Committee stage in the Commons
The Committee scrutinised clauses 7–12, covering staying-close support for care leavers, regional care co-operatives, deprivation of liberty orders for children, and new Ofsted enforcement powers against provider groups.
NOWe still don't have the impact assessment for the Bill, three days into Committee — that's disappointing and it leaves real questions hanging. On Clause 7, no reasonable person disputes that care leavers need support to live independently, and we back the Government's objective. But the Bill gives local authorities too much discretion on whether to offer staying-close support — the default should be that support *is* offered, with the exception being withholding it. How will authorities identify a 'trusted person' for a young person who has every reason not to trust adults? And this must not become just another signposting service — care leavers need a human being, not a phone number.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As we return to our work on the Bill with clause 7, I want to say that it is still a bit disappointing that we have been through Second Reading, and here we are on the third day of Committee, and we still do not have the impact assessment for the Bill, which could potentially answer some of the questions that we will be raising today. I know the Ministers want to do the right thing in trying to get it out of the relevant committee and published, and I hope they can succeed in doing that pretty soon. On clause 7, no reasonable person would argue that a young person leaving care does not require some support to live independently. Young people who have not been in care often require years of support to live independently, and they are less likely to be doing so away from home and will be in less difficult circumstances. Again, the Opposition support the Government’s objectives in this clause to provide staying close support, but we have some questions about how it is to work in practice. First, the Bill gives discretion to the local authority on whether this support is in the best interests of a young person’s welfare. Surely the assumption should be that the support is offered, and it should be the exception to withhold it. One advantage in having the onus turned round would be that the local authority would have to record and explain decisions not to offer that kind of support. What sort of criteria are the local authorities supposed to use to make those choices, and will that be consistent across the country? Secondly, there is also a question about the process for identifying the person who is to help the young person. The Department’s policy summary quite rightly talks about identifying a “trusted person”, which is obviously very important to this kind of young person. By definition, some young people in care have pretty good reasons not to trust adults around them, so how are local authorities to go…
The Liberal Democrats welcome the new requirements in Clause 7. Care-experienced young people are nine times more likely to experience homelessness, and homelessness rates for care leavers have risen 54% in five years. Amendment 40 adds financial support services to the definition of staying-close support — financial literacy can have a huge negative impact on care leavers living independently far earlier than their peers. Amendment 41 would require authorities to signpost care leavers to supported lodgings: young people aged 16–23 living with a trained host who teaches them practical life skills. Please support both amendments.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The Liberal Democrats welcome the new requirements on local authorities in the clause to assess whether certain care leavers aged under 25 require the provision of staying close support. The charity Become, which supports care-experienced children, has found that care-experienced young people are nine times more likely to experience homelessness than other young people and that homelessness rates for care leavers have increased by 54% in the last five years. This is a really important clause. Amendment 40 deals with the definition of staying close support. It uses the existing definition of the services, which should be set out in the local offer from local authorities. Become’s care advice line has found that care leavers are often unaware of the financial support available from the local authority, such as council tax discounts, higher education bursaries and other benefits. That can lead them to face unnecessary financial hardship. That is the reason for the financial support part of the amendment. More generally, financial literacy can have a huge negative impact on care leavers, who are more likely to live independently from an earlier age than their peers—they are not necessarily living with parents or guardians. We would really like to see local authorities lay out that financial literacy support to help them understand what is available to them. Amendment 41 would add information about supported lodgings to the list of available support services. Supported lodgings are a family-based provision within a broader category of supported accommodation. A young person aged 16 to 23 lives in a room within their supporting lodgings, which are the home of a host, who is tasked with supporting the young person as they go towards adulthood and independence, giving them practical help and teaching them important life skills such as financial literacy, budgeting and cooking. Requiring local authorities to sig…
Amendment 23 raises an important principle, but pathway planning — which already requires care leavers' wishes to be considered — is a statutory requirement, and our statutory guidance will make this clear. The trusted person will often be someone already known to the young person. On Amendment 40, statutory guidance already addresses financial needs and independent living skills through the pathway plan. On Amendment 41, Clause 7(4)(a) already covers help to 'find and keep suitable accommodation', which includes supported lodgings — we will make that explicit in guidance.I will speak to amendments 23, 40 and 41 and to clause 7. Amendment 23 was tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, and I thank them for it. The amendment draws attention to an important principle that must run through the whole approach that local authorities take to listening and responding to the wishes and feelings of their care leavers. When a local authority is assessing what staying close support should be provided to a young person, it should have regard to their wishes, which is why we intend to publish statutory guidance that will draw on established good practice that we want all local authorities to consider. It will cover how that will work, with interconnecting duties, especially the duty to prepare a pathway plan and keep it under a review. In developing and maintaining the plan and support arrangements, there is a requirement for the care leaver’s wishes to be considered. In response to the specific questions raised by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, as I said, pathway planning is already a statutory requirement to eligible care leavers, so the statutory guidance will set out how and when care leavers should be assessed based on their own needs and using the current duties to support care leavers with reference to a trusted individual. Those individuals will often already be known to the young person, such as a former children’s home staff member, and that will clearly be set out in the statutory guidance. We will base that on the best practice that we see already in train. On the lifelong links, we are currently funding 50 family finding, befriending and mentoring programmes, which are being delivered by 45 local authorities. The programmes will help children in care and care leavers to identify and connect with important people in their lives, improving their sense of identity and community and creating and sustaining consistent, stable and loving relationships. I rec…
Good to hear that supported lodgings will feature in statutory guidance. The charity Home for Good has told me that some local authorities can't find money for supported lodgings because they're unsure whether fostering funds or staying-close funds can be used. Real clarity on that funding question is essential to make this option work in practice.It is good to hear that supported lodgings will be referred to in statutory guidance. I heard from the charity Home for Good, which is involved in setting up those networks of local authorities that provide supported lodgings, that in some local authorities money for supported lodgings cannot be found, because the local authority thinks that fostering money cannot be used for supported lodging and that it cannot use staying close support. Real clarity that staying close support funding can be used for supported lodgings is important to make this option work.
- We'll produce statutory guidance to make all of this absolutely clear, including on digital options — which local authorities already use widely to connect with care leavers, and which we expect good practice on. Clause 7 enhances the existing framework and will help care leavers find stable accommodation and access wraparound services.
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s interest in this matter. We will produce the statutory guidance to make all this absolutely clear. Before I come to clause 7 stand part, I want to respond to an additional question from the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston that I did not answer earlier. He asked about digital options and, as someone standing here using an iPad, I recognise the importance of that, particularly for young people. The local authorities already work with a range of digital options to connect with their care leavers, and we would certainly expect that to continue, and expect good practice to continue being developed and to be set out in the statutory guidance. Turning to clause stand part, clause 7 requires each local authority to consider whether the welfare of former relevant children up to the age of 25 requires staying close support. Where this support is identified as being required, the authority must provide staying close support of whatever kind the authority considers appropriate, having regard to the extent to which that person’s welfare requires it. Staying close support is to be provided for the purpose of helping the young person to find and keep suitable accommodation and to access services relating to health and wellbeing, relationships, education and training, employment and participating in society. This support can take the form of the provision of advice, information and representation, and aims to help to build the confidence and skills that care leavers need to be able to live independently. The new duties placed on local authorities by this clause will not operate in isolation. They will be part of the existing legislative framework, which sets out the duties that every local authority already owes to its former children in care aged 18 to 24. This clause enhances and expands the arrangements for those children by supporting them to find long-term stable accommodation and access to essential wraparound services. The new statu…
- I'd like to push Amendment 23 to a vote.
I would like to push amendment 23 to a vote.
- Clause 8 requires local authorities to publish their plans for supporting care leavers' transition from care to independent living — covering how they will anticipate future needs, co-operate with housing authorities, assist those at risk of homelessness or released from detention, and help under-25s access needed services. Too many young people end up in crisis and homelessness shortly after leaving care; this clause is about getting planning right from the start.
I will speak to clause 8. Expert reviews have shown that many care leavers face barriers to securing and maintaining affordable housing. Too many young people end up in crisis and experiencing homelessness shortly after leaving care. Although housing and children’s services departments are encouraged in current guidance to work together to achieve the common aim of planning and providing appropriate accommodation and support for care leavers, that is not happening consistently in practice. To enable better joined-up planning and support for care leavers, the clause will require local authorities to publish their plans, setting out how they will ensure a planned and supportive transition between care and independent living for all care leavers. Our aim is for local authorities to co-ordinate and plan the sufficiency of care leaver accommodation, to plan for the right to accommodation for each individual, and to make early, clear planning decisions that are right for each care leaver’s needs. The clause specifies that the information that the local authority is required to publish includes information about its arrangements for enabling it to anticipate the future needs of care leavers; for co-operating with local housing authorities in assisting former relevant children under the age of 25 to find and keep suitable accommodation; for providing assistance to former relevant children under the age of 25 who are at risk of being homeless, or who are released from detention, to find and keep suitable accommodation; and for assisting former relevant children aged under 25 to access the services they need.
Securing and keeping accommodation is closely linked to what was said about financial capacity. What should the default position be for care leavers receiving universal credit — automatic rent payments, or individual management? And what discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Work and Pensions about this?The question about securing and keeping accommodation is incredibly important for care leavers; it is closely linked to what the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire was saying about financial capacity. What are the Minister’s thoughts on what the default position should be for care leavers in receipt of universal credit? Should there be automatic rent payments from universal credit, or should it be for the individual to manage? Obviously that can change in individual cases, but what should be the default and what discussions has she had with the Department for Work and Pensions?
- We work cross-Government with DWP and others to ensure the care leaver offer is as strong as possible. The specific question on universal credit defaults is technical and falls to DWP — I'll take it away and feed it to colleagues. We're also working to re-establish the ministerial working group to co-ordinate this across Departments.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we work on a cross-Government basis. We have regular conversations with colleagues in various Departments to ensure that the offer we provide to care leavers will give them the best chance to live independently and that the approach of other Departments to these matters complements and co-operates with what this legislation is intended to achieve. The right hon. Gentleman raises a specific and quite technical question that relates to the work of the Department for Work and Pensions. As I will come on to, we are working hard to re-establish the ministerial working group to support these young people. I am certain that this matter can be carefully considered as part of that work, so I will take it away and feed it on to colleagues. Given the importance of the clause and the changes it will bring to how local authorities work with children leaving care or young people under the age of 25 who have been in care, I urge the Committee to support it. I turn to new clause 40, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, who I believe is not present today.
- New Clause 40 would require the Secretary of State to publish a national offer for care leavers, mirroring the local offer requirement. There are already central government entitlements — a £3,000 bursary for care leavers starting an apprenticeship, the higher one-bedroom rate of housing support under universal credit. We've re-established the care leaver ministerial board, now co-chaired by the Secretary of State for Education and the Deputy Prime Minister, with Ministers from 11 Departments — we're reviewing published information to make it more accessible, and will consider how best to publish it once that review concludes.
I am happy to respond to new clause 40, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a national offer for care leavers, mirroring the requirement on local authorities to publish their local offer. There are already examples of additional support provided for care leavers from central Government that complement the support provided by local authorities. Care leavers may, for example, be entitled to a £3,000 bursary if they start an apprenticeship and may be entitled to the higher one-bedroom rate of housing support from universal credit. We have re-established the care leaver ministerial board, now co-chaired by the Secretary of State for Education and the Deputy Prime Minister. It comprises Ministers from 11 other Departments to consider what further help could be provided to improve outcomes for this vulnerable group of young people.
- Will the reconstituted ministerial group pay particular attention to enlightened employers? Care-experienced people bring unique life experiences that benefit businesses — employers taking an extra chance on a care leaver, giving them a regular wage, opens up so much else in life.
I wonder whether that reconstituted group will pay particular attention to the role of enlightened employers. Bearing in mind the immense breadth of unique life experiences that many people with care experience bring to a business—it will benefit the young person as well as the business—will employers take an extra chance on a care leaver and give them that opportunity? Being in work and having a regular wage opens up so much else in life.
- The ministerial group will include representation from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. More than 550 businesses have already signed the care leaver covenant, and the civil service care leavers internship scheme has resulted in over 1,000 care leavers being offered paid Government jobs. We remain committed to improving education outcomes for children in care to support them into adulthood.
There will be a Minister from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. That area will form part of the discussions, I am sure, as the purpose of the group is to give the best chance to care leavers—this very vulnerable group of young people—and ensure that we as a Government are working collaboratively to make that effective. We recognise how important it is that care leavers have clear information about the help and support they are entitled to, both from their local authority and central Government Department. We are therefore reviewing our published information to ensure that it is accessible and clear and that care leavers can quickly and easily understand and access all the support they are entitled to. Once that review has concluded, we will consider how best to publish this information. Therefore, I ask for the new clause to be withdrawn and urge the Committee to support clause 8.
- Clause 8 is good and we support it — but all these new duties come with administrative costs, and funding must follow. On co-operation with national bodies: the "Keeping children safe, helping families thrive" policy paper promised to extend corporate parenting responsibilities to Government Departments. Where is that in the Bill? And what does the Government know about *why* housing and children's services departments so often fail to co-ordinate — since it's in every well-intentioned social worker's interest to make it work, yet it still doesn't happen consistently?
This is a good and sensible clause, and the Opposition support its inclusion in the Bill. I would note that although all these clauses are good, they come with an administrative cost. We have already discussed the importance of ensuring that the measures are properly funded, but I want to press the Minister for a few more insights on clause 8. There is a list of details about the local offer—that it must be published, must anticipate the needs of care leavers—and it refers to how they will co-operate with housing authorities and provide accommodation for those under 25. This is all good stuff. The discussion that we have just had prefigured the question that I wanted to ask, which is about co-operation with national bodies. The clause is quite focused on co-operation between local bodies and drawing up a clear offer. That is a good thing—although, obviously, some of those housing associations are quite national bodies these days. In the “Keeping children safe, helping families thrive” policy paper published a while back, the Government set out an intention to extend corporate parenting responsibilities to Government Departments and other public bodies, with a list of corporate parents named in legislation following agreement from other Government Departments. When we were in government, we also said that we intended to legislate to extend corporate parenting responsibilities more broadly, so I wondered about that connection up to the national level. We have already had one excellent and very canny policy idea from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire about setting the default for care leavers when it comes to how their housing payments are made. The Minister raised a good point about bursaries and making sure that care leavers are clear about what is available to them on that front. However, there is a whole host of other opportunities to write in to some of these—
- Will my hon. Friend also address the particular situation of care leavers at university? Unlike other students, they can't go home in the holidays. Some universities — like Winchester in my county — do excellent work here, but how does the national offer extend to those in higher education?
Will my hon. Friend also comment on the particular situation of those young people from care who go on to university? Of course, come the holidays the vast majority of people in higher education go home, but the situation is very different for those who have been in care. Some enlightened universities—including the University of Winchester, in my own county—do very good work in this regard, but will he expand a little on how those young people in higher education can be supported with the offer?
- That's exactly the kind of gap I'm pointing to. There may even be scope to write a specific national-level provision into the Bill in the Lords. The explanatory notes acknowledge that housing and children's services co-operation isn't happening consistently — so beyond providing the legislative hook, what is the Government's specific plan to make it happen? And where does it work best, and why?
That excellent point is another example of exactly what we are talking about. In one sense, I regret not having an amendment that would insert a specific paragraph about the local offer from national organisations. On the other hand, it is pretty clear that the Minister is very interested in this question and is pursuing it. Anyway, there may even be scope to write that into the Bill as it goes through the Lords. The DFE’s explanatory notes for the Bill say that, although the housing and children’s services departments are encouraged in guidance—in part 7 of the Children Act 1989, I think—to work together to achieve the common aim of planning and providing appropriate accommodation and support for care leavers, that is not happening consistently in practice; the Minister alluded to that. My question to the Minister is: what do we know from current practice about where that does not happen and why not? It seems obvious, and something that every well-intentioned social worker—every person who works with care leavers—would want to do. What does the good model of effective provision of that support look like? Are there local authorities that are the best cases of that? Other than providing the administrative and legislative hook for better gripping of this issue, I do not know whether the Minister has a specific plan to do anything else to try to achieve it more consistently—given that, of all the different things that one wants to join up for the care leaver, the provision of a safe place to live and a stable housing arrangements is probably No.1. Is anything more being done? Does the Minister have thoughts about how that can be done best and where it is done best? Where it has not been done as well as we would hope, why is that?
Clause 8 extends the requirements of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and takes steps toward the Prime Minister's commitment to guarantee care leavers a place to live. Delivery happens at local level — good practice already exists in councils like Southampton's — and the clause right to standardise it. I've spoken to the Under-Secretary responsible for children and families and she's agreed to meet me to explore a national offer further. Having that national focus tells care-experienced young people that the Government gets what their journey to adulthood is like.I appreciate your patience, Mr Stringer—this is not the first time I have stumbled over Committee procedure and no doubt it will not be the last. I welcome the Minister’s comments and the inclusion of clause 8, which I strongly support. I want to address the sentiment of new clause 40 as well. The extension of the requirements around accommodation, extending the Children and Social Work Act 2017, requires councils to publish that local offer. That is crucial. Many of us have served in local government; it is at that local level that these crucial services, which can often make or break opportunities for care leavers, are delivered. The clause also takes steps towards making good on the Prime Minister’s commitment to guarantee care leavers a place to live. We would all recognise, from the context of our own constituencies, that the barriers faced by care-experienced young people are numerous. The likelihood that good outcomes in life will be harder for them to achieve is simply a fact. It is absolutely right to bolster the local offer, as clause 8 seeks to do. The new provisions will further strengthen what many local authorities, including my own in Southampton, have begun to do over a number of years. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire suggested, there are measures of good practice under local councils that we now ought to be bringing into this standardisation of the offer. In terms of a national offer, the new clause certainly has its merits and it is something good to aim for. I had the opportunity to speak to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who is responsible for children and families and whose remit this issue comes under. She has agreed to meet me to explore it further, but as my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has already said, there is a cross-ministerial group. I really welcome the work that it is doing to take these measures forward, because building on the existin…
26% of the homeless population have care experience; 24% of the prison population spent time in care; 41% of 19–21-year-old care leavers are not in education, employment or training. The independent review of children's social care called this disadvantage 'the civil rights issue of our time.' Clause 8 is a care leaver-led change — Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole's 333 care leavers hub shows what good looks like, but that good practice is not consistent. Requiring publication of the local offer means both care leavers and the professionals serving them know exactly what's available.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and it is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen, who is a powerful champion for care-experienced people in speaking from his own personal experience—and the fact that he is my office room- mate helps. I want care leavers to reach their potential and to be active members of society in Bournemouth and Britain. I want them to have the same opportunities in life as other young adults. As young people in care approach adulthood, they need to be supported to think about and plan their future—to think about things such as where they will live and what support they may need to find accommodation, employment and take part in their communities. But as my hon. Friend just explained, so many care-experienced people are held back. Some of the statistics are truly startling and appalling. The National Audit Office report entitled “Care leavers’ transition to adulthood” identified poorer life outcomes for care leavers as a “longstanding problem” with a likely high public cost, including in mental health, employment, education, policing and justice services. The Department for Education’s 2016 policy paper entitled “Keep On Caring” said that care leavers generally experience worse outcomes than their peers across a number of areas. Here are the statistics. It is estimated that 26% of the homeless population have care experience; 24% of the prison population in England have spent time in care; 41% of 19 to 21-year-old care leavers are not in education, employment or training, compared with 12% of all other young people in the same age group; and adults who had spent time in care between 1971 and 2001 were 70% more likely to die prematurely than those who had not. It is no wonder that the independent review of children’s social care described the disadvantage faced by the care-experienced community as “the civil rights issue of our time.” In reading those statistics, and in reading that report…
- We're investing in family-finding, mentoring and befriending programmes, a £3,000 apprenticeship bursary, £2,000 university bursary, and the 16-to-19 bursary — all as part of a genuine commitment to care leavers' outcomes. Best practice from councils like Southampton's will feed directly into updated guidance so it spreads as widely and consistently as possible. I urge the Committee to support Clause 8 stand part.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen for his powerful and personal testimony, and for his clear commitment to these issues. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East for his clear and important contribution. My hon. Friends have set out the reasons why we are providing that continuity of support when care leavers reach the age of 18, through the Staying Put programme, and why we are now legislating to add Staying Close to the duties of local authorities. It is to provide that care to leavers; to help them to find suitable accommodation and access services, including those relating to health and wellbeing support; and to help them develop and build their confidence and their skills as they get used to living independently. It is also why we are investing in family-finding, mentoring and befriending programmes to help care leavers to develop those strong social networks, which they can then turn to when they need advice and support. As hon. Members have rightly said, it is really important that care leavers are supported to get into education, employment or training—the right hon. Member for East Hampshire clearly said that as well. That is why a care leaver who starts an apprenticeship may be entitled to a £3,000 bursary, why local authorities must provide a £2,000 bursary for care leavers who go to university, and why care leavers may be entitled to a 16-to-19 bursary if they stay in further education.[Official Report, 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 12WC.] (Correction) On the question raised by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, more than 550 businesses have signed the care leaver covenant, offering care leavers a job and other opportunities, and we continue to deliver the civil service care leavers internship scheme, which has resulted in more than 1,000 care leavers being offered paid jobs across Government. We have a real commitment to improving education outcomes for children in care, which will help to support them i…
The children's social care market is not working effectively — the CMA and the independent review of children's social care both recommended a regional approach. Clause 12 establishes regional co-operation arrangements. As a last resort, the Secretary of State can direct local authorities to establish them; where a direction is in place, regions must analyse accommodation needs, publish sufficiency strategies, commission care places, recruit foster parents, and develop new provision. We expect these to gain economies of scale and harness collective buying power.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I look forward to working through the measures in this landmark Bill with all Members, as has been the spirit so far. The children’s social care market is not working effectively. The Competition and Markets Authority and the independent review of children’s social care recommended a regional approach to planning and commissioning children’s care places. My Department will support local authorities to increase the number of regional care co-operatives over time. As Members will have noted, the clause refers to those as “regional co-operation arrangements”. As a last resort, the legislation will give the Secretary of State the power to direct local authorities to establish regional co-operation arrangements. Where a direction is in place, regions will be required to analyse future accommodation needs for children, publish sufficiency strategies, commission care places for children, recruit and support foster parents, and develop or facilitate the development of new provision to accommodate children. We expect regional care co-operatives to gain economies of scale and to harness the collective buying power of individual local authorities. I hope that the Committee will agree that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
- We support the intent of Clause 12, but what safeguards will ensure children in care don't inadvertently end up placed further from their families because of these regional structures? Already about a fifth of children in care are placed over 20 miles from their families. Become's research shows that moving children far from family and friends harms their mental health, causes isolation, and creates stigma at school.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions about clause 9 that I hope he will address when he responds. We support its intent, but I want to understand what safeguards or guidance will be put in place to ensure that children in care in areas where these regional co-operatives are active do not inadvertently end up far away from their families. We already know that about a fifth of children in care are placed over 20 miles away from their families and almost half are living outside their local authority area. In some cases, it is important that a child is moved reasonably far away for safeguarding reasons, but often that is not the case. I know from having spoken to care-experienced young people and to the Become Charity, which has done quite a lot of research into the impact of children being moved far away from home, that that can affect their mental health, that they can feel isolated and lonely having moved away from family and friends, and that it can cause stigma in the school or college environment. I want to understand how the Minister intends to ensure that young people are not moved further away than they need to be when these regional co-operatives are in place.
- When everyone agrees on something is usually the point of greatest danger for bad law — proper scrutiny is essential. The legislation sets out three models of co-operation: joint functions between two authorities, one carrying out duties on behalf of all, or a new corporate body. Which does the Government expect to be most common? And how is this arrangement different from what already exists informally — for example, the tri-borough arrangement in London between Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham?
Again, as hon. Members have said, we support this approach and it is the approach that we were taking. It is also true that when everybody agrees on something, it is usually the point of most danger for making bad law. It is important to have these Committee proceedings and proper scrutiny. I was personally never keen on the name of regional co-operatives, although I do not think the word “co-operative” actually appears in the Bill. We can, of course, have co-operation without having a co-operative. This legislation is actually about regional co-operation arrangements. There are three different types of potential co-operation arrangement: first, for strategic accommodation functions to be carried out jointly between two different local authorities; secondly, for one to carry out the duties on behalf of all; and thirdly, for a corporate body, effectively a separate organisation, to be created to do that. I imagine that Government Members will have different views depending on which of those three forms the arrangements take. Will the Minister say which of those he expects to be most common? As well as the pilots, there have no doubt already been formal and informal conversations with local authority leaders in children’s services in many different areas. I am keen to know how this arrangement is different from some arrangements that may already take place. For example, the tri-borough children’s services arrangement in London—I will try and get this right—between Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham. Presumably, some of those functions are administered in common there, so how will this be different?
- What are the Government's expectations on scale? Greater Manchester is just under 3 million people, the south-east pathfinder is roughly 3 million. Would the Government continue to support something as small as the tri-borough arrangement?
I probably should have asked the Minister about scale. In the two pilots, we have Greater Manchester, which is just under 3 million people, and the south-east, which is roughly 3 million people. I do not know what the Government’s expectations about scale are and whether they would continue to support something like the tri-borough arrangement, which is obviously much smaller.
- Where we end up on scale depends on what we're optimising for. Purchasing power favours larger scale; close working relationships and the welfare of individual children favour smaller scale. Perhaps different functions can operate at different levels. But if these arrangements aren't materially different from what already exists between some local authorities, is legislation actually necessary? And what additional strategic accommodation functions does the Secretary of State have in mind under the power to extend the list?
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a very apt point. Where we end up on that continuum of scale depends on what we are going after most. Of course, we want all those things. For purchasing power, a bigger scale is better, but for close and easy working relationships, a smaller scale is sometimes better. When we are talking about children, and the placement of vulnerable children, that may well push us towards the smaller end of the scale. Perhaps it is possible to perform different functions at different levels, with some functions still being performed by the individual local authority. Even then, as my hon. Friend often rightly says, there is an enormous difference in scale between London local authorities, which are actually quite small even though they are in our largest city, and Birmingham, which is one enormous authority. It might be argued that doing some things at a sub-local authority level makes sense in a very large local authority area, but as I say, it might be possible to do some things as the single local authority, some things at a larger level, and some things—presumably principally in terms of purchasing leverage—on a wider scale again. If regional co-operation arrangements are not materially different in practice from something that already exists in co-operation between local authorities, even if that is on a smaller scale than what is envisaged, is legislation actually necessary? If it is not, we probably should not legislate. I would like to understand a bit more about the legislative basis that is currently missing. Finally, the Bill sets out that the Secretary of State may add to the definition of the strategic accommodation functions that we have listed in proposed new section 22J(3) of Children Act 1989. What type of additional functions does the Minister have in mind?
- We were enthusiastic about regional care co-operatives in government — the two pathfinders in Greater Manchester and the south-east are going ahead this summer, which we support. But when everyone agrees on something is exactly when we should ask the hard questions. The key issue driving high costs is a *shortage of supply*, pushing children into expensive placements far from home. Will the Minister put on record the aims for regional co-operatives beyond purchasing power — and how will he protect smaller providers and specialist charities, who risk being squeezed out of engagement with larger regional bodies?
Regional co-operation is something that the previous Government were extremely enthusiastic about and worked to build up, so the Minister will not be surprised to hear that we support the clause. The previous Government’s “Stable Homes, Built on Love” policy paper said that the Government would work with local authorities to test the use of regional care co-operatives—regional groupings of authorities to plan, commission and deliver care places—in two areas. Those two pathfinders would trial an approach within the legal framework, with a view to rolling it out nationally following evaluation as soon as parliamentary time allowed. Were we in office, I suspect that we would be very much considering the same clause. This Government have announced that those two pathfinders are going ahead, in Greater Manchester and the south-east, from this summer. When we consulted about the idea—it is a good idea —there was a lot of support, but there were also a lot of concerns and questions about the size of the groups, the risk that they would be too removed from the child, and the loss of relationships with small providers in particular. As the Minister said, this is a recommendation from previous work, including from the independent review of children’s social care, which we commissioned. Obviously, we hope that such groups will be useful in providing local authorities with greater purchasing power and more options when they are securing accommodation for children in care, but we think it is important to be clear about the objectives to avoid any unintended consequences. I have come to think that, often, it is when we all agree that we are doing a good thing that we should ask ourselves the difficult questions to ensure that we are not making a mistake. The key issue in the “children’s home market”—I put that in scare quotes, because I hesitate to use the phrase in the current context—is a lack of supply, which leads to children being placed far away from their roots and support…
- We've consulted widely with the sector — the pathfinders have shaped both the legislation and the definition of strategic accommodation functions. We'll develop expertise in data analysis, forecasting, targeted marketing, training and support for foster carers. As for placements far from home: local authorities will retain exactly the same statutory duties to find the most appropriate place for looked-after children, including living near home so far as reasonably applicable. Regional co-operatives should *improve* this by increasing local and regional sufficiency — more places available locally means fewer children placed far away.
I thank hon. Members for their thoughtful comments, suggestions and questions. On the point that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston made about learning from the pathfinders, the Department has consulted widely with the sector on the proposals for regional care co-operatives. Learning from the pathfinders has shaped the proposed legislation and the definition of the strategic accommodation functions. We will develop expertise in areas such as data analysis and forecasting, as well as targeted marketing, training and support for foster carers. Working collectively with improved specialist capabilities should allow for greater innovation so that local areas are better able to deliver services for children in care. I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond—
- Can the Minister confirm that the Government would use the power to impose regional co-operation arrangements only as a last resort — not pushing it on authorities who don't want it?
Will the Minister confirm that—as I think is the case—the Government would use their powers under the clause to impose regional co-operation agreements only as a last resort, and that we would not push this on everybody who does not want it?
- The shadow Minister is absolutely correct — we want to work collaboratively with local authorities. We will not force them.
The shadow Minister is absolutely correct. We want to work collaboratively with local authorities in rolling this out. We will not force local authorities to do so. I thank him for enabling me to make that clear. Question put.
- I support regional co-operation arrangements because both the independent review and the CMA identified a system at breaking point — profiteering, weak oversight, poor planning. The co-operative model — based on self-help, democracy, equality and solidarity — can bring the loving homes that children in care need. This feels like a genuinely Labour Bill, with co-operative values at its heart.
I rise to speak in favour of regional co-operation arrangements, primarily because of what we have seen in two important reviews or evaluations. The recent independent review of children’s social care that I referred to highlighted a system at breaking point, as we also heard from the Minister. The insight from that report was that how we find, match, build, and run foster homes and residential care for children in care radically needs to change. When the Competition and Markets Authority looked at this area, it also identified major problems, such as profiteering, weak oversight and poor planning by councils—the verdict on the system is damning. The independent review recommended that a co-operative model should sit at the centre of bringing about change. The values of our movement could provide the loving homes that children in care need. I particularly support this clause because this feels like a very Labour Government Bill—one that has at its heart the co-operative model that is obviously such a big part of our labour movement. My hope is that regional care co-operatives could gain economies of scale and harness the collective buying power of independent local authorities to improve services for looked-after children. There are obvious benefits to using a co-operative model to solve those problems—the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity apply directly to how these regional care co-operatives would be run. In a social care market that has been described as broken by the Minister and by those reports, it is critical to bring the co-operative model more into what we provide.
- We've come to a particularly serious clause. The use of deprivation of liberty orders for children is deeply troubling, and the numbers are rising — including two children aged seven and 200 under 13 given such orders last year. There is nothing in Clause 13 to differentiate by age. When a child under 13 goes into secure accommodation the Secretary of State must sign off, but no sign-off is required for deprivation of liberty orders — why not? Amendment 24 is a legislative prod to ensure that therapeutic care, not just containment, is at the heart of what happens to these children.
We have come to a particularly serious clause—not that the other clauses are not serious, but the use of deprivation of liberty orders for children is always deeply troubling, as is the rise in the number of children who are subject to them. I share the wish of the Children’s Commissioner to see an end to this practice and an end to the use of unregistered provision. We have seen an increase in the number of young children—including two aged seven last year and 200 under 13—given deprivation of liberty orders. There is nothing in the Bill to differentiate by the child’s age or stage. What consideration has the Minister given to that point? There is something about the use of the orders on very young children that is particularly striking. When a young child goes into secure accommodation, the Secretary of State has to sign it off, but no sign-off is required from the Secretary of State on deprivation of liberty orders. Why not? The Government are keen on consistency elsewhere in the Bill. Will they bring the same consistency to this clause? More broadly, do we not need greater clarity on the mechanism for restricting children’s liberty outside a secure institution? I am sure that Members of the other place will be very interested in that question. As the Children’s Commissioner has written, some of the children concerned have physical and learning disabilities, and many are at risk of criminal or sexual exploitation or both. Will the Minister act on the Children’s Commissioner’s recommendation and introduce a proper legal framework and guidance? We believe that much more clarity is needed in the Bill on therapeutic care for those who are under a deprivation of liberty order. Historically, there has been a lot of focus on containment. This amendment is, I suppose, our legislative prod to take the opportunity to think about what therapeutic help a child needs and how to deliver it.
- Clause 13 amends the Children Act 1989 to allow deprivation of liberty outside a secure children's home and changes the terminology from 'restricting liberty' to 'depriving of liberty'. The welfare bed sector houses children who haven't done anything wrong but pose a danger to themselves or others — an enormous decision. Why is it better to house these children somewhere *other* than a secure children's home, rather than ensuring such homes meet their needs? What alternative accommodation does the Secretary of State have in mind? And is the change in wording strictly necessary — even where liberty is deprived it isn't *all* liberty that's removed, and that distinction carries legal weight.
Clause 10 will amend the Children Act 1989 such that local authorities can authorise deprivation of liberty of children other than only in a secure children’s home, and will change the term “restricting liberty” to “depriving of liberty”. In the secure children’s home sector, a distinction is often made between what are called justice beds and welfare beds. There are also children detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 on secure mental health wards and in psychiatric intensive care units, or on non-secure wards. I am assuming that we are talking today only about what are known as welfare beds—I say “beds”, but normally the entire facility is either one or the other. To speak on justice beds briefly, there has been a big fall in this country since 2010 in the number of children who are locked up in the criminal justice system: the numbers are down from about 2,000 in 2010 to only around 500 now. That has partly been because of a fall in crime, and in the particular types of crime for which young people used to be locked up, but it is also because of the good work of youth offending teams. Most of those children are older and would typically be in a young offenders institution when aged 15 to 17, or indeed, 18 to 21. The very small group of children who are in the secure children’s home sector are a very difficult and troubled cohort of youngsters with complex pasts. I take a moment to pay tribute to the staff; it is an extraordinary career decision to go into that line of work, and they do it with amazing dedication. The welfare bed part of the secure children’s home sector is where somebody has had their liberty restricted not because of something they have done, but because of something they might do—because of the danger or threat they pose either to themselves or others. It is an enormous decision to take to deprive anybody of liberty on those grounds, but particularly a child. As with those children who are in the criminal justice part of the secure children’…
- This change follows children being deprived of liberty through an unofficial route — housed in unsuitable, unregistered accommodation far from home. What will make a setting legally capable of being used for deprivation of liberty? Will education be required? Will settings need Ofsted registration? When will the regulations be published? And what legal aid will be available to families or the child when an application is made under the new route — the law here is incredibly complex without proper representation.
My understanding is that this change follows a trend of children being deprived of their liberty outside the statutory route by being housed in unsuitable accommodation not registered with Ofsted, often far from home and family. That has been partly addressed in the questions from the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. The success of this provision will depend on the regulations. What actually makes a setting capable of being used for the deprivation of liberty? Will there be a requirement with respect to education in that setting? Will they need to be registered with Ofsted? It is not entirely clear. When will regulations relating to this provision be brought forward? Is it the intention that they will mirror the scheme for the secure accommodation? The law around the deprivation of liberty is incredibly complex. Without proper legal advice and representation, it is very hard for families to understand what is going on and what options they have. It is not clear yet what legal aid will be available to families or the child themselves when an application is made under the new route. Can the Minister clarify what will be available with respect to legal aid, or put a timetable on when we will get that clarification?
- Amendment 24 is not necessary — existing duties on local authorities already require that wherever children are placed, including in secure accommodation, all their needs including therapeutic treatment are met. This is part of the primary legislation duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of every looked-after child.
Amendment 24 seeks to place a legal duty on local authorities to provide therapeutic treatment for children placed in secure accommodation—that is, a secure children’s home. The Government’s view is that the amendment is not necessary as there are a number of existing legal duties on local authorities to ensure that wherever children are placed, including in secure accommodation, their needs are met, including the needs for therapeutic treatment. This is part of the duty on local authorities, under primary legislation, to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child that they look after.
- Can the Minister respond specifically to what CAFCASS and the Children's Commissioner have asked for: requiring explicit Secretary of State approval beforehand; specifying the frequency of review, particularly for younger children; automatic child protection plans on exit; and a legislative bar on being placed in illegal settings at all?
I am grateful to the Minister for his informative speech, but can I press him to respond to the specific points made by CAFCASS and the Children’s Commissioner? The Minister is alluding to some of them as he goes along. The first is about requiring explicit Secretary of State approval beforehand. The second is about specifying the frequency of review, particularly for younger children. The third is about having an automatic requirement for children’s protection plans as the child comes out. The fourth, which the Minister has alluded to, is about them being put into illegal settings, and whether something legislative should be done at this point to stop that from happening at all.
- I'll take away all the points raised. On children under 13: when a child that young is placed in a secure children's home, the local authority must already obtain Secretary of State approval before applying to court — that requirement is in regulations. Local authorities' care-planning duties are clear; 'Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023' sets out what must happen when there are child protection concerns, including putting in place child protection plans. I give the shadow Minister the assurance that I'll take on board these comments.
I am coming to the end of my speech and hope to answer the points that the Opposition spokesperson made. I will certainly take away the issues that he raised. I thank all Members for their contributions and questions on this very important matter. On consistency, the views of the Children’s Commissioner and age, I know that this point was raised in the other place only yesterday by a former Minister, and I am grateful for that. It is worth saying here, too, that the child rights impact assessment is informing our work on the Bill. I give the shadow Minister the assurance today that I will take on board these comments.
- Is the children's rights impact assessment published so the Committee can see it?
Is the child rights impact assessment for the Bill published so that we can see it?
- There's no legal obligation to publish it, but we're certainly using it to inform our work.
There is no legal obligation for England to publish that assessment, but we are certainly using it to inform our work on the Bill.
- I thought Ministers had said previously they planned to publish the children's rights assessment during scrutiny — alongside the impact assessment. Is that still the case?
I think Ministers have said in previous sittings that it will be published during the process of scrutiny, along with the impact assessment. Is that still the case?
- The regulatory impact assessments will be published. The children's rights impact assessments are under review and we'll advise on next steps shortly.
I am referring to the conducted children’s rights impact assessment, where children are directly impacted by the policies and/or particular groups of children and young people are more likely to be affected by others. As I mentioned, there is no requirement to publish these documents in England. However, the documents are currently under review and we will advise on our next steps shortly. More broadly, with regards to the impact assessments, these will be published in due course.
- I can't see any reason why the Government wouldn't publish the children's rights assessment — can I get that assurance?
I thought I had heard Ministers say previously that they were planning to publish this for our benefit—that we would get both the impact assessment and the children’s rights assessment. Perhaps it is me who is sowing confusion and the Minister may still intend to publish this document. I cannot see any reason why the Government would not publish it, so can I get an assurance that that is going to be published?
- The impact assessment has not yet been published, but it is informing our work. I'll get back to the hon. Member on the specific assessments.
To state this clearly, the impact assessment has not yet been published but is obviously informing our work. Obviously, various different assessments are undertaken and I will certainly get back to the hon. Member on those points.
- Even if the Minister isn't legally required to publish the children's rights impact assessment, in the interests of transparency and doing right by children — shouldn't he publish it anyway?
The Minister has said a number of times that, by law, the child rights impact assessment does not have to be published. In the interests of transparency and for all of us to do the right thing by children, does he not agree that even if he does not have to publish it, he really ought to do so?
- We will publish the regulatory impact assessments, and we're using the children's rights impact assessment evidence to inform our work. Depriving a child of their liberty is always a last resort, but is sometimes necessary to keep the child and others safe — these are some of the most vulnerable children in our society. For those under 13, local authorities must already obtain Secretary of State approval before applying to court.
To be clear, we will be publishing the regulatory impact assessments. We will certainly be using the evidence from the children’s rights impact assessments to inform our work. I turn to the points raised by the Opposition spokesperson on placements of children under the age of 13. Depriving a child of their liberty must always be a last resort, but it is sometimes necessary to keep that child and others safe. These children are some of the most vulnerable in our society. We must do all that we can to keep them safe and help them get on well in life. When a child under the age of 13 is deprived of their liberty and placed in a secure children’s home, the local authority must obtain approval from the Secretary of State before applying to the court. That requirement is set out in regulations that reflect the added seriousness of depriving children so young of their liberty. The Opposition spokesperson and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) also made a number of broader points about child protection plans and deprivation of liberty. Local authorities’ care-planning duties are clear that when there are looked-after children, they must have a long-term plan for a child’s upbringing, including arrangements to support their health, education, emotional and behavioural development, and their self-care skills. The statutory guidance “Working together to safeguard children 2023” is clear about the actions that local authorities and their partners should take, under section 47 of the Children’s Act 1989, if a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, as well as the support that should be provided under section 17. If there is a concern about a child’s suffering, or if a child is likely to suffer significant harm, the local authority has a duty to make an inquiry under that Act. “Working together to safeguard children” sets out the actions that the local authority and their partners must take when there are child protection concerns. That incl…
- Not having the impact assessment while we're deep into line-by-line scrutiny compounds a real problem — no one can defend that. There is scope for improvement in Clause 13 on the points CAFCASS and the Children's Commissioner have raised — I suspect the Lords will provide it. We won't vote against clause stand part, but I'll press Amendment 24 to a vote.
I hope that we can clear up the confusion about whether we will see the children’s rights assessment. I cannot see any good reason why we would not be able to see that perfectly routine assessment. None of these things is the end of the world, but not having the impact assessment of the thing that we are quite deep into line-by-line scrutiny of seems to further compound this problem. Obviously, no one can defend that; it is not good practice. I slightly pre-empted what the Minister said—he had scribbled some last remarks—but I was glad that he came to some of the points raised by CAFCASS and the Children’s Commissioner. I raised them partly because I know that their lordships will be extremely interested in these specific questions. There probably is scope for improvement of this clause to do some of those other good things, because this is such a serious issue for those very young children. We will not vote against clause stand part, but I will press our amendment to a vote. I heard what the Minister said, but I just make the point that there is scope for improvement in the clause, and I suspect that their lordships will provide it. Question put, That the amendment be made.
- Clause 14 strengthens Ofsted's powers to hold provider groups to account across all the settings they own — not just setting by setting. Where Ofsted reasonably suspects requirements are not met in two or more settings owned by the same group, it can require senior people in the group to produce and implement an improvement plan. Clause 15 gives Ofsted the power to issue monetary penalties — including unlimited fines — to providers who breach requirements that could also be prosecuted as criminal offences, such as operating a children's home without registration. These penalties act as a significant deterrent and give Ofsted an alternative to prosecution.
Clauses 11 and 12 will strengthen Ofsted’s regulatory powers to allow it to act at pace and scale when that is in the best interests of children. Specifically, clause 11 strengthens Ofsted’s powers to hold provider groups—parent undertakings, in legislation—to account for the quality of the settings that they own and control. This ensures that Ofsted can take the quickest and most effective action to safeguard vulnerable children, without adding duplication within the existing regime. It will allow Ofsted to look across provider group settings as a whole and take action at provider group level, rather than being limited to doing so setting by setting as it is now. It will also ensure that a provider group is accountable for the quality of the settings that it owns. Where Ofsted reasonably suspects that requirements are not being met in two or more settings owned by the same provider group, it will be able to require senior people in the provider group to ensure improvements in multiple settings. The requirement applies both to settings operated by a single provider and to multiple providers owned by the same group. Ofsted will be able to request that the provider group develops and implements an implementation and improvement plan to ensure that quality improves. The plan will need to address the issues identified by Ofsted and be approved by Ofsted if it is satisfied that the plan will be effective in addressing the issues. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to provide that non-compliance by the provider group means that the providers that it owns are not fit and proper persons to carry on a setting. That will prevent a person from being registered in relation to new settings if their owner has failed to comply with the relevant requirements under these provisions. That should act as a deterrent and ensure compliance with the requirements. Clause 12 gives Ofsted the power to issue monetary penalties to providers that have committe…
- The underlying driver of high costs in children's residential care is a *shortage of foster carers*, pushing local authorities toward expensive children's homes or, at worst, unregistered provision. The Bill addresses none of that root cause. Of 160,635 families who expressed an interest in fostering in 2020–21, just 2,165 — 1.3% — were approved. I'd commission a month-long desktop review of all the rejected applications that got fairly far down the track, to understand what can be changed. On Clauses 14–15: after the Hesley Group abuse, it's right to identify systemic safeguarding problems across multi-site providers. But the improvement plan mechanism risks becoming a slow, bureaucratic back-and-forth like we've seen with independent schools. Confine it to minor administrative concerns — for serious cases, we need rapid inspection and prosecution, not endless letters.
We are entering a whole new section of the Bill. I will make a number of points now that we could come back to when we debate future clauses, but I hope we will not have to. I hope that we can have discussions about the principle and philosophy now and we might be able to move faster later, but we can come back to them if necessary. As we turn to the clauses dealing with children’s homes, I want to start by checking that the Minister has the same basic understanding of the situation, and the same philosophical take on what we are trying to do, as I do. First and most importantly, there is a question about the underlying structural problems that have driven high costs for local authorities in the provision of residential care for children and young people, and there is a second question about the best approach to tackling that, both legislatively and non-legislatively. On the first, does the Minister agree with me, at least in principle, that the main issue driving the high costs is a shortage of foster care, which is driving local authorities to send children into expensive children’s homes at best, or into unregistered provision at worst? Research by Ofsted in 2022 suggested that residential care was part of the care plan for just over half of the children whose cases it reviewed. To put that the other way round, almost half of children who ended up in residential care should ideally not have been there. Crucially, the research shows that the original plan was for over one third of children to go into foster care. Although the Bill makes changes to the provision of information about kinship care, which is good, there is nothing that will produce the step change that we need to increase the number of foster carers, which is the thing that would really take down the demand and the high costs. That point is common to the discussions that we will have about cost-capping social workers, cost-capping individual care homes and reviewing whole entities. I do not think that…
- I thank the shadow Minister for his practical points and specific questions — I'll take them on board.
I thank the shadow Minister for his contributions and questions. He made a number of practical points and asked a number of specific questions.