout will happen in due course, but we have just had the comprehensive spending review, so can I ask whether the funding for the national rollout is included within the DfE’s settlement from the comprehensive spending review or whether there will be additional funding on top of that settlement to fund the national rollout? I am not asking how it will work but whether it is in the CSR settlement or whether there will be more, in addition, at a later point.
- The funding for the national rollout is separate from what has already been announced as part of the spending review settlement — we will bring forward that information. The early adopters scheme is key to designing the national rollout correctly.
What we have announced as part of the spending review settlement is separate to the funding for the national rollout, about which we will bring forward information. On Amendment 505B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, early adopters are key to ensuring that we get implementation right before national rollout. This learning will help develop our statutory guidance. More information will be made available, including on the exemptions process, to Parliament and in the public domain. On that exemptions power, in relation to Amendments 186B and 186C, I understand that there may be extreme and, critically, individual circumstances that could prevent individual schools meeting their duties to provide breakfast clubs. The exemption power is designed to address this on a case-by-case basis. That is why schools would be expected to apply and to be able to demonstrate their exemption eligibility under one of the criteria set out in the legislation. Our expectation is that any school seeking an exemption will actively engage with its school community, the local authority and the department to ensure that it has done all it can to meet its breakfast club duty.
- Did the Government actually respond to Amendment 187 on mixed models? I didn't hear anything explicit about that.
I am sorry to interrupt. It may be me—I may have missed it, as it getting to the end of the week—but I am not sure that my noble friend responded to Amendment 187 with the Government’s position on the mixed models. I know she talked a lot about physical activity and so forth. If she did say, can she repeat it? There is quite a lot that she is having to cram together into different slots, and I do not think there was anything explicit about the mixed model promoted by Amendment 187.
- The Government disagree with the 'all-flowers-blooming' approach. The morning club model — with the 30-minute childcare element — is the minimum standard. Schools can of course add other provision alongside it, and the early adopters will test how existing provision sits alongside the new duty, but we are not mandating a variety of delivery routes as equivalent alternatives.
The point I made was that I and the Government disagree with my noble friend that there should be a sort of all-flowers-blooming approach to breakfast clubs. I set out the reason why the Government believe there should be a basic set of conditions and criteria for breakfast clubs. Of course, it is completely possible that schools may well then decide to put on other provision alongside the basic provision laid out in the criteria set out for breakfast clubs in legislation—this is one of the things that we will look at in the early adopters scheme—but the Government are not favouring the idea that there would be a variety of different routes. That is because of the points I made about this being about the provision not just of food but of the club and of the 30 minutes of childcare. Those things are quite an important basis of what is being delivered through the breakfast club programme.
- Will the findings from the 750 pathfinder schools be published before the regulations implementing national rollout are laid? Please give us that commitment.
I just have one more question for the Minister before we move on from breakfast clubs. I really appreciate what she said about the pathfinder schools being used to understand how, for example, the very clear provision that the Government want would work alongside existing provision or extended provision and to learn from that. Can the Minister commit to publishing the findings of those pathfinder schools and that initial work and laying those findings before the House before we consider the regulations that would come subsequent to this legislation, so that we can see and fully understand what has been learned and taken on from those initial 750 schools when moving to a national rollout?
- Monitoring and evaluation are a fundamental part of the early adopters scheme — the results will be available for noble Lords and others to analyse. I have made that clear.
I have already made clear that monitoring and evaluation are a fundamental part of the early adopters scheme. That will not only enable us to work out how to develop the scheme further in terms of a national rollout but allow noble Lords and others to analyse the extent to which the model is working and what some of the challenges may be around issues raised by noble Lords this afternoon.
- To be really specific: will those evaluation outcomes be published before the regulations are laid? Yes or no?
To be really specific, will the outcomes of that monitoring and evaluation be made available before the regulations are laid to implement breakfast clubs nationally? That is my question. If the Minister’s answer is no, that is fine. Maybe she has been clear, but I would hope it would be yes—that is what I would like to know.
- The point of the early adopters scheme is to design the national rollout. If you want me to commit to bringing further information back to the House, I will. The information will be widely available in any case.
What I have been absolutely clear about is that the point of the early adopters scheme is to enable us to design the national rollout. If the noble Baroness wants me to commit to bringing back further information to the House, I am of course willing to do that. My point is that the information will in fact be much more widely available in terms of all of the issues that have been raised by noble Lords. I thought that I have been pretty clear about that.
- The Prime Minister's announcement today on school sport partnerships is very welcome — but very similar to a proposal Gordon Brown made before London 2012 that failed to materialise after 2010. Can the Minister confirm whether the costs of what has been announced today will come from the DfE's departmental budget or from elsewhere in government?
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the statement that was made by the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon, which is very welcome. It is very similar to a proposal made by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which, sadly, did not happen, in the build-up to the London 2012 Games. One reason why it faltered was because the cost associated with delivering those objectives was very high indeed. I happen to believe it was well worth the budget. Can the Minister confirm whether the costs associated with what has been announced this afternoon will be covered by her departmental budget, or are they coming from elsewhere in government?
- I won't go into those funding details here — but Gordon Brown's plans didn't come to fruition because, after 2010, Gordon Brown was no longer Prime Minister and those who were didn't choose to continue them. That is why it has taken until this Labour Government to make a renewed commitment to that kind of sporting entitlement.
No, I am not going to go into those details, and neither would the noble Lord expect me to. He challenged me about whether any announcements had been made, and I pointed him to one made today. I will just point out, however, that the reason why the plans outlined by Prime Minister Gordon Brown did not come to fruition was because, of course, after 2010, Gordon Brown was not the Prime Minister anymore and those who were did not choose to take forward those plans. That is why we have had to wait until this point, under a Labour Government, for another commitment to the sort of sporting entitlement that he asked about earlier. To move on from breakfast clubs, I turn to Amendments 190 and 194 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Boycott, which seek to establish a school food improvement scheme and to update the school food standards. I recognise the importance of these reforms and the vital work that noble Lords have done to raise the profile of school food policy. That is why I am pleased that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was able to announce in the other place, on 5 June, that we are working with stakeholders and experts from across the sector to revise those standards, to ensure that they support our work to create the healthiest generation of children in history. We will share further details on this consultation in due course. I invite noble Lords to engage on this, including on the important question of how we can ensure that schools comply with the updated school food standards. I am sure that that will build on the work already done by the compliance pilot and by the work done to support governors to challenge and assure the quality of food that is being offered in their schools. There were several questions raised relating to free school meals and entitlement. We will of course have the opportunity to return to those and to deal with them when we come to the group that is specifically about free school…
- I welcome every step forward on food, exercise and well-being. I was disappointed not to hear *how* the Government can auto-enrol eligible Healthy Start families rather than why they cannot. Tony Blair — interviewed for the recent Nourishing Britain report — said his advice to any Government on food policy is: be bold and act fast. I say the same.
My Lords, I have really enjoyed this debate, which has covered many aspects of the well-being of children, including good food and exercise and the effects they have on their health, learning and ability to socialise. I particularly enjoyed a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, when he said he enjoyed seeing the children “tuck in”. I think all of us want to see children tucking in to healthy, tasty food. I was a little disappointed by the Minister on Amendment 161. I had hoped that she would be able to tell me how she can do it, rather than why she cannot, but I think I shall have to be satisfied for the time being. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, responded to the recommendations of the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, and I expressed disappointment that all she was able to tell me was that she was going to implement some of the things that the previous Government had already promised, but she did promise that there would be more. I said that I was really encouraged by that, and I hope that the Minister took on board that I said earlier, in terms, that I very much welcomed the widening of eligibility for free school meals and the commitment to reviewing school food standards, which Minister Morgan promised me last November. That is very good indeed. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that I welcome every extra penny that goes to providing children with more good food. My noble friend mentioned Tony Blair. I do not know if the Minister is aware that a few months ago, Henry Dimbleby and Dolly van Tulleken produced a report called Nourishing Britain, in which they interviewed previous Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State for Health and other appropriate Ministers and asked them what they wished they had done. Most of them said that they wished they had done more. Tony Blair said that his advice to a Government is to be bold and act fast. While welcoming what the Governmen…
Set binding child poverty reduction targets and report on them annually to Parliament — that is what Amendment 163 asks. Too much parliamentary time is spent chasing the horse after it has bolted. Free school meals and breakfast clubs are responses to inherited poverty, not cures for it. Targets would force Government to look at the causes — the cultural, social and philosophical reasons why poverty reproduces across generations — and measure whether their actions are actually dismantling it.Amendment 163 in my name would place a duty on the Secretary of State to set binding child poverty reduction targets and report on them annually to Parliament. This amendment will hold the Government to their promise to reduce child poverty and enable them to measure their progress. This amendment would secure long-term focus on tackling child poverty which transcends changes of government. I have listened to the former discussion and I am of the opinion that a lot of government and parliamentary time goes into chasing the horse once the horse has bolted. That is one of the big problems we have. We are talking about food and the fact that our children do not get fed properly; the poverty of knowledge, experience and need means that there are many millions of children in this country who have inherited poverty and, because they inherited poverty, they have a particular attitude towards food. I myself came from the Tizer-swilling, ice cream, Kit-Kat, Twix generation that took all those sorts of things, largely because that was what was on offer. I was culturally educated and socially created in that tradition. I would like to see the Government have targets on reducing poverty, and I would like to have a debate on how we reduce it. I am not saying that I stand against the idea of giving children food—I welcome it. We welcomed it in the Big Issue and we celebrated the occasions when people like Marcus Rashford rushed forward and said, “Let’s have more food and free school meals for children”. I am a great believer in that. But the point is, when are we going to move beyond always responding once the horse has bolted? When are we going to move to a situation where we prevent children needing this? One of the things that we could be doing is setting targets. We would be helping the Government, and ourselves, to look at all the things we can do to get rid of poverty, prevent poverty and cure people of poverty. I do not think that being well fed at school will necessarily…
- Targets matter. Under the last Labour Government legally binding child poverty targets galvanised civil society, local authorities and central government — and child poverty fell by 600,000, or six percentage points. When subsequent Governments removed them, child poverty started rising again. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation finds that the average person in poverty now has an income 28% below the poverty line, up from 23% in the mid-1990s. CPAG's interviews with 40 practitioners found unanimous support for legally binding targets with clear milestones, including a target on depth of poverty, not just the headline rate.
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in support of Amendment 163, to which I have added my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for tabling it. A recent article in the academic journal Social Policy & Administration on the harm done to children by the benefit cap and the two-child limit, demonstrated the implications of poverty for children’s well-being. The authors concluded that their evidence provides “a stark illustration of the multiple and severe harms”, including social and emotional harms, “caused by poverty, and … the benefit cap and the two-child limit”. Similarly, other academic research points to the “hidden injuries” and “degradations” suffered particularly by families in deep poverty. The Children’s Society’s The Good Childhood Report makes clear the damage poverty does to children’s well-being. New research from the Child Poverty Action Group, of which I am honorary president, highlights the ways in which lack of money can prevent secondary school children attending school and limits their time at school. The establishment of the child poverty task force and the commitment to an ambitious child poverty strategy, which is the kind of thing the noble Lord is asking for, is thus very welcome. In a report I wrote recently for Compass, I supported the case made by End Child Poverty and many others for legally binding targets with clear milestones, pointing to the experience of the last Labour Government, when targets helped to galvanise action on child poverty, leading to a reduction of 600,000 or six percentage points. That experience underlined the importance of targets to the effectiveness of the emergent strategy. CPAG conducted interviews with 40 practitioners with a range of expertise relating to child poverty. They were unanimous in their view that an effective strategy must set clear targets. CPAG argued that such targets for the short, medium and long term need to be “aspirational yet achievable”, learning from other countries. The pr…
Education is the route out of poverty — Gordon Brown was right that it costs more not to invest in children than to invest in them. This amendment would ensure the child poverty strategy is not just written but acted on. A lot of the work done on this Bill will prove expensively wasted if there is no binding mechanism to measure whether it is actually reducing poverty.My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 163, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bird, to which I added my name. One of the advantages of membership of this House is the free subscription to the New Statesman, which recently devoted a whole issue to Britain’s child poverty epidemic. From it, I will quote Andrew Marr, who wrote that “child poverty is inescapably central to any party with a sense of justice and fairness—it creates damage for a lifetime”. As a teacher, I am increasingly aware of the growing research that shows that education is not the leveller that we thought it was. What comes in goes out. Poverty, lack of opportunities, transport and cultural capital all impact on a child’s progress and attainment. As Gordon Brown said, it costs more not to invest in children than to invest in them. We have déjà vu here. Once again, like the curriculum review, the Bill is arriving before a crucial report. This amendment, so movingly and passionately introduced by my noble friend, enshrines that the findings of the child poverty strategy are acted on. If they are not, a lot of work that we have been doing on this Bill will eventually be proven to have been expensively wasted.
- 4.3 million children — 29% — live in relative poverty. The Child Poverty Act 2010 set targets and child poverty fell; when those targets were removed child poverty started rising. That tells us what we need to know: you cannot go on a journey without knowing where you want to arrive.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his tour de force. One thing he did not say was that, as soon as children, particularly children from low-income families, go into school, the gap in their learning narrows as a result of child poverty. Growing up in poverty is strongly linked to lower educational outcomes, worse health and reduced lifetime earnings. As of 2022-23, 4.3 million children, 29%, in the UK lived in relative poverty. Rates are higher for single-parent and minority-ethnic families. An estimated £500 million in unpaid child maintenance exists, and many lone parents do not receive the money that is due to them. The Child Poverty Act 2010 led to measurable progress until—and this is crucial—the targets were removed in 2016. During that period, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%. We could all get involved in talking about the effects of child poverty, but the amendment is about saying, “We need to have targets”, and that is absolutely right. You cannot go on a journey unless you know what you want to achieve and measure as you go along. I will repeat the evidence to support that: the Child Poverty Act 2010 had targets, and it led to improvements. As soon as those targets were removed, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%. What does that tell us? Does that tell us targets are right or that they are not the best way of moving forward? I do not know, but my common sense tells me that you need to have targets to understand where you are going. I do not understand what I am saying, to be quite honest, because I thought the targets were—
The noble Lord said something confusing about targets being removed and child poverty falling — did he mean it rose?I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I have not spoken on the Bill, but I have been present for quite a lot of the debates. I am slightly confused by the what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, and I wonder whether he meant to phrase it like that. He said that when the targets were removed, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%. Does he mean it the other way round—that it rose, rather than fell? I just wondered whether he might be able to clarify that.
- You're right — I misspoke. The targets were in place and child poverty fell; when they were removed, it started rising. My gut feeling is confirmed: you need targets to know if you are heading in the right direction. I apologise for misleading the Committee.
I have to be careful here with what I say. When are you are in Committee, you are dealing with dozens of amendments, and you get handed briefs to do that. Initially, I read that to be the way the noble Baroness said it. But when I read it again, I thought, “This does not make sense. Could it be the other way round?” I slightly inwardly panicked and thought, “I am not going to mislead the Committee and say something that is not correct”. I am going to put that down and say that my common sense tells me that if you are doing something, you need to know where you are going on that journey. You need to be able to understand that a target is set and ask, “Have I reached that target or not?” The best example of that is—
- Under the last Labour Government, the targets came first — they were already there before the Child Poverty Act 2010 made them legally binding — and child poverty fell. Under subsequent Governments child poverty rose. The noble Lord's instinct is right: targets galvanised everyone, and that is why so many practitioners and charities unanimously call for them.
I am so sorry; this is perhaps just to put the noble Lord out of his misery. I remind noble Lords that under the last Labour Government, there were targets. They were made legally binding in the 2010 Act, but the targets were already there, and child poverty fell. Under the subsequent Governments, child poverty started to rise again, and it has risen. I am not saying it is just because of the targets, but the targets certainly helped to galvanise civil society, local authorities and central government. That is why the noble Lord’s gut feeling is absolutely right.
- Reducing child poverty is a shared goal across the House. But binding central targets risk oversimplifying a complex, locally differentiated challenge. The causes of poverty in Hackney are different from those in Jaywick, even though the two are fifty miles apart. Targets can distort behaviour toward moving families just above the poverty line — the 'poverty plus a pound' problem — without addressing underlying causes. Local authorities and combined authorities are often better placed to respond to their specific poverty landscape than Whitehall. That said, I agree with the noble Lord that action must match ambition, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
My Lords, I begin by stressing that reducing child poverty is a goal that we clearly share across the House, and tackling the challenge of child poverty must be a priority for every Government. This Government have been very clear on that point. Understandably, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, reflects his desire to drive forward real progress on this issue, and he brings extraordinary experience from his own life. My remarks and caution about the noble Lord’s amendments are in the spirit of honesty and respect to the noble Lord and in no way diminish the aims of his amendment but raise, I hope, reasonable questions about the approach. As the noble Lord said—I have never heard the phrase used like this before, but I thought the concept of inherited poverty was very helpful—we know that child poverty stems from a number of different interconnected factors, including employment patterns, housing costs, structure of families, educational opportunities and regional economic conditions. My overriding concern is that having binding central targets risks oversimplifying this very complex challenge and could overlook local interventions that genuinely improve children’s lives. The challenges and underlying causes of a child living in poverty in Hackney or in Jaywick are significantly different, despite them being only about 50 miles apart. In fact, I would argue that, for a child growing up in poverty, the differences between Bristol and Weston-super-Mare, which are on each other’s doorstep, are also very great. We have seen repeatedly how targets can distort behaviour and priorities. When governments and local authorities face binding targets, there is a risk that they are driven to pursue interventions that improve statistics rather than outcomes. This can lead to short-term fixes that artificially move families just above the poverty threshold without addressing the underlying causes; somewhere back to the empty stable and bolted horse that the noble Lord, L…
- Why do the noble Baroness think that all the charities working in this field, and local authorities, and academics, are calling for legally binding targets if they would have the distorting effects she describes?
Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I just ask her why she thinks that all the charities working in the field and with local authorities, as well as academics, are calling for legally binding targets, if they would have the effect she says and would not help to address the systemic causes of poverty?
- I respect those opinions — but there is plenty of evidence across many policy areas that targets distort behaviour. I should also correct the record from our earlier group: I was wrong to suggest the profit figures quoted by the Minister on Tuesday covered the whole sector. Rereading Hansard, she correctly described them as covering the 19 largest providers. I apologise.
Obviously, I respect their opinions, but there is plenty of evidence—and the noble Baroness will know this in other contexts, not necessarily about child poverty—where targets have distorted behaviour, not always delivering on the aspiration of those who recommended them at the time. Before I sit down, I would like to put on record a clarification about my closing remarks earlier on the first group that we debated today. I remain very concerned about the lack of a comprehensive and up-to-date dataset and analysis of the financial position of independent providers won from the Government, but I was wrong to say, in the earlier debate on Tuesday evening, that the figure the Minister quoted regarding the profits of the independent children’s home sector was for the whole sector. When I reread Hansard, possibly for the third time, it was clear that she had stated that it was for the largest 20 providers. In fact, the figure was for the 19 largest providers, but none the less I apologise to the Committee, to the Minister and to officials.
- Does the noble Baroness agree that the context matters enormously here? Targets were removed after the 2008 global financial crash, which caused GDP to fall significantly — and since child poverty is measured relative to median income, a GDP decline mechanically raises measured child poverty regardless of government policy. Growing GDP is probably more important to reducing relative child poverty than any specific target.
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I inject one further thought that she might agree with? While the sentiments adduced in this debate are entirely right, and the concern is absolutely an important concern, does she agree that, in that discussion of centrally imposed targets versus the removal of targets, looking at the particular circumstances is profoundly important? The targets were removed after what those of us who do financial services call the global financial crash, when GDP declined considerably—in fact, we are still seeing the effects of what happened in 2008—but, because child poverty is relative, a decline in GDP has a material impact on whether child poverty goes up or down. I wonder whether that should be part of the consideration of where the targets fit. My own view is that some targets are important, but it is more important to get GDP going, which I think is the Government’s intent in this case, so relative child poverty of itself becomes less of a problem.
- I agree entirely.
The noble Baroness makes a very helpful point, and I absolutely agree with it.
- Education is fundamental — you cannot resolve poverty unless a child is successfully educated. Local authorities should prioritise educational achievement for children in poverty above all else.
Very briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Hampton in saying that education is fundamental here. You do not resolve poverty unless a child is put through education successfully. Therefore, my plea is that the main message from this debate should be that local authorities should prioritise promoting education for children in poverty. That is actually the way to a successful resolution of this problem.
- Statutory targets for child poverty would not in themselves drive reductions in poverty — they can be reversed, as has happened, and risk narrowing effort to pulling children just above the poverty line rather than tackling depth of poverty. This Government's child poverty strategy, due in the autumn, will set out our commitment to a 10-year plan for lasting reduction, backed by the spending review — expanding free school meals (lifting 100,000 children out of poverty by end of Parliament), a £1 billion crisis and resilience fund, £13.2 billion for the warm homes plan, and the biggest boost to affordable housing in a generation. The Child Poverty Taskforce will continue across all four themes: income, essential costs, financial resilience and local early-years support. The Government already publish annual poverty statistics by statute, and we will set out monitoring and accountability arrangements in autumn. The defining issue is not whether targets are set but the character of the Government.
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for the clarification at the end of her comments. Amendment 163 has enabled us to have a very good debate about the importance of making progress on child poverty. I agree fully with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and my noble friend Lady Lister for ambition on reducing child poverty. The success of the last Labour Government in tackling child poverty is the legacy that we are aiming to build on in this one. We want to see an enduring reduction in child poverty over this Parliament as part of a long-term, 10-year strategy for lasting change. The child poverty strategy, which we will publish in the autumn, will set out the Government’s strong commitment to this and, importantly, how we plan to achieve this reduction. The strategy will tackle overall child poverty as well as going beyond that to focus on the children in the deepest poverty, lacking essentials and what is needed to give every child the best start in life. I very strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bird, that this is a multifaceted problem. Several noble Lords have identified particular issues that are likely to benefit children. I agree that education, and particularly recognition of the need for education for disadvantaged children, which is also a key theme for this Government, is an important part of that, but there are in fact a complex and interrelated range of issues that lead to child poverty and that can help to alleviate it. We have already started to take substantive action across major drivers of child poverty through the spending review 2025. This includes: an expansion of free school meals, which will lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of the Parliament; establishing a long-term crisis and resilience fund, supported by £1 billion a year; investing in local family support services; and extending the £3 bus fare cap. We have also announced the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a genera…
- I'm disappointed on targets — but the Child Poverty Taskforce's engagement directly with parents and children who have experienced poverty has been one of its best features. Can the Government commit to keeping that engagement going as part of the monitoring and accountability mechanism?
I have a last point to make. I am obviously disappointed by my noble friend’s response on targets, but she talked about monitoring and accountability. One of the really good things about the way the Child Poverty Taskforce has gone about its work has been the way it has engaged with—and listened to—both parents and children with experience of poverty. One recommendation made by a lot of people in the sector is that this engagement with those who have experience of poverty should continue as part of the monitoring and accountability mechanism. I just wanted to throw that into the pot.
- The Taskforce has been genuinely broad in its engagement — with those who have direct experience of poverty, with organisations that represent them, and across the full range of government levers. That breadth of approach, and this Government's commitment, is what will make the real difference.
I thank my noble friend for recognising the enormously broad way in which the Child Poverty Taskforce has undertaken its work, under the leadership of my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It has been about looking at the whole breadth of actions that this Government can take, and engaging with those who have the most experience of what it means to be poor, as well as others who represent them. I hope and believe that broad approach and the commitment of this Labour Government will make the real impact to children that we all seek.
- School uniforms, breakfast clubs and social housing are responses to poverty — not cures for it. The horse has bolted and we are chasing it downhill. What we need is a strategy that dismantles the philosophy of inherited poverty: the 'mind-forg'd manacles' that mean a child raised in poverty will reach for the Coca-Cola regardless of whether they know it is bad for them. Targets would force us to ask what more we must do — not just measure how comfortable we have made the emergency.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her assessment, but I do not agree. It is interesting that, when she outlined how she will tackle poverty, she mentioned school uniforms, breakfast clubs and social housing. I have an opinion, which I expressed earlier; I think that food clubs are a response to the fact that the horse has bolted and we are chasing it down the hill. The same goes for uniforms: they are not necessarily methodologies to dismantle poverty.
- I agree with the noble Lord that a multifaceted approach is essential and that we must look at the underlying causes — reducing costs for families is one important strand alongside the Taskforce's cross-government strategic work. That is exactly the argument I was making.
Does the noble Lord accept that I was not making that argument? What I was actually arguing—in agreement with him—is that we need a multifaceted approach and that we need to look at the causes for people ending up in poverty. Taking action to reduce the costs for families around the country—the costs he has just referenced—is an important thing that the Government can do, alongside the more strategic, detailed and cross-cutting work that the child poverty task force is also doing.
- I agree 100% — we must never abandon people in an emergency. But if emergency response consumes most of our effort, we will never dismantle poverty. Social housing as currently configured produces only 2–4% social mobility: it has lost its sociability and become a place of deep need, not a route upward. Targets would keep our eyes on the bigger prize — the philosophical and cultural dimensions of inherited poverty — not just the next emergency fix.
I agree with the Minister 100%. We should never, ever abandon people who are in an emergency. But, if that is what we are doing, and if that is what most of our efforts go into, we will never come to the day when we dismantle poverty. My problem—I have talked about this on a number of occasions in the House—is around social housing. I had an argument with a leading Member of this House, who was in social housing for many decades. I made the point to him, “Isn’t it interesting and damning that, if you give somebody social housing in current times, there’s a distinct possibility that their children and their children’s children—and, probably, their children’s grandchildren—will live in poverty?” Because social housing produces only in the region of 2%, 3% or 4% of the social mobility of finishing your levels and getting into university or an apprenticeship. Social housing is not a route out of poverty; it is, in a way, a stumbling block. We will not move forward until we revolutionise social housing and go back to the kind of social housing that I had when we moved from the slums of Notting Hill and into a Catholic orphanage. We then left that and went into social housing in Fulham, where we had sociable housing: the people there included police officers and a trainee teacher. I have talked about this on countless occasions. We had our first parking warden; we did know what to do with him, because most of us did not have a car. The point is that there was a social element, including the disabled and the old. The problem is that, because social housing has lost its sociability and has become a place of refuge and deep need—which we cannot turn against—we have people who remain for ever in an emergency. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, because they argued for targets far more eloquently than me—this is my first amendment, so I am getting used to it and learning on the job. The point is that targets will get us t…
- If you bring the amendment back, will you consider adding a target specifically on deep poverty — that is where so much of what you have described so eloquently lands?
My Lords, if the noble Lord brings his amendment back, will he consider adding a target on deep poverty? A lot of what he has said so eloquently has been about people who have been pushed, by a range of policies, into deep poverty.
- I have never heard the concept of 'deep poverty' before, but I take the point. Poverty has a uniformity — its philosophy and 'mind-forg'd manacles' — regardless of geography. Until we attack that inheritance, we will not make lasting progress. Targets would concentrate minds on that task.
I have never heard of the concept of deep poverty. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said that poverty is different if you are in Weston-super-Mare or in Bristol. I was privileged to be banged up with people from the countryside, from the little cities and the big cities. I met all of them. We had a uniformity of thinking, which was so self-destructive. There is uniformity. There is a philosophy of poverty. Until we break through that, we are not going anywhere. The idea of relative poverty is ridiculous. Unfortunately, we have increasing poverty because we have not attacked the inheritance of poverty. So many people break out of poverty because the parents choose not to simulate or duplicate what has happened before. My wife’s family come from poverty in India. They said goodbye to poverty. All the children have gone through college, done the levels and been to university. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.