Report stage in the Lords
Report stage debate on strengthening Ofsted's enforcement powers over children's home provider groups, upgrading corporate parenting duties for looked-after children, and consequential amendments for Welsh and Scottish Ministers.
B(We had serious practical reservations in Committee about the Government's approach to regulating groups of children's homes and foster care providers. Amendment 63 would simply require any applicant registering with Ofsted to disclose its parent undertaking from the outset and keep that information updated — given how complex some ownership structures are, that should make regulation and enforcement simpler. Amendment 64 goes further and would give the enforcement regime real commercial teeth: while a provider group is under an improvement plan it could not expand, restructure financially or acquire new subsidiaries, which should drive speedier compliance.My Lords, noble Lords will remember from our debate in Committee that on this side of the House we had considerable practical reservations about the Government’s approach to regulating groups of children’s homes and foster care providers. These two amendments aim to improve the process that the Government plan to embark on. Amendment 63 would simply require an agency or an establishment to provide information about its parent undertaking when it registered with Ofsted and to keep that information regularly updated. I assume that it would make it simpler for future regulation and enforcement if the identity of the parent undertaking was clear from the outset, given the complexity of the ownership structures of some of these groups. My Amendment 64 aims to strengthen the effectiveness of the enforcement regime by giving it commercial teeth that would impact on these businesses. One would hope that preventing them expanding and restructuring financially or organisationally when they were subject to an improvement plan would lead to speedier compliance with the regulatory framework, as well as preventing a suboptimal group from expanding. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
On Amendment 63: existing powers in Sections 12 and 22 of the Care Standards Act 2000 already let us require an applicant — or a registered person — to provide information about its parent undertaking, including contact details and details of other subsidiaries. A new requirement is not necessary. On Amendment 64: the Bill already allows Ofsted to refuse registration for new settings where a parent undertaking has failed to comply with provider oversight requirements. The sweeping financial and commercial restrictions the amendment would add — blocking acquisitions, new openings and restructuring while an improvement plan runs — would be disproportionate to the aim of driving quick improvement across all affected settings. Government Amendment 65 amends Section 37 of the Care Standards Act 2000 so that Ofsted notices can be served by email, not only by post or hand — cutting delays, reducing the risk of sensitive information being lost in transit, and modernising communications across children's social care.My Lords, in the absence of other comments I will turn to Amendments 63 and 64, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in relation to the provider oversight scheme. The scheme will enable Ofsted to require provider groups to implement an improvement plan across multiple settings where Ofsted reasonably suspects standards are not being met. If the provider group does not adequately implement improvements, Ofsted will be able to issue it with a fine. Amendment 63 seeks to ensure that, where an applicant for registration with Ofsted is a subsidiary undertaking, the applicant must provide information about its provider group. This information must then be kept updated and new powers would provide for enforcement of these requirements in regulations. I do not believe this amendment is necessary. There are existing powers in Sections 12 and 22 of the Care Standards Act 2000 which we intend to use to impose requirements on an applicant for registration, or a person already registered to carry on an establishment or agency, to provide information in relation to its parent undertaking—for example, contact details for service of relevant notices by email, and information about other subsidiaries under the same parent undertaking. Amendment 64 seeks to ensure that, when a parent undertaking is required to implement an improvement plan, it is subject to financial and commercial restrictions, including the limitation on the acquisition of further subsidiaries, the opening of new establishments or agencies, and the organisational or financial restructuring of the parent undertaking while the improvement plan is being implemented. The measure as drafted allows for regulations to set out that a person is not a fit and proper person to carry on an establishment or agency where their parent undertaking—the provider group—has failed or is failing to comply with an improvement notice. This will allow Ofsted to refuse registration applications in respect of new settings that are und…
- I accept the Minister's response more readily on Amendment 63 than on Amendment 64 — time will tell how the Government's plans work out.
I thank the Minister for her remarks. I perhaps accept them more in relation to my Amendment 63 than my Amendment 64, but time will tell how the Government’s plans work out. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Being "alert to" the needs of looked-after children is not enough — I can be alert to something and choose to ignore it entirely. Amendment 75 would replace that with a duty to have "due regard to" removing or reducing the disadvantages they face: a higher bar, but a well-understood one used across many other areas of law. Amendment 76 adds that a relevant authority must take *reasonable* steps to avoid, reduce or mitigate any adverse impact of its policies and practices on looked-after children — not an unreasonable ask, just a requirement to act on what they know. Amendment 96 would require public authorities to include care experience in their equality impact assessments, tracking impact on looked-after persons under 25; young people leaving care do not have the bank of mum and dad behind them and we need to track what happens to them up to that age.My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate this evening. I will keep it fairly short, given the time. Amendment 75, in my name, simply seeks to change the current duty of being “alert to” the needs of looked-after children to one requiring public bodies to have “due regard to” removing or reducing the disadvantages they face. There are lots of things that I am alert to; that does not mean that I take any great notice of them. I am alert to them, but I can choose to ignore them. What we need is something that requires local authorities to take this seriously, and the concept of “due regard” is well understood in many other aspects of law. As a bishop, I am used to there being policies of the Church of England to which I am required to have due regard. If I simply had to be alert to them, I do not think that they would get the attention and focus they need. Instead of a duty of being alert, Amendment 75 would put in place something that I think we all understand to be a higher bar, but something that I think is achievable. Amendment 76 says: “A relevant authority exercising the duty … must take reasonable steps to avoid, reduce or otherwise mitigate any adverse impact of its policies and practices on looked-after children and relevant young persons”. The key here is that we are not asking for anything unreasonable. This concerns what it is that it is reasonable for a public body, particularly a local authority, to do, beyond just being aware. The word “aware” is really no better than “alert”. How are they going to take reasonable and practical steps to prevent harm that is being done when some policy is being implemented? This would complement the aims of the Bill and provide a clear framework for shared action and accountability. Finally, Amendment 96 concerns equality impact assessments. I know it is not practically possible to make being care-experienced yet another protected characteristic in the law, but we need some way of understanding the…
There is a group of children in the UK who are entitled to citizenship under British nationality law but, for various reasons, never achieve it — and this is not widely understood, even among their corporate parents. Amendment 77 would ensure that corporate parenting duties under Clause 21 explicitly cover a looked-after child's nationality rights, while making clear this is not an immigration or discretion matter but a statutory entitlement. The Government's position — that Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act places the duty on the Home Secretary — leaves corporate parents with no statutory duty of their own on citizenship applications. Our amendment does not override Section 55; it ensures care providers can act on whatever new Home Office policy or practice emerges. Practice on the ground remains patchy: some local authorities show no improvement at all.My Lords, I rise to introduce Amendment 77 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Lister, who tabled a similar amendment in Committee. I apologise to the House for not being in Committee to speak to this amendment due to a period of illness last year. The amendment concerns a new statutory duty for corporate parents to be alerted to matters concerning children’s well-being. In this respect, there are a group of children in the UK who are entitled to citizenship but for various reasons do not achieve it. This is not widely understood generally, nor even among parents, foster parents and corporate parents of those children. Achieving their citizenship under British nationality law is good for the children, who gain stability, and for society, which sees the integration of children often in vulnerable situations. Here, I should declare that I am a patron of the non-profit Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens. We want to ensure in this amendment that there is no duplication of duties on the Secretary of State, while ensuring that duties on corporate parents under Section 21(1) concerning the well-being of young people include appropriate consideration of nationality rights. We do not want to see children being wrongly categorised or treated as if this is wholly a matter of immigration or discretion. In Committee the Minister placed an emphasis on Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act, which states that the Home Secretary should be the one discharging citizenship in relation to the safeguarding and welfare needs of the child. But this places the sole duty on the Home Secretary; it does not apply to the corporate parents to whom the new duty is to apply. Our amendment understands the importance of Section 55 but would ensure that care providers to whom the new duty is to apply are not left without the protection of any statutory duty altogether in relation to these child citizenship applications. In Committee the Minister…
Last week I hosted a meeting in Committee Room 1 where care-experienced people had travelled from across the UK to be heard. One told us: *"I deserve to have my voice heard to create real change — too often decisions are made about us but without us."* Another said: *"Our outcomes are constantly poor yet our insight is rarely used when services are designed."* Terry Galloway put it simply: if you're driving and you see a child in the road, being *alert* means you drive straight through them and say your duty is discharged. Having *due regard* means you stop, get out, speak to the child and find out if you can help. That is the difference Amendments 75 and 76 make.My Lords, I support and will talk to Amendments 75 and 76, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester set out powerfully; I fully support the arguments. Last week I hosted a meeting in your Lordships’ Committee Room 1, which showcased care experience and protected characteristics. The room was full. Care-experienced people had travelled from across the United Kingdom to be there because they wanted their voices to be heard, and I speak today to ensure that those voices are heard in your Lordships’ House. Care-experienced people are asking that relevant bodies in the exercise of their corporate parenting duties are required to have due regard, as we heard earlier. One care-experienced person told us: “I deserve to have my voice heard to create real change. Too often decisions are made about us but without us”. Another said: “Care-experienced individuals need recognising because our outcomes are constantly poor yet our insight is rarely used when services are designed”. At that meeting, Terry Galloway, who often helps and supports these young people with care experiences, offered a simple but striking example. He asked us to imagine driving down a road in a fast car and seeing a child standing in the road. You are alert to that child being there, but you drive straight through them—and you say your duty has been discharged because you were alert to them being there. Contrast that with a duty of due regard. On the same road and with the same child, discharging that duty would require you to stop the car, get out and speak to them. You would seek an understanding of why they are in the road and whether there is something you can do to help them.
This is a statutory entitlement to citizenship — not immigration, not discretion — and successive governments have conflated the two. The High Court has found that children who identify as British but have effectively been deprived of citizenship can "feel alienated, excluded, isolated, second-best, insecure and not fully assimilated". The immigration White Paper published last May committed to ensuring that children who turn 18 and discover they lack status are "fully supported and able to regularise their status" — including a "clear pathway for those children in care and care leavers". Given that commitment was made months ago under the heading of the "near term", what exactly has the Government done to realise it? Amendment 77 makes it less likely any child in care will reach 18 without having claimed the citizenship they are entitled to.My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 77, to which I have added my name. I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend the Minister for the helpful meeting that I and stakeholders had with her to discuss the other issue I raised alongside this in Committee. As my noble friend has said, I and other noble Lords have been pressing for many years the case of children who have not claimed the citizenship status to which they are entitled, including the high fees that can act as a barrier. Indeed, we have earned the label of “terriers” on the subject. I am delighted to welcome my noble friend Lord Moraes to the noble band of terriers. Like him, I speak as a patron of the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens. This amendment, so ably introduced by my noble friend, would help to ensure that these children’s citizenship rights are not overlooked by local authorities in their role as corporate parents. As he emphasised, this concerns a statutory entitlement to citizenship and is not a matter of immigration or discretion: all too often, the Government have conflated the two in the past. The consequence of this right not being given effect has been spelled out by the High Court, which noted that children who identify as British but who have effectively been deprived of citizenship can “feel alienated, excluded, isolated, second-best, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK”. I also echo my noble friend’s welcome for the consideration the Government are giving to how better to support these children in establishing their right to citizenship. The White Paper, Restoring Control Over the Immigration System, stated that in the “near term” the Government will ensure that “children who have been fully in the UK for some time, turn 18 and discover that they do not have status, are fully supported and able to regularise their status and settle. This will also include a clear pathway for those children in care and c…
The cost of a citizenship application — over £1,200 — is a real barrier, and too many families are unaware the application is even necessary. We have already seen with the Windrush scandal what happens when the state fails to meet its responsibilities to British citizens. With Brexit, many children with European links but the right to British citizenship risk being trapped unless their position is resolved before they turn 18. Let us not create another Windrush generation.My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, as I have many times before on this subject, joining the terrier pack yet again. It is a great pity that that pack still needs to form; all the other occasions were under the previous Government and we were hoping that we might be able to disband and head on to other things. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, and thank him for tabling this amendment, to which I attached my name very late in the day. I just caught up with this Bill along the tracks. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord have both made the case overwhelmingly for Amendment 77, so I will not go over the same ground as they did. I will just highlight again the campaigning work of Citizens UK in particular, which has focused on the incredible difficulty of the cost of more than £1,200 for a citizenship application and the fact that so many people are unaware that it is necessary. I will make one additional point. We have seen in the Windrush scandal that the British state failed to meet its responsibilities and failed to do the right thing by British citizens. With the reality of Brexit, many children with European links and European families but with the right to British citizenship risk being trapped in the coming years unless their situation is sorted out before they turn 18. Let us not create another Windrush scandal for those Brexit and indeed other children.
"Words without actions are the assassins of idealism." I am not sure what "alert" really means — I can be alert to the rain and not put my umbrella up, and I can "have due regard" to the rain and still choose not to act. I want something more definite and concrete. The spirit of Amendments 75 and 76 is right, but we need to pin down exactly what it requires authorities to do. There is good practice out there — care children's councils that report to councillors and produce action plans — and the Minister's department should be sharing it.My Lords, I will talk briefly to Amendments 75 and 76. These amendments are very important, and it is a great pity that we are discussing them at the end of the day. I always think of the saying that “words without actions are the assassins of idealism” and I wonder if these are not too general. I do not know what “alert” means. I can be alert to something and do nothing about it, where I actually want something to happen. It says “have due regard to”; I can have due regard to the fact that it is raining and choose not to put my umbrella up or not to warn other people that it is raining. I want something more definite. I think the spirit—dare I say that to an Anglican bishop?—is there in the amendment and I very much understand what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is saying in this amendment. I also like that the right reverend Prelate mentioned silos and silo working. I suggest that he talks to those noble Lords who served on the then Children and Families Bill during the coalition period. We came up with education, health and care plans, but the health service was not interested at all. It wanted to work entirely in its own silo, and every attempt to get them to work across failed completely. I do not know what to say further; I am not being very helpful here, I am afraid. It is important to listen to children’s voices and to do things. There must be good practice up and down the country, and we need to know about that. Perhaps the Minister’s department knows about good practices where children’s voices are being heard and something then happens. From my professional experience, I remember one group of young children in a care home who formed a care children’s council and met each month. Somebody from the education department came along and listened to what they said. They had to report back to the councillors and then come up with an action plan and go back to the school council. That actually brought some results. Not least, it gave the young…
We agree the right reverend Prelate has the best interests of looked-after children at heart, but we do not believe Amendments 75 and 76 are necessary given what the Bill already contains. The Bill requires relevant authorities to be alert *and then to assess* what services are available — that sequence implies action, not mere awareness. Amendment 76 overlaps with Clause 21(1)(b), (c) and (d), which already require authorities to assess their services and seek to enhance well-being and prospects, and the duty to act in children's best interests is already enshrined in the Children Act 1989. On Amendment 96, we welcome the intent but are wary of adding administrative workloads to public bodies where we are not certain the burden will produce better outcomes.My Lords, while His Majesty’s loyal Opposition agree that these amendments are sensibly drafted and—as was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Storey—that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester clearly has the best interests of looked-after children in mind in wanting to see stronger duties placed on local authorities to acknowledge, assess and act to reduce the disadvantages they undoubtedly face, we do not believe that Amendments 75 and 76 are entirely necessary given the measures already contained in the Bill. Amendment 75 would require relevant authorities to have due regard to the need to minimise the disadvantages faced by looked-after children, in addition to the measures already stipulated in the Bill. While we understand that this is absolutely the right thing to do, the Bill contains provisions similar to that aim. Authorities will be required to be alert to matters that adversely affect, or might adversely affect, looked-after children and then to assess what services are available to them. The requirement to be alert and then to assess available steps represents an intention that action be taken to aid children. We believe that this achieves the same aim as that of the amendment from the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed. Amendment 76 builds on the previous amendment by then placing a duty on relevant authorities to act on policies or practices which may be having an adverse impact. Again, in our opinion, this overlaps with the duties already set out in the Bill. Authorities will be required to assess their services in Clause 21(1)(b), while subsections 1(c) and 1(d) create provisions through which authorities must seek to provide opportunities that enhance well-being and future prospects. Amendment 76 appears, in essence, to seek to ensure that authorities enact policies and practices that are in the children’s best interests. This duty is already prescribed to authorities under the Children Act 1989 and is already le…
- For the first time, this Bill requires key public bodies — from Secretaries of State to schools, NHS organisations and regulators — to be alert to matters affecting looked-after children and care leavers. That duty is not just awareness: it comes with real responsibilities. On Amendments 75 and 76: being alert *requires corporate parents to take action as appropriate*, and we will reinforce that through statutory guidance, developed with the care-experienced community, setting out best practice — financial support, governance representation, treating care experience as a protected characteristic — so the duty delivers real change. On Amendment 96: Clauses 21 to 25 already embed this cohort's challenges into policy and service design; we will also commission an implementation partner to train corporate parents on assessing impact on looked-after children. On Amendment 77: public bodies named in this legislation must be alert to the well-being of looked-after children regardless of immigration status, *except* when performing asylum, immigration, nationality or customs functions — and our statutory guidance will specifically address the needs of looked-after children in the immigration system. The Home Office introduced a fee exemption for citizenship applications by looked-after children in June 2022; we will continue working with the Home Office on the White Paper proposals to ensure children in care who reach 18 without status can regularise it and settle. On Amendment 79A (guidance to be laid in draft before Parliament): guidance under Clause 24 will not impose new requirements beyond those in the legislation; it will be developed in partnership with corporate parents, looked-after children and care leavers through consultation, giving all affected parties their say.
My Lords, through the Bill, for the first time, key public bodies, from Secretaries of State to schools, NHS organisations and regulators, will be required to be alert to matters that affect looked-after children and care leavers when shaping policy and services. These new corporate parenting duties aim to drive a culture change, tackle stigma and improve outcomes for some of the most vulnerable in our society. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, that the voice of care-experienced young people is crucial in this. The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and I are two people in this Chamber who have experience of being corporate parents—I do not know how many others there are. We know just how serious that is. I understand the reference to language, but the responsibilities that come with this are real and important and need to be taken very seriously indeed. Amendments 75 and 76 in this group were tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Again, I completely understand where he is coming from, and we have debated this in this Chamber under other debates. These amendments quite rightly seek to strengthen the corporate parent duty by requiring relevant authorities to have due regard to removing or minimising disadvantages faced by looked-after children and care leavers and to take steps to avoid or mitigate any adverse impact of their policies and practices. We fully share the intent behind these proposals oftackling disadvantage and ensuring that care-experienced young people are not adversely affected by public policy. This is central to our vision for corporate parenting. However, as discussed in Committee, the new corporate parenting responsibilities are broad duties that apply in relation to a corporate parent’s existing functions and can be implemented in a way to fit the unique circumstances of each corporate parent. We believe that our existing measures achieve the aim of tackling disadvantages experienced by looked-after children and care lea…
- We are all here at this hour because we share the same passion for getting the best deal for young people in care — and hearing that from all Front Benches gives me real assurance this will not simply drift away with any change of government. I accept that much of what we sought to put on the face of the Bill can be addressed in statutory guidance instead. Were I merely *alert to* the lateness of the hour and the lack of Front Bench support, I might still press this to a Division — but I am *having due regard to* those factors, so I withdraw Amendment 75 and will not press Amendment 76.
My Lords, I am very grateful for the short debate that we have had this evening. It is clear that we are all passionate about the same thing—we would not be here at this time on a Monday night if we were not. We are passionate about getting the best deal we can for care leavers and young people in care, and I am very grateful to hear that. The fact that we are hearing that from all the Front Benches gives me some assurance that this is not something that would float away were there to be a change of Government—at least not one to any of the parties in this Chamber tonight. Moving on quickly, I really appreciate the guidance that has been spoken of, and I accept the assurances of the Minister that there are many matters that we sought to put in the Bill, as is proper on Report, but which can be dealt with in that way before the Act is implemented in due course. Were I merely alert to the fact that it is late at night and I do not have the support of the Front Benches, I might still waste your Lordships’ next 15 minutes by pushing this to a Division, but I am not only “alert to”, I am “having due regard to” those factors. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 75 and will not press Amendment 76 either.
- Amendments 82 to 85, 244, 245, 249 and 253 are consequential and technical. Amendments 82 to 85 update references in Clause 26 (employment of children in England and Wales) to Welsh statutory instruments and Senedd procedure, following changes made by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025 which came into force on 1 January 2026. Amendments 249 and 253 do the same for Clause 67. Amendment 244 confers power on Welsh Ministers to make consequential provision in relation to Clauses 11, 12(5), 20 and 31 to 36 within the Senedd's legislative competence; Amendment 245 confers equivalent power on Scottish Ministers in relation to Clause 11. This ensures that if any consequential changes to devolved legislation are identified, the relevant Ministers can make them.
My Lords, this group consists of government amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith. They are Amendments 82 to 85, 244, 245, 249 and 253 in relation to consequential provision for Welsh and Scottish Ministers, and minor and technical changes relating to the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025. Amendments 82 to 85 relate to Clause 26 on the employment of children in England and Wales, and simply update references to the Welsh statutory instruments and the procedure to be followed in the Senedd in consequence of changes made by the 2025 Act, which came into force on 1 January 2026. Amendments 249 and 253 do the same for Clause 67. This is a change that we are making to refine the drafting in the Bill and ensure that the terms used align with the latest legislative developments. Amendment 244 will confer power on Welsh Ministers to enable them to make provision consequential to Clauses 11, 12(5), 20 and 31 to 36 in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Welsh Parliament. Amendment 245 will confer power on Scottish Ministers to enable them to make provision consequential to Clause 11 in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. This would ensure that if any such consequential amendments are identified, Scottish and Welsh Ministers could make those changes to the legislation. I am grateful for the continued engagement of our Welsh and Scottish counterparts on the passage of this landmark legislation. I beg to move.
- These consequential amendments are entirely reasonable and His Majesty's loyal Opposition support them.
My Lords, we thank the Minister for her clarification of the reasons behind these consequential amendments. They seem entirely reasonable, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support them.