Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Committee (6th Day)

12:49:00

Clause 15: Power to limit profits of relevant providers

Amendment 142

Moved by

142: Clause 15, page 29, line 34, at end insert— “(c) a supported accommodation setting in England.”

My Lords, Amendment 142 is in my name. It sets out to make the case for the inclusion of supported accommodation in the scope of the proposed profit cap. Following clarification from my noble friend the Minister, including in answers to questions in earlier groups in Committee, I am content that that is the case, and that the intention is to include supported accommodation within these measures, so I will not be moving this amendment.

I am sorry but, having spoken to the amendment, the noble Baroness must move it so that others can comment.

I beg to move.

My Lords, Amendments 142A to 142C, 504A and 505A are in my name. I will not speak to Amendment 142 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and I thank her for giving me advance notice of her intentions. I will also probe the merits of Clause 15 standing part of the Bill. Amendment 142A mirrors my earlier Amendments 138D, 138E and 139A, which would have excluded natural persons with a role in the management of a business from receiving personal financial penalties. I have reread the Minister’s remarks in Hansard from our debate on Tuesday, and I confess I am still not entirely clear about the status of a natural person who is registered at Companies House. The Minister said earlier that the figure of 10 operators out of over 2,700 was based on Companies House data. Forgive my ignorance, but I do not know what legal status an organisation registered with Companies House has if it is not a company. If it is a company, I am not sure what the status of a natural person is. The reason for these amendments is simple, as I set out before. It is based on a concern that, without these amendments, the Bill will limit the number of people who are prepared to take senior management responsibility in such providers and will lead to providers exiting the sector. I may have misunderstood what is meant by “an operator”—namely, that it is the owner of a business rather than the senior management—but perhaps the Minister could clarify both those points when she sums up. Amendments 142B and 142C would limit the maximum fine for a provider to 10% of its turnover and, if imposed on a natural person, to £100,000. We have heard that margins in the children’s home sector average 22%, although in the LGA-commissioned report this figure is taken from, the range of margins is very wide. If we took 10% of a company’s turnover and accepted an average margin of 22%, that would be almost 50% of its profits, which surely is a very strong incentive to avoid being fined. Can the Minister set out what level of fine the Government expect to impose and what the criteria will be for different levels of financial penalty? Amendments 504A and 505A would delay the commencement of Clause 15 until the Secretary of State has published a report that sets out the current levels of capacity in independent children’s homes, independent fostering agencies and, perhaps, based on the Minister’s remarks on Tuesday, supported accommodation. Again, I wonder whether she could confirm that last point. The report would also need to have an impact assessment on the number of available placements in relevant homes or agencies. I am definitely not an expert on regulatory impact assessments, I confess, but the Government’s own regulatory impact assessment has, to my amateur eyes, clear gaps; hence the need for my Amendments 504A and 505A. In the section of the document titled “Expected impacts on businesses”, it states: “It is not possible for the department to monetise the impact of any future profit cap at this stage. This is because the impact will depend on both the level at which any future cap is set and the market conditions—including profit levels, supply and demand and diversity of provision—at the time that a cap were introduced. Attempting to include straw man figures at this stage—far in advance of any decision about whether or not to introduce a profit cap—would be unhelpful and would have the potential to adversely impact the market by driving providers to make incorrect assumptions about the future level of any future cap based on such figures”. My amendments would bridge this gap by requiring the publication of an impact assessment when the Government are clear on what their approach to a profit cap will be and by capturing the baseline data on capacity so that the impact of a future cap can be analysed and understood. My reason for questioning the approach to capping profits as set out in Clause 15 is based partly on the concerns expressed by the Competition and Markets Authority. It was very clear in its report that “taking measures that directly limit prices and profits, would further reduce the incentives of private providers to invest in creating new capacity (or even to maintain some current capacity)”. I wonder what assessment the Government made of this risk which led them to ignore the CMA’s advice. Can the Minister set out what impact the department believes this measure will have on investment in sector? What do the latest figures show? More broadly, there is an important point of principle here. As David Rowland, the director of the Centre for Health and the Public Interest, wrote in a blog published by the London School of Economics in December 2024, if the Government decide that one sector has excessive profiteering and will cap the level of profit in that sector, “there is no good reason for it not to be extended to other areas as well”. I wonder what other areas the Government might be considering. David Rowland’s work has highlighted other areas where companies are profiting from—I quote the right honourable Secretary of State for Education—the trauma and abuse of “some of the most vulnerable children in our country””.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/24; col. 27.] This includes in the management of sexual assault referral centres which serve children, where he cites one business as generating 25% margins after tax—much higher than the 22% margin on earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation generated by the average children’s home. Might this be an area in which the Government are considering profit caps? It would also be helpful if the Minister could confirm what operating margin, as opposed to EBITDA margin, the Government think is acceptable for operators of children’s homes, independent fostering agencies and supported accommodation. What is the figure for operating margins today? The figures in the LGA-commissioned report that the Government reference in their regulatory impact assessment are for earnings before interest, depreciation, amortisation and tax, and date from 2023. They are for around the 20 largest providers only. Why have the Government not done their own analysis of profitability across the sector, rather than relying on an external document that is two years old and looks at only part of the sector? On Tuesday, after I gave my back-of-the-envelope figure of, from memory, £500 million or £600 million, the Minister quoted the sector as having a combined EBITDA of £310 million. But this figure from the Government’s own report, which is taken from the LGA’s analysis, covers just the 19 largest providers of children’s homes. The report goes on to say that the top 22 providers own 40% of children’s homes. That, of course, will not necessarily equate to 40% of profit, but it seems clear that £310 million is not the right number. The Minister should set the record straight at some point—if not now, then in a letter.

13:00:00

There are a lot of other significant points in the LGA-commissioned report, including that 50%, rather than 85%, of the 20 largest providers have private equity or sovereign wealth fund ownership, 15% are charities and 35% are privately owned not by private equity, including by a social enterprise—which will please the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who sadly is not in her place to celebrate—and by an employee ownership trust. It highlights the concentration of profitability in relatively few organisations and the decline in margins in recent years.

I raise these points because of the concerns I raised in earlier groups about the capacity and skills within the department to deliver the work included in Clauses 14 and 15 in particular. It is not a promising start to equip the Minister with facts that look to be partial and out of date.

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s speech makes me think that looking at what “excessive profit” means, or at least what the Government think about it, would not be a bad idea, because we are agreed that these services are often gone to because the state cannot or will not provide them. What we consider to be reasonable to pay for them is something the whole Committee should be concerned about. I am sure—or at least I hope—that the Government have given this some deep thought, and finding out in a little more detail what that will be will help consideration on this and forthcoming business. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

My Lords, as I said in Committee on Tuesday, in 2022 the Competition and Markets Authority found the children’s social care placement market to be dysfunctional. It found that the largest private providers were making profit margins significantly above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. Most significantly, notwithstanding the profit levels that are being made, we know that there are still insufficient high-quality placements for children who desperately need them. To that extent, the profit levels being made are not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, suggested, driving the sort of supply that we want to see. The amendments in this group cover Clauses 15, 16 and 17, which implement important legislative elements of our children’s social care placement market reforms: the new profit-capping powers and their associated financial penalties. Introducing profit-capping powers will ensure that we have further powers to curb profiteering if the wider package of measures that I outlined on Tuesday, which we expect to rein in excessive profit-making, do not have their intended effect. This is a power to have in place if other elements of the programme do not work. I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on whether Clause 15 should stand part of the Bill. Having outlined the broad intention of the profit cap, I want to be clear that, although some private providers are clearly doing brilliant work, we want to ensure that all providers deliver high-quality placements at sustainable cost. As I say, we know that this is not always happening. The Competition and Markets Authority found the market to be dysfunctional and estimated that the largest private children’s social care placement providers were making profit margins of between 19% and 36%—well above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. As I have said previously, excess profits have not led to sufficient supply in this market. Furthermore, making these levels of profit from providing placements for some of our most vulnerable children is unacceptable and must end. This clause provides important backstop powers to ensure that the Government can take action, if needed, to end profiteering. It also sends a clear signal to providers that the Government will not hesitate to take regulatory action to restrict this unacceptable behaviour if profit-making is not reined in. It is not the Government’s intention to extend these powers to any other sectors at this point, although I can confirm that the provisions would cover supported accommodation, along with the other elements noble Lords have already outlined. To be frank, I hope that it does not become necessary to use these powers. I hope that people see the writing on the wall that there is an impact from the other elements of the Government’s plans, and that we see profits delivered at a more reasonable level and, more importantly, placement sufficiency improving. However, if it became necessary to use these powers, the clause already includes important safeguards through restrictions on the powers to ensure that they are used appropriately. Of course, if they were to be used, the point at which that was determined would be dependent on market conditions and profit levels at that particular point. Regulations may be made only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are necessary on value-for-money grounds. The Secretary of State must also have regard to the welfare of looked-after children and the interests of local authorities and providers, including the opportunity to make a profit. Crucially, this clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations. This will be particularly important to ensure that all interests are considered in determining issues, such as how a cap would be calculated and the level at which it would be set. That would be the point at which the particular nature of profit levels—which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked about—would be considered in detail. In addition, Clause 15 also provides for regulations to be made that set out important details about the administration of any future profit cap by providing for annual returns from registered providers and the ability to request supplementary information. I hope that noble Lords can see from the discussions we have had on this Bill—notwithstanding other areas—just how important these powers are to ensuring that the Government can take proportionate action, if needed, to restrict profit-making in the market. Amendments 504A and 505A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to require the Secretary of State to publish a report that would clarify the supply and capacity of independent children’s homes and independent fostering agencies, and the expected impact of the profit cap on the number of available placements, before Clause 15 is commenced. To reiterate, if the profit cap was to be commenced, this would be at a later stage, at which there may well be a different set of market conditions. We intend to use the powers in Clause 15 only if profiteering is not brought under control through the wider package of measures that we have set out. The consultation requirement in this clause is particularly important because it will outline the details of the proposed cap itself and require the Government to respond and publish that response. This will set out our rationale, including on the matters in the noble Baroness’s amendment, if we judge that a cap is needed. In addition, the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations will set out the policy rationale. In effect, that already fulfils the aim of these amendments to require a report to be published. In response to the noble Baroness’s question, the regulations will, of course, be made by virtue of the affirmative resolution procedure, so there will be the opportunity to cover these matters in debate and address their potential impact. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness that a report on the impact and design of the profit cap would be necessary before it could be implemented. I turn to Amendment 142A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which seeks to limit the ability of the Secretary of State to impose financial penalties. I understand her specific questions. We expect the vast majority of any penalties issued to fall on corporate structures of one form or another. First, however, as we said on Tuesday, an individual might run a provider within scope—for example, a children’s home—as a sole trader. It would seem strange and surprising if that sole trader were making profits that would be likely to breach a cap, but it would be a bit bizarre if that were way to avoid a profit cap, were it to be necessary to introduce one. Secondly, even within a corporate structure, there might be an individual who is personally culpable for a breach under the requirements of Clauses 14 and 15. The ability to issue a financial penalty in those circumstances might act as a strong deterrent—the finance director, for example. Of course, the Government do not intend to issue financial penalties that would be disproportionate or unfair on an individual. Indeed, Clause 17 sets out a number of factors that must be considered in determining the amount of a penalty. These include the impact of that penalty on the person in question, the nature and seriousness of the offence, and any past breaches and mitigating or aggravating factors. Finally, I turn to Amendments 142B and 142C, which seek to restrict the financial penalty that may be imposed for breaches. While the Bill does not limit the financial penalty that can be issued for a breach of the requirements, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that, importantly, we will set the maximum amount in regulations, after we have engaged in full consultation with interested parties to determine the most appropriate maximum for any financial penalties. That will allow us to adjust the maximum amount over time, as necessary, and regulations made will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That will afford Parliament the opportunity to debate and scrutinise the Government’s proposals, and the Government to provide timely answers at that point to issues such as profit levels and operating arrangements, which the noble Baroness identified. Of course, even if a maximum amount is set, that does not necessarily mean that a provider would automatically be fined the maximum amount. As set out in Clause 17, there will be discretion when determining an appropriate amount for any financial penalty. I hope that that provides more clarification of some of the meanings in this clause, that it responds appropriately to the amendments the noble Baroness has tabled, and that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, has the right to reply.

I have already indicated my intention to withdraw my amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. On the point of principle—why you would put a profit cap on one area of the economy where you think there is profiteering on the back of vulnerable children, but not on another—the Minister said that there was no intention to extend this; indeed, she said that she hoped it would not be used. I certainly agree with that, but I do not really understand why, where children have been sexually assaulted or raped and companies are making far higher profit margins than the ones we are talking about here, the Government would choose to apply a profit cap on one and not the other. That does not feel very coherent to me. I also felt that the Minister was slightly selective in the quotes she chose to identify from the Competition and Markets Authority report. The CMA was clear that it thought that a profit cap was not a good idea. I would also like to clarify something for the record. I think the Minister suggested that I said that current margins were driving supply. I said that current margins, according to the recent data, are uneven and actually falling, so I did not suggest that they were driving supply.

The noble Baroness cited analysis that expressed a concern that by capping profits, you would somehow or other reduce supply in the market. I was simply making the point that the converse—that is, excessive profits—has not driven supply in the market.

13:15:00

I understand that, and I stand by what I said. There is a risk that this will result in an exiting of capacity, and that the reverse of what the Government rightly want to happen will happen: that in some areas that will put even more pressure on capacity and price. I do not accept that you can say on the one hand that these margins are unacceptable, but, on the other, you cannot say what is acceptable. What we are seeing is a failure of commissioning. One of my amendments in an earlier group—I think it was Amendment 119ZA, but I may be wrong—sought to align the interests of children and those of operators. The commissioning model we have today is not working, and that needs to be fundamentally addressed. Maybe the Government could reconsider their response. We have examples in defence and pharmaceuticals of commissioners setting what is an acceptable margin, and providers bidding or not bidding based on that margin. I do not understand why the Government cannot say what an acceptable margin would be. I accept that the Minister’s response to my Amendments 504A and 505A goes at least some way towards what I was aiming for. I was more troubled by her response on natural persons. I thought we were talking about 10 sole traders, but we are now talking about finance directors in businesses, so I think that my concerns are entirely valid. On financial penalties, my recollection, which may be wrong, is that we have a limit on fines in the Online Safety Act. The Minister will correct me if it is in regulations but, if it is in that Act, I do not see why it cannot be in this Bill too. That matters because we need local authorities, charities, social enterprises or the private sector to add capacity in those areas and, without certainty, they could be forgiven for hesitating. A striking omission in the Minister’s remarks—perhaps she could respond in writing on this—concerns what was said at the Dispatch Box on Tuesday about the level of profitability in the sector. I think I am right in saying that the figure was for 19 businesses and not the whole sector. I repeat: the financial regime that the department wants to introduce is very sophisticated, and I do not think it fair to send a Minister to the Dispatch Box with out-of-date and incorrect data.

Amendment 142 withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed.

Clause 16: Power of Secretary of State to impose monetary penalties

Amendment 142A not moved.

Clause 16 agreed.

Clause 17: Procedure for imposing monetary penalties

Amendments 142B and 142C not moved.

Clause 17 agreed.

Clause 18 agreed.

Amendments 143 to 145 not moved.

Clause 19: Use of agency workers for children’s social care work

Debate on whether Clause 19 should stand part of the Bill.

My Lords, this stand part notice is to probe, and therefore understand, what changes the Government intend to make to the regulation of agency social workers and how those changes will work in practice. I am very well aware of the concerns about social worker recruitment, but I was in fact slightly surprised when preparing for this debate to find that, as of 30 September 2024, there were 34,300 children and family social workers in total, which I gather is the peak since data started to be collected in 2017; and 6,500 agency social workers, which is the lowest since data collection started. Vacancies fell by 6.9% year on year, there was a drop in staff turnover of 13.8% and the average caseload fell to 15.4%. The vacancy rate is still high at 17%, but down from 22% in 2022, and 76% of vacancies were filled by agency social workers. Retention has improved, with the number leaving to work in an agency falling by 38%, while the number of social workers leaving the profession entirely fell by 5.3%. So I know the situation on the ground is extremely difficult, but I think it is helpful to have a bit of context. As I understand it, in terms of the current regulatory environment, agency children and family social workers are covered by the Agency Rules: Statutory guidance for Local Authorities on the Use of Agency Child and Family Social Workers of September 2024. As I understand it, this has the same aims as the proposed regulations: to control costs, improve quality, reduce turnover and ensure that governance is retained by local authorities. Two main requirements are planned to be implemented this year: first, there must be data collection by local authorities on the number of agency workers, with the first submission having happened in April and May 2025; and, secondly, that local authorities must submit plans on locally agreed price caps by this October. The main thrust of Clause 19, therefore, is to make regulations for what is already covered in statutory guidance. The department’s policy summary says that the Government intend to regulate “a broader cohort of agency workers than child and family social workers including, but not limited to, social workers”— forgive me for being slow, but it is not the clearest explanation. The summary goes on to state: “The regulations are likely to include similar provision to the current statutory guidance which currently applies to social workers only, but to a wider cohort of workers”. Sir Humphrey would be proud. In the other place, the Minister for School Standards said on 28 January that this could include “agency workers delivering targeted early intervention or family help”.—[Official Report, Commons, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, 28/1/25; col. 234.] I therefore ask: are the Government’s plans restricted to these two groups only, and if not, who else will be covered? How many of those workers are there nationally? And what is the current cost of agency workers in the different categories to local authorities? The proposal to expand the replacement regulations to a wider cohort is not defined anywhere in the Bill or the accompanying policy summary, so it would help to understand the Government’s intentions better. Can the Minister also explain how the regulations will differ in terms of local discretion from the current statutory guidance? I am unclear on this, but perhaps suspicious that it might result in a more directive approach from the department and less discretion for local authorities themselves. Can she confirm that there will be exceptions to the specific requirements detailed in the regulations, for example for payments above the national rate if there is a local staffing crisis? The Minister knows that the use of agency workers varies greatly across the country, but the powers in this clause are wide-ranging and—yet again—are going to be set out in regulations. The powers in new Section 32A(4)(b) and (c) appear to be very broad indeed, including about how social workers will be managed and the terms on which they may be supplied, including the amounts that may be paid under such arrangements. This would allow the Secretary of State to set payment rates from Whitehall. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can explain to the Committee why this is a good idea. The fundamental problem underlying this clause is, as we debated in the area of children’s homes and foster placements, a shortage of capacity. No local authority is using agency workers other than because it has no choice but to do so. The previous Government had taken steps to address this with the Step Up to Social Work scheme and the creation of social work apprenticeships. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of these? I beg to move.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave the background in terms of the statistics and figures, which make for quite a salutary understanding. Agency workers are, as we know, three times more likely to leave a case mid-assessment compared with permanent staff, which obviously would increase risks to children. Let us remember that local authorities spend £500 million annually on agency social workers—on average 60% to 70% more per worker than on permanent staff. Inconsistencies of local policies allow agency staff to move frequently between councils, undermining safeguarding and continuity and, of course, causing resource churn—what a phrase, “resource churn”. Some rural and high-need areas rely on agency workers due to staff shortages, with poorly defined regulation risks shrinking this vital stopgap workforce. Do we ensure that the training, supervision and caseload standards for agency workers are the same as those of permanent staff? I worry considerably that we see permanent local authority staff taking early redundancy payments and then reappearing as agency workers. In some cases—I do not know whether this is the case with social workers; my research has not shown me that yet—they are then reappointed by other local authorities. That surely cannot be right. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right to raise that, but—I hope she will not take this the wrong way—the figures that she cited are as much the responsibility of the previous Government as they are figures that the present Government have had to inherit. Towards the end, she mentioned some of the initiatives that her Government had started; I do not know whether the Minister has a briefing on them, but it would be interesting to know whether they have at all been helpful. One thing I cannot understand—well, I can understand it—is that many public services face a shortage of public service workers. It is not just social workers; it is right across the board—teachers spring to mind. Yet at the same time our universities face shortages of students wanting to come to university. Surely, that is a way of sorting that out. Why do people not want to go into social work? I know why; you know why. Why do people not want to go into teaching? I know why; you know why. That is the answer to the problem: we want to make people want to be teachers and social workers, and we want our higher education and further education sectors to be geared up to that. The Government’s mantra, which we all agree with, is, “Training, training, training”, but training is no use if people are not prepared to take it up. This is a classic example of the problem we face.

13:30:00

My Lords, I agree with all the questions that have been asked by the previous speakers. The use of agency workers is apparent when we see the variety of people who come to court to give evidence. Obviously, there is a problem of lack of capacity, but there are two real problems. The first is the higher cost of agency workers and the second is the lack of continuity which their use involves. Continuity is particularly important when one is considering work involving families and children, who need familiarity and continuity. The noble Lord is quite right. Surprisingly, sometimes the same worker reappears, no longer as an employed social worker but as an agency worker, and one is frankly pleased to see a familiar face. But also, too often, it is somebody completely different who has not grasped the basics of what has been happening hitherto.

My Lords, I urge the Minister to increase the incomes of social workers, so that they are not tempted to become agency workers, who are of course paid a lot more than social workers. The pay levels of these workers need to be addressed.

My Lords, through the introduction of a regulation-making power, Clause 19 allow the Government to take stronger action to alleviate the significant affordability and stability challenges that have arisen from the increase in the use and cost of agency workers in local authority children’s social care in England. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, identified some of the progress being made in the staffing of children’s social care. I can confirm that the current level of agency use in the sector stands at 16.2%, a small fall on the previous year, but she is also right, of course, that this varies considerably from authority to authority. What I would say about that 16.2% is that, in essence, more than one in eight of the people who are working in children’s social care do not have the long-term association with their employers that we would expect to see in any service where we were able to provide the training, the stability and the certainty about future costs that we would want. It is considerably higher than in similar sectors, whether in the health service or in education. Agency work continues to be a considerable issue within children’s social care. That is not to say that there is not excellent work being carried out by individual agency social workers—I know from my previous experience in Sandwell Children’s Trust that there are many excellent agency workers. Nevertheless, the cost and stability issues that I have outlined remain serious for local authorities and those providing children’s social care. This clause ensures that while agency workers will remain an important part of local authority children’s social care, they will not become a long-term replacement for a permanent, stable workforce. It will allow the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on the use of agency workers in English local authority children’s social care services. I accept that progress has been made since the introduction by the last Government of the statutory guidance relating to local authority children’s social care services, but that was limited specifically to social workers. We want to extend the framework beyond social workers to the wider local authority children’s social care workforce, including workers such as those delivering early intervention or family help. A new phenomenon has come into the workforce, and particularly agency provision within children’s social care: that of project teams, where agencies provide not just individual workers but teams to respond to particular challenges. In doing that, partly through the associated management costs and partly through the range of different workers, there are even larger uplifts in the amount of money charged to local authorities. I have seen from personal experience that it is not unusual for social workers and other staff in those teams to be earning £50 an hour or upwards. We may well think that people who are doing this important work are worth £50 an hour, but that is a considerable and, some might argue, unaffordable premium over social workers and other workers who are employed on a permanent basis with teams. There is a broader range of workers that we should cover here, and a requirement to strengthen some of the principles in the statutory guidance, both by widening it and by this legislative provision. We will of course work in partnership with stakeholders across the system, including agencies, to ensure that the proposals implemented are proportionate and effective. They will make clear to local authorities, the recruitment sector and agency workers what they should expect from one another, and the consistency that this brings to the market will benefit all parties. If we are able by doing this to reduce local authority spend on agency workers, that will allow local authorities to invest more in services supporting children and families and enhance the offer to permanent employees. I take the broader point that one important way of solving this problem of agency workers is to ensure that those permanently employed, either as social workers or doing other work in children’s social care, get the rewards that they deserve, receive the training that they need in order to get the career satisfaction and progression that they would want, and are employed by local authorities and children’s trusts in ways that value them and provide them with the resources they need. All those things are important, and the Government are addressing them all, but that does not remove the requirement that we believe exists for a stronger ability to make regulations covering children’s social workers and to broaden the scope of those regulations, which is what this clause enables us to do.

I thank the Minister for her response and her explanation. I think I understand now the scope that the Government intend in terms of the wider social care workforce, although I did not hear her give the Government’s estimate of the number of agency workers involved in that area and the cost to local authorities. Maybe if the department has that data, it could write to us and put a copy of the letter in the Library. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly raised the issue of social workers retiring and then reappearing, magically, as agency social workers, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, highlighted the impact of that in a court setting, with the obvious cost to the local authority and the disruption and lack of continuity. Given that this builds very much on the statutory guidance that we prepared when in government, we hope that this works really well for the Government in achieving greater affordability and continuity of staff. I guess we are in a world where the working environment has changed, and social workers can now do a couple of days a week of agency work and work from home the rest of the time. Those are challenges that I am sure the Government are wrestling with, and we wish them every success in so doing.

Clause 19 agreed.

Clause 20 agreed.

Amendment 146 not moved.

Clause 21: Corporate parenting responsibilities

Amendment 146A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 146B

Moved by

146B: Clause 21, page 39, line 21, at end insert— (e) to have due regard to the need to remove or minimise the disadvantages suffered by looked-after children and relevant young persons.”Member's explanatory statement The amendment seeks to expand and strengthen Clause 21 by replacing the light-touch duty to be “alert to” their needs with a stronger requirement for public bodies to have “due regard” to eliminating disadvantage and to take reasonable steps to mitigate any harmful effects of their policies. The amendment intends to create a legally enforceable, lifelong safeguard for anyone who has ever been in care.

My Lords, I move the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. In relation to Amendment 146B, 120 councils around the country have already committed themselves voluntarily to embrace the “due regard” implementation, but this amendment intends to create a legally enforceable, legislative and lifelong safeguard across government for anyone who has ever been in care. The tragic case of Nonita Grabovskyte starkly demonstrates the urgent necessity for this amendment. Nonita’s death highlighted severe systemic failures by the corporate parent and associated agencies, as identified by the recent inquest. These failures directly contributed to her preventable death, underscoring how critical it is that public bodies proactively mitigate the disadvantages faced by care leavers. Had all parties exercised due regard to eliminate these disadvantages, Nonita’s death might have been prevented. Ground-breaking research from University College London reveals that care leavers are 70% more likely to die prematurely than their peers, living on average 20 years fewer. Adults who spent time in care between 1971 to 2001 were significantly more vulnerable to premature mortality, including unnatural deaths such as suicides or accidents. Terry Galloway, who campaigns passionately for these changes, personally embodies these stark statistics. Terry and his siblings, Hazel and James, were all care experienced. Tragically, Hazel and James died prematurely, embodying the cruel reality highlighted by UCL’s research. Shortly before Hazel was murdered by domestic violence, she and Terry made a solemn promise to change the care system to prevent others from enduring their experiences. Terry’s journey through care was marked by abuse, repeated separations from his siblings and frequent moves involving over 100 different placements. Children who have experienced abuse and neglect prior to, or during, their time in care may remain at heightened risk of similar abuse as they enter adulthood and beyond. The clause in the Bill that requires public bodies merely to be “alert” to these issues is insufficient. Having due regard requires active, preventative measures through impact assessments, to genuinely protect vulnerable young adults from repeated victimisation. The urgency is not only in terms of the policy enaction of the corporate parent system and the Government but around the cultural context. This amendment is necessary not only for legal clarity, but to counter negative perceptions of care-experienced young people, exemplified by a recent Reform councillor’s statement characterising children in care as “not just naughty children, they can be downright evil”. Such harmful rhetoric underscores why robust legal protections and proactive obligations are essential for systemic cultural change and safeguarding the well-being and futures of care-experienced individuals. Amendment 147A strengthens the existing duty, moving beyond simply being aware of the needs of children in care and requiring much more active engagement. If a school policy affects children in care, the school must consider how that policy might disadvantage them and take steps to mitigate any negative impacts, such as providing additional support or adjusting the policy. This would strengthen the corporate parenting responsibilities in a way that will actually make a difference to people’s lives.

13:45:00

Care leavers, as I have said, are 70% more likely to die prematurely, to be homeless or incarcerated or suffer loneliness and poor mental and emotional health. These amendments seek to strengthen support for them both practically and in our culture and imagination.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions thus far. Amendment 146B in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester seeks to strengthen the duty on the local authority to ensure that it has due regard to that very duty to either remove or minimise the disadvantages faced by looked-after children. In applying this language, the local authority has a stronger legal duty to support the looked-after children in its area. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for putting the case so well. Amendment 147A, also in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, builds on the previous amendment in the right reverend Prelate’s name, and would require local authorities not only to be aware of the disadvantages that looked-after children in their area face but also to take steps to avoid and reduce these disadvantages. It is vitally important that local authorities fully support the looked-after children in their area and that they take all the steps and precautions possible to prevent looked-after children from being harmed in any way by the policies they introduce. These amendments seem entirely sensible, and we thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing these issues to the Committee. Amendment 151 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which I have signed, seeks to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of relevant authorities in Schedule 1. This amendment seeks to ensure that the future career opportunities of looked-after children are considered as a priority, which is most appropriate. There are an alarming number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, and this amendment seeks to quite rightly place importance on finding young people who were previously looked-after children appropriate career development opportunities. I hope all noble Lords would agree that giving disadvantaged young people the best career advice possible and helping them on that route-to-employment journey is absolutely essential. Whether it be assisting with writing CVs and cover letters, preparing for interviews, gaining work experience and job trialling, providing guidance and support for individuals looking to start their own businesses or providing detailed knowledge of the local labour markets to help employers find the right candidates, these are essential foundation stones to help our young workforce. Our Amendment 152A addresses the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House, which included the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Finlay and Lady Ramsey, regarding Clause 24: “we recommend that the guidance is made subject to parliamentary scrutiny, with the draft negative procedure offering an appropriate level of scrutiny”. His Majesty’s Government’s Amendments 148 to 150 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, are technical amendments and seek only to clarify the reference to integrated care boards and NHS foundation trusts, and His Majesty’s Official Opposition will not seek to oppose them. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on these important amendments and trust that His Majesty’s Government will see fit to acknowledge and incorporate into the Bill these positive amendments.

My Lords, these amendments go to one of the most important points about just how important the parent is in a child’s upbringing. Many years ago I came across a piece of black humour that never seems to stop giving: the first thing that a disabled child, or a child with special educational needs, must do to be a success is to choose their parents correctly. Without that back-up, you are asking a lot of any system. Making sure that all the systems take that seriously is key. The situation has got better and there has been progress, but we are not there yet. The statistics—which we all have in front of us and have all talked about—prove that. Still, people who lack that strong body of support tend to fail, and often quite dramatically. Success—even moderate success—within that group is celebrated, so it is important that we go forward with this work. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—who is my friend—and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, were right to table an amendment saying that jobcentres should be brought into this. That would expand the web of support and make sure it goes wide and goes through. If people do not have the central drive, we will need a wider net to pick them up when they slip. I hope that the Government will give us some positive response to this approach, because it is needed. They have gone far; go a little further.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 151. My friend—the noble Lord, Lord Addington—has done my job for me, but I will not be done out of my few moments to speak. I am absolutely thrilled that the Bill seeks to strengthen the support provided to looked-after children and care leavers. I seek to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of organisations classified as a relevant authority. Currently, the authorities listed—I will not name every single one—include central government, education, health and youth justice. On a previous amendment I gave something of a statistic sandwich, but let me remind noble Lords of those figures. As at May 2025, there were 923,000 NEETs, and 41% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 were deemed to be NEET. Some 66% of young people in Feltham young offender institution, and 25% of the adult prison population, have been in care. That is frightening. Ultimately, the Bill seeks to improve outcomes for looked-after children and care leavers, but the one organisation that is missing is Jobcentre Plus. I have known that organisation for—I do not want to give away my age—35 to 40 years. I know people who have worked there for 25 years; they ring me and tell me about all the things they are doing or are struggling with. Jobcentre Plus has an excellent network of staff and of third-sector and other organisations that, collectively, can wrap these people up in their arms and make sure that we improve outcomes for young people. The rationale for its existence is sustainable employment—which is critical to care leavers and looked-after children—and jobcentres are already delivering services aligned with the Bill’s aspiration. Recently I went to visit the Margate task force. It is in a room not much smaller than this wonderful Chamber, but it has Jobcentre Plus, the police, immigration and social services in there—you name it, it is there. The youngsters and the people at most risk of getting themselves into trouble are known to them all, and when there is a problem they can sort it. I cannot speak highly enough of the potential for them to be added to this list. Formal inclusion of jobcentres would ensure accountability and consistency in the quest. Their role has the potential to improve outcomes for all young people, particularly those who are in care and looked after, and help them make a good transition to the world of work, giving them the best start in life. I spent yesterday talking to another organisation about how, if we started this thing in schools, if we got hold of them and started early, we could prevent a lot of this happening—but you have heard all that from me before, so I will not go on again. I urge the Minister to include jobcentres and their network of excellent delivery partners in the list of relevant authorities. I look forward to her reply and live in hope that she will do this or, if not, help us understand why.

My Lords, all these amendments help in some way and are important. It seems to me that Thursday afternoon in the Chamber has become friends day. I will add just a few thoughts. On the whole issue of children in care, we have constantly said that we should do everything that we possibly can to support those children and young people. To add to the figures that the noble Earl gave, 13% of care leavers go on to higher education by the age of 19, but that compares with 43% of all young people. They also have higher rates of homelessness, unemployment and mental illness. The noble Earl mentioned those young people not in education, employment or training, and those figures are starting to deteriorate rather than improve. We need to watch that situation very carefully. On balance, I support Amendment 151 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, but I just make this additional point: expanding duties to more bodies may stretch already underresourced systems, especially if there is no additional funding allocated to support any legal changes. I will make one point that has not been mentioned by any noble Lord. It is about children in care who do not have British citizenship and lack the support to secure it, risking detention, loss of rights or removal. As we know, the average cost of registration is £1,012, and that is often a significant barrier. Immigration and asylum decision-making has historically failed to consider the welfare of children, particularly those under Section 22 of the Children Act. Maybe the Minister can respond to that issue when she replies.

The noble Lord’s point about resources and stretching people too far is well made. I would never want to do that, but these people are doing it now. I sat with a lady who has worked for the jobcentre for 25 years. People she has helped still come to her before they get into trouble, and I just think it is well worth considering.

For a number of years, when the noble Baroness’s Government were running things, I was always concerned about the issue of Jobcentre Plus mentors, who are hugely important in this area, and was trying to probe to find out what training they had. I never got a straight answer, and never found out whether they were equipped with the tools to do the work, particularly in this area.

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott’s amendment on jobcentres. I hear the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about resource stretch, but from my own experience of this in my academy trust, we have about 50 looked-after children, and I require a report on them to come to every one of the trustees’ board meetings. It does not cost anything, but it just gives a little bit of focus to these very vulnerable children. The same could apply in jobcentres; it just needs an asterisk by the person’s name so that when the advisor is talking to him or her, they can use a little bit more empathy and maybe ask a couple more questions about the status of that child. I strongly support my noble friend and hope that the Government will support her amendment as well.

14:00:00

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the very compassionate comments that ran through their suggestions. By way of background, the new corporate parenting measures in the Bill will, for the first time, impose a duty on a number of public bodies to be alert to matters that affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers. This means that every Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, schools, colleges, NHS England, integrated care boards, NHS trusts and foundation trusts, Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and the Youth Justice Board will be named as corporate parents and therefore will be required to take the needs and circumstances of looked-after children and care leavers into account when designing policies and delivering services that affect them. There were powerful comments from all sides, which I hope to address in some more detail. But I start by emphasising that I believe all of us in the public sector or in a position to drive change have a responsibility and, indeed, a moral obligation to do this, levelling the playing field for looked-after children and care leavers, who, as we have heard, are among the most vulnerable groups in our society, have suffered the worst outcomes across a range of measures and deserve this attention to detail, care and understanding, which, quite frankly, is not presently evident in all areas. We have had lots of figures, but I will add some more: some 26% of the homeless population are care experienced, around one-quarter of the adult prison population have been in care as a child and—as we have heard, but this is a slightly different take on it—care leavers aged 19 to 21 are more than three times more likely than their peers to be not in education, employment or training. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln referenced Terry Galloway, and it was my privilege to come into contact with Terry through my previous role before I came into this House. I do not think I have ever met anyone who is quite so determined, persistent and absolutely dedicated on behalf of other young people across the whole of the country, so I pay tribute to him from us all. Government Amendments 148 to 150 in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith are minor and technical amendments simply to improve the drafting of the list of corporate parents in Schedule 1. Amendments 148 and 149 add clarity to the definition of integrated care boards and NHS foundation trusts. Amendment 150 clarifies that the reference to NHS trusts in the list of corporate parents applies only to NHS trusts in England. Clause 21 sets out the responsibilities to be introduced for corporate parents, and the duty aims to drive a widespread culture change across the public sector, which will involve adapting services; increasing awareness of matters that adversely affect looked-after children and care leavers; importantly, tackling stigma and discrimination; and improving all aspects of their lives. Clause 23 introduces a duty for new corporate parents and local authorities in England to work collaboratively when performing their respective corporate parenting duties. This would prevent silo working—we are all well aware of how damaging people working in their narrow fields can be, particularly in this very important area—and highlight where duplication of effort sometimes gets in the way and how we can make sure that the conversations happen between all relevant people, to help deliver targeted and timely support. Running through all this is a constant reminder of the importance of listening to young people themselves and making sure that their influence is heard and acted upon. We have experience at local authority level of making departments work with responsibility, picking up the corporate parenting responsibilities. That experience will help inform the work of the national institutions to show that it is not only the right thing to do but is empowering in its own right and changes behaviours in a very constructive and positive way. I turn to Amendment 151, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—I want to continue to bring noble Lords together in their mutual admiration, and I would hate to get in the way of this. The amendment seeks to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of relevant authorities to which the corporate parenting duty applies. Of course, I recognise the passion for this area of work and, importantly, for the personnel who deliver the services. We know that the statistics are far from where they need to be, which is why this Government are absolutely determined to work in this space to make sure that the opportunities we create are available for all. That has to be a basic understanding. While agreeing with the noble Baroness that Jobcentre Plus plays the crucial role in supporting care leavers in making that difficult transition to parenthood, whether through training or a whole range of different skills, I am pleased to be able to reassure her that her amendment is not necessary, as Jobcentre Plus is part of the Department for Work and Pensions and therefore is already in scope of the measures by virtue of the inclusion of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We have several other examples of good practice in this space—

My Lords, having an overall duty and having an access point to make sure that it happens are very often different—I mean, it just happens in government. If the Minister could write to us, telling us how the Government propose to implement that, it would remove certain anxieties on this.

I will consider whether that is necessary when I get to the end of my speaking notes. To continue, the corporate parenting responsibilities will also apply to bodies that exercise functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, such as the Prison and Probation Service. Of course, there should be real overlap between the different services in this regard. This will be explained in statutory guidance. So that it can be rolled out properly, it is absolutely crucial that, as it is written, the statutory guidance is co-produced and everyone has an opportunity to put money in.

I have no desire to put pressure on the Minister, because I know what it is like to be there, responding to a debate. She is doing very well and giving us confidence. Can she tell the House when the statutory guidance might be available? Can she go back and talk to colleagues and see whether there is any clarification she could put in writing to add to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has just made and to the points in my contribution? Or could we have a cup of tea and talk about it? That might sound better to her; I see that she is smiling.

I am from Yorkshire. A cup of tea and perhaps a piece of cake or a biscuit would be absolutely great. This is a very important point. We want to reassure the House of the level of detail that is going to go into this. I cannot give a guarantee of exact timing, but I am happy to keep the conversations going. While we are on the same page, I think the noble Lord, Lord Storey, made a valid point about the risk of increasing burdens, but I want to reassure him that the responsibilities do not require corporate parents to provide new services or to make specific policy changes that are not compatible with their wider priorities or affordable within their existing budgets. The broad duties can be implemented in a way that reflects the nature and circumstances of the individual corporate parent. I made the point earlier that it is the culture change—the different way of approaching this— that is critical to make sure that this is picked up across the board and drives its way through. I turn to Amendments 146B and 147A, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and brought to the House by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln—I thank him for doing that and for the way that he got over the points that I know from previous experience that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was concerned about. I have been involved in debates with him on these issues over the last few months and recognise his concern and passion for this area. These amendments probe the extent to which the corporate parenting responsibilities will lead to action by corporate parents in removing or minimising the disadvantages suffered by looked-after children and care leavers, or in taking steps to avoid, reduce or otherwise mitigate any adverse impact of its policies and practices on them. I agree with the amendments’ intention, but I am satisfied that this is achieved through the duties set out in Clause 21 requiring corporate parents to be alert to matters which might negatively affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, to assess the availability and accessibility of their services, and to seek to provide opportunities to participate in activities which enhance their well-being or employment prospects. The right reverend Prelate is quite right to highlight the rhetoric that can be so damaging, which means that these areas of work are still necessary. There are plenty of examples of action taken to minimise the disadvantages that care leavers face in the labour market, including the NHS Universal Family Programme, which has supported almost 200 care leavers to find jobs, and the Civil Service Care Leavers Internship Scheme, which has enabled more than 1,000 care leavers to take up opportunities in the Civil Service. The corporate parenting duty will mean that such best practice is shared, creating incremental improvements to care leaver outcomes. It is beholden on everyone who works in this space—and of course it is not just the public sector; the private sector has in many areas stepped up to the plate—to be alert to the range or cocktail of circumstances that contribute to poor lifetime outcomes. Educational disadvantage, financial vulnerability, loneliness, isolation, poor mental health, and the higher risk of exploitation and harm are all factors that we need to take into account. We cannot repeat enough that the most effective way for corporate parents to understand these challenges is to engage directly with the young people looked after, care leavers and their representatives. We will appoint an expert external organisation to support this engagement so that it is taken forward with the utmost seriousness. We will set out in statutory guidance the examples of best practice to show how the duty can apply to particular corporate parents. We will also set out ways for corporate parents to mitigate the negative impacts of their policies on looked-after children and care leavers.

14:15:00

To give reassurance, the Secretary of State will also publish a report on progress every three years to enable Parliament and wider stakeholders to hold the Government to account, as well as providing an opportunity to ensure that lessons learned are captured to inform best practice and to drive continuous improvement. We know that we will not achieve everything overnight. This will be work in progress over the next period.

Amendment 152A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and presented to us by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, seeks to ensure that corporate parenting guidance issued under Clause 24 is laid in draft before Parliament. This amendment has been helpfully raised in reference to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report. I reassure noble Lords that we are carefully considering that report and will respond to all its recommendations in due course.

Therefore, for the reasons that I have outlined, I commend the amendments in my name and kindly ask noble Lords not to press theirs.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I want to pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, was saying about needs. It is really alarming that nearly a million young people aged between 16 and 25 are not in education, employment or training. I am a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on social mobility. While not wishing to pre-empt what our chair will say in her report, I am sure that this will be a strong recommendation from the committee. We are very keen to know, especially if I do not press the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, what the Government’s intention is within the operation of this Bill to address this urgent and damaging situation for such a significant number of young people, some of whom are not able even to leave their bedroom and have insufficient support. What is the Government’s intention in this regard? I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 146B withdrawn.

Amendment 147

Moved by

147: Clause 21, page 39, line 21, at end insert— “(1A) When discharging its duty under subsection (1), the relevant authority must consider the right to British citizenship of looked-after and relevant young people and how that entitlement can be secured to avoid adverse effect on their wellbeing.”

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 152. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who regrets that he cannot be here—perhaps an absent friend, taking what was said earlier—and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for supporting that amendment. Amendment 152 would remove the exclusion of immigration, asylum and nationality functions from the new corporate parenting duty. There is strong support throughout the children’s sector for the new corporate parenting duty, but there is also widespread dismay that it explicitly excludes immigration, asylum and nationality matters. This exclusion was raised with the Children’s Minister by the Education Select Committee in the Commons. In a subsequent letter, she explained that “immigration functions are exempt because the Home Office is already subject to existing statutory duties to safeguard children through Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act”. Not being a lawyer, I sought advice from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, and I am very grateful for its response. ILPA was clear that Section 55 does not justify the exclusion, as argued by Minister Daby. The Section 55 duty is to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children; this is different from the set of duties in Clause 21(1), which is specific to looked-after children. ILPA advises that the new duties are neither in conflict with nor identical to the existing Section 55 duties. The Refugee and Migrant Children's Consortium, to which I am also grateful for its help, likewise argues that the new duties are fully complementary to and compatible with Section 55. They are, moreover, very modest, as they apply only so far as compliance with the duties is “consistent with the proper exercise of a Department's functions” and is “reasonably practicable”. Nevertheless, they are important. Given that this explanation does not really hold water, can my noble friend the Minister explain exactly which elements of Clause 21 are incompatible with immigration, asylum and nationality functions? There is an important point of principle at stake here: the principle of universality. As the RMCC points out, children’s social care principles and children’s legislation have hitherto been universal. A carve-out such as this in a landmark piece of children’s legislation sets a dangerous precedent by setting up a two-tier care system that potentially undermines the safeguarding of some babies and children. Barnardo’s has expressed disappointment that a Labour Government should be the first to single out a group of children in this way. The principle of universality is fundamental to respecting children’s rights. The RMCC has warned that, unamended, this clause would be the first piece of primary legislation relating to children since at least our ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to distinguish children subject to immigration control or nationality considerations as somehow different from other children. It also points out that this undermines the cross-government mission-led approach by creating a carve-out for certain functions. It is at odds with the commitment in the opportunity mission to ensure every child has the best start in life. This has serious implications for the well-being of children affected by the carve-out. Catch22’s National Leaving Care Benchmarking Forum, which is made up of 131 local authority leaving care teams, points out that one in three young people turning 18 and leaving care last year was an unaccompanied asylum-seeker. Catch22 points to the impact that delays in the processing of immigration claims for unaccompanied children has on their mental and physical health and relationships. These children are particularly vulnerable when leaving care. Become argues that the inclusion of immigration et cetera matters in the corporate parenting duty should “act as a catalyst to ensure greater collaboration between the Home Office and local authorities” and help achieve “more trauma-informed practice” in relation to a group who are highly likely to have experienced trauma before their arrival in the UK. Local authorities rely on partner organisations and government departments—the Home Office in particular—for certain functions and support. The removal of Clause 22 would “help ensure that all children in care facing uncertainty over their immigration or asylum status receive appropriate safeguarding and protection”, and the same applies to those entitled to register their British nationality. The need for this was underlined by a newly published study of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people by the LSE and the University of Bedfordshire commissioned by London Councils. It highlighted a separation between practices of care and the practicalities of asylum support, even when the children had a positive relationship with their social worker. Those who did not receive social work support through the asylum process said it amplified their sense of being alone, while others who benefited from corporate parenting felt held and understood. Among the report’s recommendations is much greater involvement of social workers as corporate parents in the asylum-seeking process. Not only does Clause 22 exclude migrant children, but in its reference to nationality functions it would appear to exclude children who are entitled to British citizenship but have to claim it, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. Can my noble friend explain why children and young people who have lived in the UK in care for most, if not all, of their lives and who are entitled to British citizenship should be covered by this exclusion, if that is indeed the case? This group is the subject of Amendment 147, a probing amendment, which would require an authority discharging its corporate parenting responsibilities under Clause 21 to consider the right to British citizenship of looked-after children and young people and how to ensure that right is secured. I am grateful to the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, PRCBC, of which I am a patron, and Amnesty International for their support on this matter. PRCBC provides legal assistance and representation to many children and young people to overcome formidable barriers to claiming their nationality rights. We are talking about children who may have been born in this country, who certainly have lived most of their lives here, but who have to register their right to citizenship with the Home Office under the British Nationality Act 1981. Awareness of this law remains low, including among social workers. The point of this amendment is in part simply to draw attention to the profound importance of the right to British citizenship for the identity, sense of belonging and confidence—in other words, well-being—of this group of children and young people. PRCBC has witnessed young people devastated when they discover they are not automatically British citizens but have to register their entitlement, and some have even experienced mental breakdown as a result. In order to avoid this happening, the amendment also points to the practical need for action to improve the understanding and capacities of local authorities to ensure that this group of children and young people in their care claim their entitlement. Too many children enter care without the necessary action being taken so that nobody can now identify or obtain the evidence needed to prove that the child is a British citizen entitled to be registered as such. The vulnerable persons team within the nationalities section of the Home Office, established under the last Government, supports local authorities to take formal steps to secure the citizenship rights of children in their care, and this is very welcome. However, as PRCBC continues to experience, too little is done too late by too many local authorities. They need to understand from the start the importance of British citizenship to the children in their care and act to ensure that vital evidence is identified and secured while it can be. These two amendments underline the importance of the actions of local authorities and other bodies for the well-being of all children for whom they have corporate parental responsibility, regardless of immigration or nationality status. In conclusion, returning to Amendment 152, while Clause 22 carves out a function rather than a group of children as such, the effect is to exclude a particularly vulnerable group of children and young people whose well-being is heavily dependent on immigration, asylum, and nationality functions. What this amendment comes down to is that we must put all children and their best interests first. I am sure the Government believe in this principle; therefore, I hope and trust that they will acknowledge that the effect of exclusion of any group of children from the corporate parenting duty because they are affected by immigration, asylum or nationality functions, offends this principle and will thus accept the amendment. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support Amendment 152 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have put my name. I declare an interest as vice-president of the children’s charity, Barnardo’s. Currently, nearly one in 10 children in care is an unaccompanied asylum seeker. While their immigration status remains uncertain they face significant disadvantages in accessing services. It is good that the Government recognise that extending corporate parenting duties to a range of public bodies has the potential to improve the agency support of children in and leaving care, yet they also decided specifically to exempt decisions relating to immigration, nationality and asylum. Barnardo’s believes that children who have fled persecution and arrive in this country seeking sanctuary must be seen as children first. They are victims who are not in control of their destiny. Amendment 152 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would end that exemption. I very much support it; I hope that the Government will too, and will show consideration and compassion to these sometimes traumatised children.

14:30:00

My Lords, corporate parenting means providing the best possible care, safeguarding and support, ensuring that children thrive and have opportunities to reach their full potential. It involves actively promoting their well-being, health and education, and preparing them for adulthood, mirroring what a responsible parent would do. As such, Amendment 147 seeks to ensure that local authorities must consider the rights of looked-after children to British citizenship, which is exactly what a responsible parent would indeed do. It is important that a local authority is able to focus on the well-being of the child and to consider whether this should apply to citizenship. It is certainly a most relevant issue for the Minister to opine on. Amendment 152, which seeks to remove Clause 22(1)(a), would extend the local authority duty to take care of looked-after children to the Secretary of State “exercising immigration, asylum and nationality functions”. We can see plausible reasons why the Government would choose to include that exemption but it merits further discussion and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to a potentially sensitive and complicated subject.

I thank noble Lords for their contributions in this group, which relates to corporate parenting and, in particular, to immigration functions. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Lister for introducing her amendments. Amendment 152 seeks to apply corporate parenting duties to immigration, asylum and nationality functions. As we discussed in the previous group, our new corporate parenting measures will place an important responsibility on each Secretary of State and relevant bodies to support and seek to provide opportunities for looked-after children and care leavers, which in turn will improve their long-term outcomes. This means that Secretaries of State, including the Home Secretary, and relevant public bodies are required to be alert to matters that might negatively affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, regardless of their immigration status, when exercising any functions other than those relating to asylum, immigration, nationality or customs. To be clear, children and young people in the immigration system will absolutely benefit from the additional care and support that new corporate parents will provide. The exemption is to a set of functions, not to a set of children. This Government recognise the importance of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the UK. As my noble friend identified, this is already reflected in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Section 55 requires the Home Secretary to make arrangements for ensuring that immigration, asylum and nationality functions are discharged “having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom”. Statutory guidance linked to this sets out the key principles. This includes that the best interest of the child is a primary consideration when making decisions affecting children. Children should be consulted, and their wishes and feelings taken into account wherever practicable, when decisions affecting them are made. Children should have their applications dealt with in a way that minimises the uncertainty that they may experience. The guidance also emphasises the importance of interagency working. My noble friend made the point about the requirement to speed up asylum decision-making processes and questioned whether this exclusion would mean that asylum decision-making for these children was not as quick as possible. Applying the duty to the asylum functions of the Home Office would not require it to decide asylum claims for young people in care as soon as possible on its own; that would not be the impact of applying that particular responsibility to this function. The Home Office is committed to ensuring that vulnerable claimants, such as children and care leavers, have their claims decided at the earliest opportunity. However, there are many factors, some beyond the control of the Home Office, that can delay and contribute to the length of time taken to process children’s asylum claims, such as age disputes and the availability of legal representation. The Home Office works continuously to improve the speed of decision-making—I have to say that, under this Government, it has had some success in doing that—and reduce the number of outstanding claims for children. However, there will always be complex cases, and it is right that the Home Office takes the time to consider those carefully. Also, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children looked after by local authorities are already subject to the general corporate parenting duties. They will be covered by the specific duties on the local authorities that care for them and by the broader duties this Bill will bring in. The Government are reflecting on the requirement to support children in gaining certainty about their legal status, in particular in gaining citizenship, and taking further steps to consider looked-after children’s and care leavers’ interests as we reform and manage the immigration system, as set out in the White Paper Restoring Control Over the Immigration System, published on 12 May. That White Paper contained proposals to ensure that children who have been in the UK for some time and who discover, when they turn 18, that they do not have status are fully supported and able to regularise their status and settle. This will include a clear pathway for those looked-after children and care leavers. I hope that responds to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on the previous group. The Home Secretary will set out further details about how progress will be made on that objective. Amendment 147 also deals with this issue and seeks to ensure that new corporate parents consider the right to British citizenship of looked after children and care leavers, and how that entitlement can be secured to avoid adverse effects on their well-being. Local authorities already follow a separate set of corporate parenting principles, as I have suggested, and are best placed to take steps to consider whether a young person in their care needs support to seek British citizenship. I know from experience, and from having seen some of the practice, that considerable care is already being taken to ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and other children subject to the immigration system in care are receiving from local authorities the care and attention that they specifically need because of their needs. In fact, I can remember, when I was chairing Sandwell Children’s Trust, being asked to help a social worker assistant who was trying to ensure that two of the children for whom we were responsible were able to get the passports they needed in time to be taken on holiday by the foster parents who were caring for them. A lot of day-to-day work is going on in this area. As I have already suggested, all that work and support for those children is not exempted by this provision in the Bill; it is only with respect to the functions that I have already talked about. The White Paper that I touched on earlier also sets out the Government’s intent to consider measures to reduce the financial barriers to accessing British nationality for young adults who have lived here through their childhood. The previous Government already removed some fees in those circumstances, back in 2022. That the Home Secretary is bringing forward proposals in this area I hope makes clear the Government’s commitment to ensuring that children, as we seek to regularise their status in this country, are getting the necessary support, and that it will be improved by this Government. Given the assurances I have provided, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment on this point.

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for making the case and reminding us that we are talking about children first. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for what was actually a very sympathetic response to what I said. I absolutely take the point—I finished with this point—that we are taking about functions and not a group of children. I have not quite finished reading the new study that has just come out, but the trouble is that, in many cases, parts of corporate parenting functions involve asylum and immigration matters, so it is difficult to disentangle the function from the group. I will have to look more closely at what the Minister said, but I have to admit that I am not totally persuaded. I still do not really understand why it is necessary to have this exclusion. I tabled this amendment on behalf of the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, in which there are a lot of children’s organisations. A lot of the people who are briefing on this Bill—Barnardo’s and many others—welcome the corporate parenting duty and then say, “We must not have this exclusion”. There seems to be a disconnect between their reading, interpretation and understanding of what this will mean and the Government’s. We may have to come back to that—I do not know—but I still do not really understand why it is felt necessary to have this exclusion, which is creating such alarm among children’s organisations. On children who are entitled to claim British citizenship, I have been working on this issue for many years, pressing the previous Government and finally getting somewhere. That is not just because of me—it is primarily because of the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, which has been indefatigable in pushing on this, together with Amnesty. I welcome what is in the White Paper and look forward to getting more detail about what is meant. Certainly, after the way things were left under the previous Government, it is still difficult—it costs so much to put in that claim. I remember that when we discussed in this House the rules on who can be exempted from having to pay, we were very unhappy about them. It would be excellent if the Government were taking another look at that. The fact is that there are too many children—and my noble friend talked about them after the age of 18. Ideally, local authorities would be more aware of this and would make sure that the claim was made before young people reached the age of 18.

14:45:00

There is a lot to look at, and I am grateful for the support I have received, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 147 withdrawn.

Amendment 147A not moved.

Clause 21 agreed.

Schedule 1: Relevant authorities

Amendments 148 to 150

Moved by

148: Schedule 1, page 126, line 2, after “board” insert “established under section 14Z25 of the National Health Service Act 2006” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment clarifies the entry in Schedule 1 relating to integrated care boards.

149: Schedule 1, page 126, line 3, after “trust” insert “within the meaning given by section 30 of the National Health Service Act 2006” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment clarifies the entry in Schedule 1 relating to NHS foundation trusts.

150: Schedule 1, page 126, line 4, after “trust” insert “established under section 25 of the National Health Service Act 2006” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment ensures that the reference in Schedule 1 to an NHS trust is a reference to an NHS trust in England.

Amendments 148 to 150 agreed.

Amendment 151 not moved.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed.

Clause 22: Cases in which duty under section 21(1) does not apply

Amendment 152 not moved.

Clause 22 agreed.

Clause 23 agreed.

Clause 24: Duty to have regard to guidance

Amendment 152A not moved.

Clause 24 agreed.

Clause 25 agreed.

Amendment 153 not moved.

Clause 26: Employment of children in England

Amendment 154

Moved by

154: Clause 26, page 43, line 8, leave out “, or to require a child to have a medical examination,”

My Lords, Amendment 154 effectively asks the question, “Why? What is the justification for such an examination?”. I look forward to listening to the Minister’s response to Amendment 155. I beg to move.

My Lords, Amendments 168, 228, 376 and 377 concern child performances and sporting activities. I declare my interest as per the register. On Amendment 168, there is no system in place to safeguard and protect children’s earnings from financial abuse when they are engaged in performances, paid sport or modelling activities. Other countries, such as the US and numerous EU territories, have legislation in place to ensure that employers pay a percentage of the child’s earnings into a trust account where earnings are protected by the state until the child reaches the age of 18. We lag behind the times with this provision, and safeguarding and protection are long overdue. Local authorities can add stipulations to licences—for example, that 80% must be paid into a child’s savings account or 50% used for the child’s benefit. However, these conditions differ throughout Great Britain and are sadly ineffective, as a parent can access and use the child’s money and not necessarily for the child’s benefit or in their interest. Local authorities themselves are concerned about how best to protect these earnings but, sadly, there is no system or law in place to support this. My amendment would ensure that a small percentage of the child’s earnings is held in trust until the child reaches adulthood and is not accessible by a parent, guardian or the child themselves. If this amendment becomes law, trust accounts will protect the child’s earnings until they reach the age of 18. Income will be protected and any tax liabilities more easily calculated. As we enter a world of streaming platforms, social influencers and headline child stars, these earnings can be in the millions of pounds and we have a responsibility to ensure that all children, regardless of which local authority they reside in, have effective means to safeguard their future and their earnings. Amendment 228 deals with a child not appearing on the school register. The Bill as it stands fails to recognise the unique needs of children working within the entertainment industry, where many are educated in flexi-alternative provisions. The safeguarding elements of this pre-approval to be absent from school have already been scrutinised by the licensing authority and the education provisions are accounted for in the conditions of the licence period. What is proposed in the Bill is the opposite of what should be a positive. This life-changing experience for a child is regarded as a negative absence, not only for the child but for the school. It will not record the beneficial reason for their absence—merely another day missed from school, which negatively affects both the child and the school’s record and could affect its Ofsted standing. This unique opportunity should be celebrated, not penalised. When the child is granted a licence to perform within Great Britain, the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, combined with the Children (Performances and Activities) (England) Regulations 2014, make provision for the approval of education to be shared with local authorities. Requiring this information not only to be carefully considered and shared but then duplicated and, as often happens, amended at the last minute due to the requirements of the production, would divert valuable resources away from the safeguarding of young people and the most vulnerable children. The Bill’s current requirement to include children within the register with pre-approved flexi-education from licensing authorities would divert attention from the very children the register is intending to capture. It will slow down the process of licensing children to perform. Local authorities will require information not available at the time of a licence application to add children to the register. The licensing process, in reality, is evolving and live; it is where industry collaborates with licensing authorities. It is imperative that the process works for all parties involved. Amendment 376 concerns a body of persons approval, or BOPA, which is in the wrong place. It currently sits within Part 6 of the regulations, which targets only performance abroad rather than performance in the UK. My amendment highlights the need for a licensing authority that approves a performance abroad or exempts a performance within the UK to notify the local authority in which the child lives. This will ensure that the local authorities are fully aware of the children who are performing, to finally join up the dots and offer a working solution using the technological advances of 2025. This in turn will help safeguard a child from overperforming and not receiving the regulated overnight rest breaks, and give consideration for meaningful education. At present, local authorities are aware of performances by children in their area only if they have granted the licence. Exemptions granted under a body of persons approval, or licences granted by a magistrate’s court for children to perform abroad, are not shared with the local authority where the child resides. However, under the Bill, they are expected to note on the register information that is not being shared. There is currently no legal requirement or process for a magistrate’s court to inform the child’s local authority that they are missing school under the child employment abroad order, so it will not be aware of the child’s involvement in a performance. Amendment 376 requires licensing authorities that approve a licence, or authorise a performance under a body of persons approval, to notify the local authority in which the child resides. We have a duty to protect our children, regardless of where they perform, and the current system requires urgent consideration of we license children for paid and unpaid performances, to ensure that we have an effective, joined-up approach. Finally, Amendment 377 calls for a review of the child performance regulations 2014. Since the regulations were revised in 2014, we have seen a substantial change to the entertainment industry, with streaming platforms, new film studios and diverse opportunities for children to be involved and perform. The industry is fast-paced and must adapt to new technologies. The very interpretation of the performance regulations across each local authority makes it hard to take a balanced approach when multiple children from different areas are involved in the same production. Children performing in the UK from other countries, which have their own regulations and union rules that must be followed alongside our laws, result in a mixture of regulations that do not always have the best interests of children at heart. In 2014, the then Government agreed to revisit these regulations after 10 years, some of which I was instrumental in securing. It is important to acknowledge that, to move forward in the best way to support all children to partake in performance, there needs to be a period of reflection to stay current with an ever-evolving industry. Would the Government commit to review the child performance regulations to include the necessary improvements needed? Our world has changed, and we have to adapt or face being left behind, otherwise children will miss out on potentially life-changing experiences and opportunities. We have an opportunity, by agreeing to my amendments, to make a positive change for children and young people in performing arts and sporting activities. I look forward to working with the Government to make these changes.

My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 155. It is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and I agree with everything that she said; I therefore also support her. What prompted me to look at this space were the government Amendments 157 and 158 on the employment of children in England and Wales and in Scotland. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that they do not sufficiently cover the difficulties and discrepancies between what is in the Bill and the on-the-ground opportunities for children in the performing arts. I was especially concerned by the timing restrictions in proposed new Clause 2(1)(d)—as well as in the proposed new paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h)—which requires children not to work before 7 am or after 8 pm. The Minister is shaking her head, so clarification from her that this does not apply to children in the performing arts would be great. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, about the opportunities for children to take part in the performing arts. My first pay packet came as a performer with Scottish Ballet at the age of nine, which introduced me to all sorts of career opportunities that I would not have had in school, including becoming a choreologist. I would therefore welcome anything to clarify that children are encouraged to take up these opportunities. I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify the licensing agreement for performing arts and children being paid as performers. I look forward to hearing her answer.

15:00:00

Since the noble Baroness has mentioned them, I shall also offer some observations on the government amendments in advance of hearing the Minister speaking to them. Amendment 157 and the Scottish equivalent, Amendment 158, are indeed better and simpler than Clause 26 as originally formulated, but I have some reservations about either formulation. The intention is to replace Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. A treasured possession of mine is an ancient copy of the 1933 Act. The original Section 18 provided that “no child shall be employed … to lift, carry or move anything so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him”. That had the merit of clarity and simplicity. The Bill will now say: “A child may not be employed … to do any work other than light work”. One turns to the end of the new section to find, in subsection (8), a rather wordy definition of “light work” in negative terms, which tells us what light work is not. In particular, it means “work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed … is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and … is not such as to be harmful” to their education, through attendance at school or otherwise. That may somewhat widen the scope of the original Section 18 but, frankly, the drafting is less focused. Indeed, whether, as drafted, it is an improvement on the original Section 18 remains to be seen. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider looking again at trying to retain some of the best of the old version in a more modern context. I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I hope that at some point the Government can look at it, perhaps before Report. Meanwhile, I will say a slightly sad farewell to the original Section 18.

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in this group relating to child employment. Amendment 154 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the ability of a local authority to require medical examinations of children for their employment. This seems like an eminently sensible amendment, and we will be most interested to hear from the Minister in what circumstances His Majesty’s Government expect this power to be necessary. Amendments 155, 168, 228, 376 and 377 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Parkinson and Lord Storey, relate to child performers and seek to protect their ability to perform. We see them often on our screens and on our stages and there can be no doubt that child talent plays a truly integral role in creating excellent productions, whether in film, television, theatre or music, so it is really important that this well-intentioned clause does not inadvertently negatively impact the creative industry but allows child performers to continue to play an active role in the industry where they choose to do so. Amendment 156, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, who sends her apologies, seeks to probe His Majesty’s Government on the definition of “development” in relation to the definition of “light work”, which cannot include anything that is “likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children”, as just referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Our amendment seeks to question how technology will be considered within this definition. There is considerable evidence that suggests that technology and the use of screens hinders children’s development and, as such, we ask the Minister whether children will be able to interact with technology in their employment. By way of an example, many restaurants and public houses use technology devices to take orders. With this definition, would it be possible that any workers under the age of 18 would not be able to use such devices? Government Amendments 157, 158, 503, 506, 507 and 510 to 514 clarify the scope of this clause in relation to the devolved Administrations in both Scotland and Wales. His Majesty’s Official Opposition will not seek to oppose them. Amendment 176, in the name of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, which I have signed, seeks to require an impact assessment on weekend jobs. There are many children, including my own, who work at the weekends in order to save money for clothes, their first car or a multitude of other reasons. Without wanting to state the obvious, working is brilliant. It is the first step towards understanding the value of money and saving for something. It facilitates interpersonal skills, which are so critically important in an age that is now dominated by smartphones and online conversations. It promotes punctuality, time-keeping and, to a certain extent, stability. So when Clause 26 potentially reduces the number of hours that can be worked over a weekend, we believe it is important that the impact of this should be fully assessed—hence our amendment. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions thus far on such an important topic and look forward to the response from the Minister.

My Lords, I just remind the Committee that, 12 or 13 years ago, when we were looking at the Children and Families Bill, my noble friend Lady Benjamin took up this issue with great vigour, and quite rightly so. Since then, of course, times have changed, as traditional child employment laws have often failed to address online influencer work, digital content creation and remote gig roles taken up by children. My own experience as a head teacher at a primary school was that I had a number of such children. I remember Josh Bolt, who appeared regularly as a main character in “Last Tango in Halifax”, and the problems that we faced trying to ensure that he could fulfil his acting potential. He was able to do so, and appeared in the film “Nowhere Boy”, about the life of John Lennon. But it was us bending the rules, quite frankly, and not following the exact letter of the law, which allowed him to fulfil his dreams and ambitions. There were other children as well; I think of sports and those children, both boys and girls, who went to football academies, for example. A number of them went on to have successful careers in sport. So we must make laws that not only protect the young person but work for the young person as well, enabling them to enhance their skills and take up the opportunities that are available. According to the Education Policy Institute, part-time jobs can support resilience, time management and confidence. But, of course, unregulated work can harm education as well; it is about getting the balance right. I am looking forward to discussing the amendments on school registration. Some schools can be overzealous on registration and do not take personal factors into account. It is really important that we listen to my noble friend Lady Benjamin, in particular; she has huge experience in this area. If we want to be a successful nation in the cultural industries, which we are, little hiccups such as this need sorting out. One noble Lord mentioned that there are discrepancies between England, Wales and Scotland in child labour and performance law, and that creates confusion and enforcement challenges. While performance licences require education provision, oversight is inconsistent and, as I have been saying, schools sometimes incorrectly mark children absent when, in fact, that should not be the case. I am sure that the Government will want to listen to what is being said and to make this work for families and children. I was particularly taken, as it had not occurred to me until I read the amendment, by the point that my noble friend raised at the very beginning about how these earnings should be, if you like, looked after for the future. That is a really important point.

My Lords, I am pleased that we have been able to have a wide debate on the measures in the Bill that relate to child employment. I am sure many noble Lords agree that employment can have a hugely beneficial impact on a child: it can contribute to their development, introduce them to the world of work and help them develop key life skills. However, current legislation needs to be updated to better reflect the world of employment today and to make things simpler and clearer for children, families and employers. I should perhaps be clear at this point that, in this group of amendments, we are talking about two different sets of regulations. We have heard, and I will come to, the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser—by the way, both of them demonstrate the benefits of being a performer, child or otherwise. To be clear, these are two completely different sets of regulations. To respond to the specific point, the changes made in the employment regulations do not impact on the ability of children to be performers. I speak first to the government amendments in this group, which include Amendments 157 and 158 and consequential Amendments 503, 506, 507 and 510 to 514. These amendments seek to bring these changes in employment regulations to children in Scotland and Wales too. Our aim is that all children, regardless of where they live, can benefit from these new employment opportunities. These amendments will ensure that children in Wales and Scotland, as well as children in England, will be able to take advantage of the greater flexibility that this clause allows. This means being able to work more hours on a Sunday, an hour before school, and until 8 pm—crucially, without increasing their overall weekly working hours. This is to ensure that employment does not negatively impact on their health, development and education. We have also made a small amendment to the definition of “light work” so that it better reflects the circumstances of children who are educated at home, not just those who attend school. I will try to come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The new definition of light work is probably more appropriate at this time, when children’s work is not necessarily going to be about only the physical efforts that they are engaged in but other elements of that work which could have an impact on their health, development and education. Overall, this increased flexibility will ensure that a child can, if they want to, benefit from the positive impacts we know that the world of work can bring, and we will have a more consistent approach across Great Britain. In doing that, we will be allowing all children to benefit from the same employment opportunities. I hope noble Lords will feel able to support these government amendments.

15:15:00

Given the benefits that employment can offer a child, I welcome the opportunity provided by noble Lords’ amendments to look in greater detail at how our child employment measures might look in practice. Amendment 154, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendments 156 and 176, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, seek to question or clarify parts of the wording in the clause.

Starting with Amendment 154, I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the circumstances which might require a child to undergo a medical examination as part of their application for an employment permit. This is not new: model by-laws, which most, if not all, local authorities have adopted, include a provision which allows them to require a child to undergo a medical examination in certain circumstances. It certainly does not mean that every child will be required to have a medical examination before an employment permit is issued. There might be particular sorts of work or children with particular needs where a local authority might feel it is appropriate to carry out a medical examination to be clear that that child would not be impacted by that work in the way I have suggested. I imagine that would be used pretty infrequently, and I hope that provides some clarification for the noble Lord. Without that power, it would not be possible in those very specific circumstances for children to have a medical examination.

Amendment 156, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, addresses the role that technology plays in modern jobs and queries the word “development” in this context. Just to be clear, there has been no amendment to the term as part of our child employment measures. Here, “development” would therefore take its ordinary meaning, encompassing a child’s physical and emotional development. In our view, it is important that a child’s development is considered alongside their education, health and safety when reviewing the suitability of employment. Development is not defined in the Bill, so it would take its ordinary meaning. In this context, that encompasses a child’s physical and emotional development, and it is not about the development of technology. In response to the specific question, this would not prevent a child from using technology, and that is not the point of it. The point of it is whether or not there is an impact on the child’s physical and emotional development.

On Amendment 176, on the employability of children at the weekend, we believe that Clause 26 will have a positive impact on the employability of children by providing greater flexibility in working hours, including at the weekend. In future, Sunday employment restrictions will be amended so that a Sunday is treated the same as a Saturday. Put simply, that should make it easier, not harder, for children to access employment at the weekend but at the same time should ensure that there is not an increase in the overall hours that children can work. As part of the work to develop this policy, we spoke to key stakeholders, including children, their families and local authorities, who were supportive of the measure. We will continue to work with them as we prepare the regulations.

I turn now to the further amendments to this clause, which relate to child performers. Clause 26 is about child employment and is not about child performance, which has its own detailed legislation, regulations and guidance. Amendments 228, 376 and 377 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, particularly relate to the interaction between the child performance regulations and the children not in school registers to be introduced in this legislation. Amendment 228 intends to exempt children who have been granted child performing licences or body of persons approvals from being eligible for inclusion on children not in school registers. The noble Baroness outlined the different nature of child performance from the cases of many children who might be registered on children not in school registers. To be clear, registration on a children not in school register should not necessarily be seen as a negative thing; it is simply so that local authorities can determine where children who are not registered in school are and what they are doing.

I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to think carefully about how child performers are included on registers. As she said, some child performers may be educated otherwise than at school for several months, others only for a few days. Given that variability, it is right that we can consider potential exemptions via children not in school regulations rather than in the Bill—so she makes a very fair point. In the regulations we will need to look carefully at how we deal with the different types of absence that might be caused by children being performers. We will of course consult on those regulations and, where they are subject to the affirmative procedure, this House will have the opportunity to debate them.

Amendment 376 concerns sharing information about a child. I agree that local authorities should have access to relevant information when a child is licensed to perform. However, we do not believe that this proposed new statutory duty is necessary because, where a child is eligible to be registered on a local authority’s children not in school register, the Bill already makes provision for regulations to prescribe specific details to be included in registers. These may include the reasons why the child is eligible, such as that the child is a child performer. In circumstances where children did need to be on the register, by virtue of their performance, it would be possible and appropriate to note that that was by virtue of them being performers, rather than for any other reason.

Amendment 377 looks at the Bill’s impact on child performance regulations, which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for educating us on. I assure her that we intend to consult with stakeholders, including those involved with child performance, on the content of any children not in school regulations to ensure that they have the intended impact and work effectively. We also intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the Bill to assess its impact. An additional review within six months of the Bill passing is therefore unnecessary; there will be other ways in which we can review the impact of these regulations.

Amendment 155 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 168 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, seek to address specific concerns relating to child performers and their earnings. Our favourite Committee fly has just landed on me; it is a more diligent attender than most of the people who attend this Committee. Amendment 155 seeks to enable a discussion on whether child performers should continue to be licensed. Again, to be clear: this measure is not looking to change legislation or regulations that relate to child performers. Child performance has its own licensing regime that is not part of the Bill. As we have already said, there is enormous benefit to children in being able to take part in performances for their development and potential future ambitions. It is right, therefore, that there is a process in place to enable them to do that while safeguarding them.

I hear the points made by noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, about whether the current regulations are appropriate. The Government are aware of the need to reform child performance legislation. That will need to be focused on work with stakeholders and other key departments to properly understand the challenges and to get performance-related legislation right. That we have not included it in this piece of legislation does not mean that we think everything is perfect. The noble Baroness has identified that today.

On Amendment 168 and protecting the earnings of child performers, I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns. I hope I can provide some reassurance on that. Local authorities already have the power to include conditions in their licences that the sums earned by a child be dealt with in a particular manner by the licence holder. The purpose of that regulation is to ensure that parents and those with parental responsibility do not unjustly spend a child’s earnings. In many cases, the sums involved would not warrant such a condition, and licensing authorities will seldom, if ever, need to consider that. But as the noble Baroness identified, with increasing high-earning opportunities for children you can envisage a situation where a child involved in a high-profile film or television series could receive significant sums of money. In these cases, or when a child gets consistently high levels of work, the licensing authority certainly should consider whether a condition on how the sums are dealt with is appropriate and in the best interests of the child. Local authorities are best placed to decide on a case-by-case basis, based on the situation and context, what best suits a child’s needs. In the broader context of reforming the regulations, that will be one of the issues borne in mind in that revision.

This has been a reasonably broad-ranging set of amendments. I hope that I have provided some reassurance and that noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments and to support Clause 26, which will make a tangible difference for children in employment in England, Scotland and Wales.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for those extensive replies. The delightful reminiscence from my noble friend Lady Fraser conjures up the thought of Report on the hereditary Peers Bill being conducted through the medium of expressive dance, featuring the Committee fly. On the more prosaic question of these amendments, on Amendment 228 I hope that the Government will be determined that children should be recorded somewhere at all times. It would not be an acceptable part of the system if people could drop in and out of being registered at all. The point of the register is that we know where children are. On Amendment 154, I got the impression that the Minister does not know any better than I do what this phrase is doing there or what it would be used for. I will write to her between now and Report to see whether we can explore what practical application it has, because I cannot see that, in the context of our modern attitude to disability, it should be the business of a local authority to say, “No, you’re in a wheelchair; you can’t do this”. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 154 withdrawn.

Amendments 155 and 156 not moved.

Amendment 157

Moved by

157: Leave out Clause 26 and insert the following new Clause— “Employment of children in England and Wales(1) The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is amended as follows.(2) For section 18 substitute—“18 Restrictions on employment of children(1) A child may not be employed to work—(a) so long as the child is under the age of 14 (subject to regulations under subsection (2));(b) to do any work other than light work;(c) to do work of a description specified in regulations made by the appropriate national authority;(d) before 7.00 a.m. or after 8.00 p.m. on any day;(e) on any day on which the child is required to attend school—(i) for more than one hour before the start of school hours,(ii) during school hours, or(iii) for more than two hours in total in the day;(f) for more than 12 hours in any week in which the child is required to attend school;(g) for more than eight hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than five hours in any day on which the child is not required to attend school;(h) for more than 35 hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than 25 hours in any week in which the child is not required to attend school;(i) for more than four hours in any day without a break of one hour;(j) at any time in a year unless at that time a person employing the child is satisfied that the child has had, or could still have, a period of at least two consecutive weeks without employment during a period in the year in which the child is not required to attend school.(2) The appropriate national authority may by regulations authorise the employment of children aged 13 to do specified descriptions of light work.(3) A child may not be employed to work except in accordance with a permit (a “child employment permit”) granted by a local authority on an application made in accordance with regulations made by the appropriate national authority.(4) The appropriate national authority may by regulations—(a) make provision in relation to child employment permits;(b) provide that subsection (3) does not apply in specified cases or circumstances;(c) make provision about the keeping of records.(5) The provision that may be made in reliance on subsection (4)(a) includes provision—(a) authorising a local authority to request such information as the authority considers appropriate, or to require a child to have a medical examination, for the purpose of enabling the authority to determine an application;(b) requiring a local authority to have regard to specified matters when determining an application;(c) for the grant of a child employment permit subject to conditions determined by a local authority; (d) requiring a child employment permit to contain specified information;(e) authorising a local authority to vary, suspend or revoke a child employment permit in specified circumstances;(f) about appeals against—(i) a decision to reject an application, or(ii) the revocation of a child employment permit;(g) imposing requirements on persons employing children (including requirements to produce child employment permits for inspection);(h) requiring or authorising a local authority, in specified circumstances, to disclose information about a child employment permit to another local authority in England or Wales or to a local authority in Scotland.(6) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision (subject to subsection (1) and regulations under subsection (2))—(a) specifying the number of hours in each day, or in each week, for which children may be employed, and the times of day at which they may be employed;(b) specifying the intervals to be allowed to children for meals and breaks, when in employment;(c) about entitlement to leave;(d) specifying other conditions to be met in relation to the employment of children.(7) Nothing in this section, or in regulations made under any provision of this section, prevents a child from doing anything—(a) under the authority of a licence granted under this Part, or(b) in a case where by virtue of subsection (3) of section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 no licence under that section is required for the child to do it.(8) In this section—“appropriate national authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;“light work” means work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed—(a) is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and(b) is not such as to be harmful to their education (through attendance at school or otherwise) as required by section 7 of the Education Act 1996 or to their participation in work experience in accordance with section 560 of that Act, or their capacity to benefit from the education received or the experience gained (as the case may be);“local authority in Scotland” means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;“specified” , in relation to regulations made under any provision of this section, means specified in the regulations;“week” means any period of seven consecutive days;“year” means a period of 12 months beginning with 1 January.18A Regulations under section 18: further provision(1) Regulations under section 18 may—(a) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(b) make provision subject to exceptions; (c) make transitional or saving provision.(2) Except as provided by subsection (3), regulations under section 18 may provide for the processing of information in accordance with the regulations not to be in breach of—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person processing the information, or(b) any other restriction on the processing of information (however imposed).(3) Regulations under section 18 are not to be read as requiring or authorising the processing of information that would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether particular processing of data would do so, take into account the duty imposed or power conferred by the provision of the regulations in question).(4) Regulations under section 18 are to be made by statutory instrument.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 18 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section 18 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of Senedd Cymru.(7) In this section“the data protection legislation” and“processing” have the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”(3) In section 21 (penalties and legal proceedings in respect of general provisions as to employment), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(4) In section 28 (powers of entry), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(5) In section 30 (interpretation), in subsection (1), after “byelaws” insert “or regulations”.(6) In Schedule 36A to the Education Act 1996, in the table, omit the entry for section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (including the title of that Act).(7) In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Act 2012 (anaw 2), in the table, in the English language and Welsh language texts, omit the entry that relates to byelaws made under section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (referred to as “adran 18 o Ddeddf Plant a Phobl Ifanc 1933” in the Welsh language text).”Member’s explanatory statement Clause 26 makes provision for England restricting employed work by children. This amendment replaces that clause to extend the application of that provision to Wales. It also includes a change to the definition of “light work” in the inserted section 18(8) to reflect that children may receive their compulsory education outside of school.

Amendment 157 agreed.

Amendment 158

Moved by

158: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause— “Employment of children in Scotland(1) The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 is amended as follows.(2) For section 28 substitute—“28 Restrictions on employment of children(1) A child may not be employed to work— (a) so long as the child is under the age of 14 (subject to regulations under subsection (2));(b) to do any work other than light work;(c) to do work of a description specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers;(d) before 7.00 a.m. or after 8.00 p.m. on any day;(e) on any day on which the child is required to attend school—(i) for more than one hour before the start of school hours,(ii) during school hours, or(iii) for more than two hours in total in the day;(f) for more than 12 hours in any week in which the child is required to attend school;(g) for more than eight hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than five hours in any day on which the child is not required to attend school;(h) for more than 35 hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than 25 hours in any week in which the child is not required to attend school;(i) for more than four hours in any day without a break of one hour;(j) at any time in a year unless at that time a person employing the child is satisfied that the child has had, or could still have, a period of at least two consecutive weeks without employment during a period in the year in which the child is not required to attend school.(2) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations authorise the employment of children aged 13 to do specified descriptions of light work.(3) A child may not be employed to work except in accordance with a permit (a “child employment permit”) granted by a local authority on an application made in accordance with regulations made by the Scottish Ministers.(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations—(a) make provision in relation to child employment permits;(b) provide that subsection (3) does not apply in specified cases or circumstances;(c) make provision about the keeping of records.(5) The provision that may be made in reliance on subsection (4)(a) includes provision—(a) authorising a local authority to request such information as the authority considers appropriate, or to require a child to have a medical examination, for the purpose of enabling the authority to determine an application;(b) requiring a local authority to have regard to specified matters when determining an application;(c) for the grant of a child employment permit subject to conditions determined by a local authority;(d) requiring a child employment permit to contain specified information;(e) authorising a local authority to vary, suspend or revoke a child employment permit in specified circumstances;(f) about appeals against—(i) a decision to reject an application, or(ii) the revocation of a child employment permit;(g) imposing requirements on persons employing children (including requirements to produce child employment permits for inspection); (h) requiring or authorising a local authority, in specified circumstances, to disclose information about a child employment permit to another local authority in Scotland, to a local authority in England or to a local authority in Wales.(6) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision (subject to subsection (1) and regulations under subsection (2))—(a) specifying the number of hours in each day, or in each week, for which children may be employed, and the times of day at which they may be employed;(b) specifying the intervals to be allowed to children for meals and breaks, when in employment;(c) about entitlement to leave;(d) specifying other conditions to be met in relation to the employment of children.(7) Nothing in this section, or in regulations made under any provision of this section, prevents a child from doing anything—(a) under the authority of a licence granted under this Part, or(b) in a case where by virtue of subsection (3) of section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 no licence under that section is required for the child to do it.(8) In this section—“light work” means work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed—(a) is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and(b) is not such as to be harmful to their education (through attendance at school or otherwise) as required by section 30 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 or to their participation in work experience in accordance with section 123 of that Act, or their capacity to benefit from the education received or the experience gained (as the case may be);“local authority in England” and“local authority in Wales” have the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996 (see section 579(1) of that Act);“specified” , in relation to regulations made under any provision of this section, means specified in the regulations;“week” means any period of seven consecutive days;“year” means a period of 12 months beginning with 1 January.28A Regulations under section 28: further provision(1) Regulations under section 28 may—(a) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(b) make provision subject to exceptions;(c) make transitional or saving provision.(2) Except as provided by subsection (3), regulations under section 28 may provide for the processing of information in accordance with the regulations not to be in breach of—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person processing the information, or(b) any other restriction on the processing of information (however imposed).(3) Regulations under section 28 are not to be read as requiring or authorising the processing of information that would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether particular processing of data would do so, take into account the duty imposed or power conferred by the provision of the regulations in question).(4) Regulations under section 28 are subject to the negative procedure (see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).(5) In this section“the data protection legislation” and“processing” have the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”(3) In section 31 (penalties and legal proceedings in respect of general provisions as to employment), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(4) In section 35 (confirmation of byelaws), in subsection (1), for “Secretary of State” substitute “Scottish Ministers”.(5) In section 36 (powers of entry), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(6) In section 37 (interpretation), after “byelaws” insert “or regulations”.(7) In section 38 (savings)—(a) omit subsection (3);(b) in subsection (4), for “The said provisions” substitute “The provisions of this Part relating to employment”.(8) In section 110(1) (interpretation), omit the definitions of “borstal institution” and “residential establishment”.”Member’s explanatory statement This clause makes equivalent provision for Scotland to that made for England and Wales by my amendment to replace clause 26.

Amendment 158 agreed.

Amendment 159

Moved by

159: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause— “Establishment of Child Protection Authority(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, establish a Child Protection Authority for England.(2) The purpose of the Authority is to—(a) improve practice in child protection,(b) provide advice and make recommendations to the Government on child protection policy and reforms to improve child protection,(c) inspect institutions and settings at some times and in such ways as it considers necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with child protection standards, and(d) monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other inquiries relating to the protection of children.(3) The Authority must act with a view to—(a) safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children;(b) ensuring that institutions and settings fulfil their responsibilities in relation to child protection.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment establishes the Child Protection Authority for England.

15:30:00

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 160 to this important Bill. Amendment 159 relates to the establishment of a child protection authority and is also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. These amendments, grounded in the belief that every child, no matter where they live and what challenges they face, should be guaranteed a basic level of protection. Amendment 159 proposes the creation of a child protection authority, in direct response to one of the most urgent and widely endorsed recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Amendment 160 seeks to establish national thresholds for children in need support under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Neither of these proposals is theoretical. Both are urgent responses to real-world system failures that we have seen repeated with devastating consequences across our country. Amendment 159 calls for the creation of the child protection authority, as recommended by the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. That inquiry, after seven years, 325 days of public hearings, and testimony from over 7,000 victims and survivors, concluded that existing child protection mechanisms are fragmented, inconsistent and insufficiently accountable. Among the 20 recommendations, the establishment of the independent child protection authority was second only to mandatory reporting. This body would have four core responsibilities: to improve child protection practices across public and private institutions; to provide expert advice to the Government and the sector; to conduct inspections of institutions and systems where safeguarding concerns are raised; and to monitor the implementation of the recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other major safeguarding inquiries. Critically, this authority would be independent and established as a non-departmental public body, similar to the structure of the National Crime Agency. Its independence would give it the mandate and credibility to act across departmental and institutional silos. We cannot ignore the repeated failures of the current framework. The names of Sara Sharif, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson will remain etched in our nation’s conscience for years to come. Each of those children was known to professionals and each was failed by a system that saw the risk but lacked the clarity, co-ordination and accountability to prevent harm. The Government’s response has been to strengthen existing structures rather than create a new body. Although that is understandable, it risks reinforcing the very fragmentation that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse warned about. We must be bolder, take a systematic view and act decisively. Amendment 160 is on national standards for children in need support. Let us begin with the children in need framework. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 empowers local authorities to offer services to children whose health or development would suffer without additional support. Yet, in the absence of a national threshold or quality standards, this power is deployed deeply inconsistently. In her 2022 report, the Children’s Commissioner for England uncovered stark regional disparities of how children in need plans are used. For example, in Knowsley and in Blackpool more than 60% of children known to social care were supported through a child in need plan, in stark contrast with Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, where the figure is less than 20%. Let us be clear: this variation cannot be explained by demographics or the level of need alone; it is a result of fragmented local practice in the absence of national guidance. That creates a system in which access to help is determined not by a child’s vulnerability but by their postcode. The situation is compounded by variations in the quality of those plans. Many are vague, lack time-bound goals and fail to specify what support a child will actually receive. Social workers have expressed frustration with a system that burdens them with process but does not enable them to deliver change. This amendment seeks to fix that. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake a national review of how Section 17 is currently implemented, including an analysis of demographic variations and effectiveness; to issue statutory guidance establishing clear minimum thresholds for child eligibility and a template for high-quality planning; and to use automatic referral triggers, such as a parent entering prison, in-patient mental health care or a child being arrested, to ensure early intervention where risk is identifiable. This is not about removing local flexibility; it is about setting a national baseline of protection so that a child’s right to support is not dependent on what they have. This Bill is an opportunity to do more than pass yet another set of well-intentioned clauses. It is a chance to confront two crucial, long-standing failures: the lack of consistent, enforceable thresholds for when and how a child receives support under Section 17—on that note, I add that the Children’s Commissioner has today come out in support of my Amendment 160—and the absence of a single, independent body tasked with improving, inspecting and co-ordinating our child protection infrastructure. We often speak in this Chamber about opportunity, fairness and levelling up. These amendments are a test of whether we mean what we say because, for children growing up in hardship and at risk of harm, fairness begins with visibility and opportunity begins with protection. Let us give these children more than words; let us give them a system that supports them and keeps them safe where they live. I urge noble Lords to support my amendments. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling Amendment 159, to which I added my name. It is a probing amendment, so I hope the Minister has not been equipped with various intricacies on the drafting. I believe that His Majesty’s Government intend to consult on child protection. As the noble Lord outlined, this is a recommendation from IICSA, which envisaged the child protection authority having an inspection function of certain settings within its purposes. However, there was another recommendation from the independent inquiry, which said: “All religious organisations should have a child protection policy and supporting procedures, which should include advice and guidance on responding to disclosures of abuse and the needs of victims and survivors. The policy and procedures should be updated regularly, with professional child protection advice, and all organisations should have regular compulsory training for those in leadership positions and those who work with children and young people”. Although the child protection agency will be led by the Home Office and the honourable Member Jess Phillips, this second recommendation sounds like a description not only of charities but of out-of-school settings. I am aware that, since the amendment was laid, a call for evidence went out from the Department for Education on safeguarding for out-of-school settings, but how are they intended to fit together? In addition to religious organisations, sports clubs, informal educational settings, summer clubs and private tutors seem not to be within a regulatory framework at the moment. Is this not what the independent inquiry envisaged that the work of a child protection authority would be, or could be? Those organisations are outside Ofsted and, despite the excellent work of the Charity Commission—many of them will be charities but not all of them—the threshold for intervention by the Charity Commission on the grounds of safeguarding is statutorily very high. It is not an inspectorate, it seems, or an accreditor of safeguarding training. If one looks momentarily at the scrutiny function that the Church of England is trying to set up, that function, which should be independent, looks as if it should be inspection, audit, accreditation and an end of complaint process facility. In these informal settings, out-of-school settings or charities, who accredits the safeguarding? Who does the inspecting? Who holds low-level concerns regarding staff and volunteers? Many of those settings will be a single charity under no umbrella organisation—and I thank the safeguarding charity Thirtyone:eight for its excellent work on safeguarding. If you are the trustee of a stand-alone charity and you begin to have concerns about a volunteer or a staff member—the kind of low-level concerns that are that are dealt with in Keeping Children Safe in Education—where is the umbrella organisation that will keep track? We have to keep one step ahead of people who have this intention to get access to children. They will disappear from one independent stand-alone charity and have the potential to pop up, maybe in a different place—a different church or sports club—but who is keeping track of those concerns? You might informally tell another charity such as thirtyone:eight, but who will be collating that information? Could the Minister consider arranging a meeting for any interested Peers at which we can talk about the scope of the child protection authority and the call for evidence for out of school settings? The call for evidence is, I believe, like a survey that you fill in. I promise the Minister that I will fill out the survey and go through that facility. But could she also confirm to noble Lords that the child protection authority will go out for consultation? What will the scope be for that and how will it fit together with this large gap—or number of small gaps—we have with out of school settings? This is an important moment to finally cover the many loopholes that still exist in relation to child safeguarding, particularly in out of school settings.

I find these two amendments extremely interesting, and I very much support the spirit of them. But I am not at all happy, I have to say, about exactly how they are put forward. I think it is important that the Government reflect on Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and the extent to which it could be updated and improved. I am delighted that the Government are taking steps to find out rather more about it. I was extremely interested in the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, but I am not sure that they come into either Amendments 159 or 160. It does not mean that it is any less important. This is a wider issue of some real importance. I am not quite sure where it should come, but it certainly needs to be regarded .

I am grateful to be able to respond, as this is Committee. With the child protection authority, the question is about what scope that will have. If it is to have an inspectorate function, which is what was recommended by IICSA, will it have a role to inspect out of school settings? That is the way that, I would say, it comes within the scope of the amendment. But I accept it is a probing amendment. We need to make sure that we put the DfE and Home Office together to keep children safe .

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, on his powerful speech. I listened to his maiden speech, and this is the second time I have heard him speak. I see that he will be an important addition to the expertise in your Lordships’ House. In relation to his Amendment 159, I am slightly puzzled and look forward to the Minister’s response. As the noble Lord said, the Government have accepted the recommendations of IICSA to create a child protection authority and this will initially, as I understand it, form part of the child safeguarding practice review panel. My noble friend Lady Berridge made good points about out of school settings although, in general, I worry about the extent of regulation that might fall on very small organisations and the impact that might have. I remember thinking about this when in office. One of the organisations we met with said there were no incentives in the system today to encourage organisations to do the right thing; there are just penalties if you get it wrong. Maybe that is a constructive path for the Government to consider.

15:45:00

As the Committee will know, when we were in government, we did not accept the need for such a separate child protection authority and believed that its functions were already being delivered by other organisations and, indeed, that there was a risk of blurring opportunities. But the Government have taken their decision and it will obviously be very interesting and important to see how it evolves. It would helpful if the Minister could update the Committee on the timing of the consultation, if she has that, for creating the child protection authority.

Amendment 160, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to address the inconsistency of support received by children who are subject to a child in need plan. The noble Lord gave the Committee some very useful examples of variability and the impact that has on the social work workforce that we were discussing earlier today. The noble Lord set out some of the areas where there are material and, as he argues, unacceptable differences in the support offered to these children and I have a lot of sympathy with his concerns. However, I do not believe that a greater level of central direction and prescription is the answer. We need to trust and support directors of children’s services and their teams to deliver these services in a way that works in their local context and for their local communities. It would arguably be even more the case when the proposed changes to local safeguarding set out in the Families First approach come in, which will bring together a much wider range of services, together with the Section 17 child in need teams.

The Committee is aware of the concerns I expressed when we were debating Clause 3 of the Bill, about the risk that this approach could create confusion for families between situations where they are being advised to take a particular action and those where a child has a child in need plan and the family is required to take a particular action. Having looked again at the legislation as currently written in Section 17 of the Children Act, I think it brings both clarity and discretion to local authorities and strikes the right balance. The question then is, where that is not delivered in practice, how do we deal with that and create the right kind of accountability to make sure that children are kept safe? I look forward very much to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, this Government are committed to protecting children from serious harm and ensuring that they can access the right level of support at the right time. That is what the amendments in this group seek, rightly, to pursue and challenge on. Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, is on the establishment of a child protection authority, as recommended in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Just to be clear, this Government have made a series of announcements that demonstrate our commitment to strengthen the response to child sexual abuse and exploitation. Establishing a child protection authority was one that we have, in looking at the recommendations from IICSA, committed quite clearly to. I was a bit unclear about the charge made by the noble Lord that we had not accepted that recommendation. In the Government’s update on our work to tackle child sexual abuse, published in April, we announced that we would establish a child protection authority in England. As the noble Lord says, this will help to make the child protection system clearer and more unified and ensure ongoing improvement through effective support for practitioners. Of course, there will be lots of questions about what form the authority takes and its scope—some were raised today by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, with specific questions on safeguarding. I reassure the noble Baroness that we have absolutely aligned the work on the CPA with the out-of-school settings call for evidence that she referenced. She identified that the design and the delivery of the authority require consultation, including with child protection experts and victim groups to ensure that it has the right constitution and the right powers. We have already begun our work towards a consultation on the child protection authority, and I assure the noble Baroness that we will engage with key stakeholders as part of this process. We will consult on developing the new child protection authority this year, and the consultation will set out in more detail the proposed roles, responsibilities and powers of the authority. However, we do not want to wait until we are able to set up the child protection authority in full to take action—there has arguably been too long a delay in acting on the recommendations of IICSA—so we have also already begun to strengthen the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel on some of the key aspects IICSA envisaged for the child protection authority. In 2025-26, we are increasing the resources at the panel’s disposal so that it can increase its analytical capacity and its ability to develop high-quality material for practitioners. That is part of the overall action that this Government are taking: the strongest possible action to tackle child sexual exploitation, including immediate action to take forward all 12 of the recommendations for change from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which were published in her audit just this week. That includes setting up a new national inquiry, with which government departments will co-operate fully to make sure we are tackling this vile crime and supporting victims and survivors. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, also recommended that the mandatory sharing of information be enforced between all statutory safeguarding partners in cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation. The child protection authority will play a critical role in addressing this recommendation through national oversight of the child protection system and supporting the co-ordination between agencies. Of course, provisions within this legislation are already taking forward other elements of the IICSA recommendations. Amendment 160, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, aims to reduce regional variations in the type, frequency and duration of support that children receive under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which, of course, places a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child in need by providing appropriate support and services. Here, I fear that I disagree with the noble Lord’s analysis. Prescriptive national criteria with automatic referrals would risk narrowing the cohort of children and limiting local flexibility in providing support. Section 17 rightly allows local authorities discretion to provide support and services based on local need and resources. On this at least—and on other things as well—the noble Baroness, Lady Barran and I are in agreement. A danger of being specific in the way suggested is that groups are left out, narrowing the cohort who receive support—exactly, in fact, what the amendment is seeking to avoid. It is not the case, as the noble Lord suggested, that there is no national guidance. There has recently been strengthening of the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, to make it explicit that local authorities and safeguarding partners should publish a threshold document for statutory services under Section 17 so that there is clarity for those working within an authority area about what that threshold would be and what action they should take. Furthermore, Ofsted inspects whether these local thresholds are set appropriately. Working Together is clear that plans setting out support and services for children should be reviewed regularly against progress. All this comes within the broader context of our reforms to family help and multiagency child protection, which we have talked about at some length in earlier proceedings on the Bill and in Committee—reforms precisely aimed at supporting provision at an earlier stage for identifying children who will need support and wrapping that around them, and reforms backed by over £500 million of investment in this financial year and supported by additional investment made available in last week’s spending review for future years. These will provide help for families at the point of need and decisive action when protection is needed. While I accept that the noble Lord raised important issues about the current working of the system and the need to develop the child protection authority for all the reasons that he spelt out, I hope that I have addressed some of his concerns and reassured noble Lords that this Government are committed to protecting children from significant harm, providing the right support at the right time and, ultimately, improving outcomes so that all children can thrive. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Barran, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their interventions and comments, some of which I agree with and some I may not agree with—but that is the nature of the Committee; we are here to debate and improve Bills that come forward from the Government. I welcome the comments from the Minister, particularly on the national protection agency. Clearly, the devil will be in the detail about its powers and how it functions, rather than just establishing the authority. On Amendment 160, I clearly still have issues with the disparity between some local authorities having up to 60% of young people in their care with child in need plans and others having 20%, as in the examples I gave. My aim was to raise this in Committee and hopefully for the Minister to look into it. I will continue to press and probe as this Bill travels through your Lordships’ House but, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 159 withdrawn.

Amendment 160 not moved.

Amendment 161

Moved by

161: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause— “Automatic enrolment for Healthy Start scheme(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, introduce a scheme to automatically enrol certain individuals for the purposes of the Healthy Start scheme.(2) For the purposes of this section, “certain individuals” means people who are eligible for the Healthy Start scheme on the basis of having a child under the age of 4.(3) The scheme must provide the means for individuals to opt out of enrolment for the Healthy Start scheme.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment provides for the auto-enrollment of certain individuals on to the Healthy Start scheme.

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 190 in my name and one or two other amendments in this group. Amendment 161 would allow auto-enrolment of families entitled to the Healthy Start prepaid card. The Healthy Start scheme provides extra cash for families on certain benefits when the mother is more than 10-weeks pregnant or has a child under four years old. The card can be used to pay for milk, formula milk, fruit, vegetables and vitamins. Families receive £4.25 per week for a pregnant woman and for each child aged one to four years old, and £8.50 for each baby under one year old—unless the Government have changed this in the last few days. The value of the payment has not increased since April 2021, despite considerable food cost inflation since then; Scotland’s similar scheme has been uprated. Some supermarkets, such as Sainsbury’s, have topped up the card with an extra £2 a week, which has been shown to increase purchases of these healthy foods. Presumably as well as increasing footfall in the shop, those supermarkets understand the importance of this extra money to the health of a young family on benefits. Even though it is not enough, it certainly helps in light of the inequalities in diet and obesity among young children below school age. In 2022-23, 12.4% of four to five year-olds in the most deprived areas were already living with obesity—more than double the number in the least deprived areas. These payments are an important lever to address this inequality. However, many eligible families do not know about their eligibility for this scheme and therefore suffer more food insecurity than they need to—I know one myself. The House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee last year heard that there are no current figures on uptake due to a “data issue”. That is just not good enough, because we know, anecdotally, that many families are missing out. The committee heard that the local authority in Blackpool was so concerned about it that it launched a programme to inform eligible families—on which I congratulate the local authority. It has now reached 80% by its calculation, which is much higher than other areas, but what about the other 20%? Its success indicates that there is a need for a national scheme.

16:00:00

The independent 2021 national food strategy recommended a major awareness campaign, but nothing much was done. The Food, Diet and Obesity Committee was told that the legislation for the Healthy Start scheme does not allow for auto-enrolment and would need to be changed. Well, here it is: an amendment that would change the legislation. I am told that part of the problem is that information on eligibility needs to be obtained from the DWP and the terms and conditions need to be accepted by the recipient. Why can government departments not work together? This Government could make a significant contribution to decreasing food insecurity if they could get departments to stop working in silos. There is a major case for widening eligibility and the value of the scheme. However, this modest amendment does not do that; it simply asks the Government to work out how to remove the barriers and ensure that poor families get what they are entitled to.

Amendment 190 addresses the quality of school meals for all children, both free and paid for, and provides for a review of the nutritional standards of the foods provided in schools, including breakfasts, to bring them in line with the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition’s advice on free sugars and fibre content. That was promised in 2020, but it did not happen then. However, I am delighted to acknowledge that, on 10 June, the Minister in the Department for Education announced that the review will happen at last—hurrah. This review was one of the recommendations of the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, which I chaired, and I know that all former committee members will welcome it as I do.

Can the Minister say whether the review will take place regularly and whenever the SACN’s dietary advice changes? I ask that because I know that the SACN is keeping a close eye on ongoing research about the impact on health of a diet high in ultra-processed foods, and it is vital that the food provided by the state for children should continue to meet up-to-date scientific evidence.

However, Amendment 190 does more than just ask for the review; it requires a system for monitoring schools on compliance with the revised standards, and a system of support for schools to achieve those standards consistently. Such a system would expose whether the funds available to schools and caterers for providing free school meals to eligible registered pupils, and for providing meals for all pupils up to the standard, are adequate. The funding is currently not adequate, even up to the existing standard, because the amount available in 2023 was 16% lower in real terms than it was in 2014. Will the Government review the funding as well as the eligibility and standards?

The committee heard from school caterers that they could not provide a meal, even within the current standard, with the money they had available to do so. Parents and pupils told us that they could not get a healthy meal with the money provided by the free school meal allowance; one example was that they could get a turkey wrap but not any salad or fruit to go with it. School meals provide the Government with a powerful lever to address the fact that only 0.5% of children in households earning less than £10,000 per year meet the dietary recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption. That is partly because healthier foods tend to be more expensive and less accessible in some parts of cities. The consequence is that, by year 6, almost one-third of children in the most deprived areas eat a lot of cheaper, less healthy food and are therefore living with obesity, compared to 13.1% in the least deprived areas.

School lunches and breakfasts are important components of children’s diets, and the provision of free school meals is one of the most effective levers available to government to ensure that poorer children get at least one—or two, with breakfast—healthy and adequate meal every school day, with similar arrangements in holidays. There is another amendment, about holiday meals, which I support.

However, there is no point providing a free lunch if it is not also a healthy lunch. Now that the Government are raising the eligibility threshold, they need to address the amount of money available to spend on a free school meal, which is currently nowhere near what is needed, to ensure that the purpose of this excellent public health intervention is really achieved—hence the need for the review and school support in Amendment 190.

The funding for free school meals comes through the dedicated school grant but is not ring-fenced. Some schools cream a bit off the top—they feel they need to. In contrast, some schools are subsidising the foods available, and the charity Chefs in Schools is doing a magnificent job helping schools manage with what they get. A focus on plant-rich menus is very helpful here.

We need a system to know how many schools comply with the school food standards. There is little evidence available, but the figure could be lower than 25%, according to research quoted by Henry Dimbleby in Serving up children’s health from the Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity. We do not know quite how bad things are, but we know they are bad. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence from parents that the food offer to their children, particularly at secondary level, is poor. Unless we do a proper review, we will not have the evidence on which to base policy on this important contributor to children’s health, so I recommend the actions in this group of amendments.

I also support Amendment 194 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others. It is very specific as to what makes healthy school food and drink. The committee that I chaired recommended that only water and milk be provided in schools, instead of a whole lot of fizzy drinks from machines. Amendment 194 also recommends a regular review of the standard, which I very much support. I beg to move Amendment 161.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I attached my name to Amendment 161 on automatic enrolment for the Healthy Start scheme, as indeed did the noble Lord, Bethell—so if we are looking for broad, cross-party-political spectrums, this is one of those. The noble Baroness has already set out the powerful case for this amendment—I will just add one thing. She spoke about the Government’s apparent lack of data in this area. In the other place, my honourable friends asked the Government a whole series of questions about this. The response was that the NHS Business Services Authority, which operates the scheme, does not hold any data on the number of people eligible. That is surely fixable, so it should surely be fixed. I will focus on Amendment 175 in my name, which is kindly supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. It would insert a new clause to provide for “holiday … and activity programmes for pupils in receipt of free school meals”. This would be a lot of pupils. Before the Government’s recent changes, about one in four pupils were already eligible for free school meals. Those were extremely tight criteria; the Government have now opened them up a little. There is some debate about the number of children affected. None the less, these are children whom the Government have acknowledged, and most of whom the previous Government acknowledged, really need the support of hopefully healthy—I will get back to that—hot meals during term time. However, what happens at weekends? There is a reason why #HolidayHunger has almost become a cliché. Those children come from families whose budgets are at the absolute edge anyway. Then, the holidays come, and they cannot be guaranteed to be fed. This amendment would also ensure that there are activities and programmes relevant to those children during the school holidays. One thing we have seen in many of our areas, particularly some of our poorest areas, is that the availability of free activities during the school holidays has fallen and fallen. We have seen the privatisation of public spaces, the fencing-in of playing fields and the removal of public spaces that then become privatised and can be quite hostile to children. If you go out and you need access to a loo, you have to buy something, and that is just not available to people. So, this amendment would ensure that there is a meal and a holiday programme that supports those children and those families. It is tackling poverty and tackling some of the very acute issues of public health that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to. I note, declaring my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, that this would have to be funded from the centre. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred, I think, to difficulties with the free school breakfast programme and how some schools have had to pull out of it because they did not have the funding. Certainly, local government would really struggle to fund the proposal in this amendment, but I would argue to the Government that the relatively modest costs would be far outweighed by the benefits for public health of the inclusion of some of the poorest children in our communities, giving them a space that is constructive when otherwise they might be spending their time in potentially destructive ways. I think it is worth noting that this is not just something that I have dreamed up. My honourable friend in the other place, Ellie Chowns, tabled a similar amendment. We have only to go to the Republic of Ireland, which quite recently announced a programme for the coming year that looks remarkably like this: activity programmes for two to four weeks aimed at the children at most risk of disadvantage and those with complex special educational needs. In Ireland, 58,000 pupils took part last year and they are expecting more next year, so this is something that a very broadly comparable society is already doing, acknowledging the need and acting on it. Finally, there are a huge number of positive amendments in this group, and I am not going to speak to anything like all of them, but I particularly want to highlight Amendment 190, to which I would have attached my name had I got my act together, and Amendment 194, to which I would have attached my name if it were not already fully subscribed. Both are about the quality of school breakfasts and lunches, which is so crucial. I make one general point in this context. The Times Health Commission reported recently and it had a really interesting look at Japan and what a contrast Japan shows compared to us. In Japan, just 4% of adults are obese, compared to 26% here. In Japan, fewer than 2% of under-fives are overweight: they are essentially all at a healthy weight. What we have is school systems. The Times journalists visited the school system and saw what school lunches are like at Kohoku primary school. The children were eating spiced baked fish and vegetables sprinkled with dried bonito and rice and they were ladling out the food themselves. A pupil got up at the start and explained why the sweetcorn in the rice had a beneficial nutritional advantage. The school is built around a giant kitchen with windows on every side, so pupils can see the chefs preparing the meal. I wanted to say that because I was reflecting on the Committee’s debate a couple of days ago, when we were talking about children’s social care and I had an amendment that said we should end for-profit provision in children’s social care. It struck me when I read Hansard afterwards that nobody had actually defended the idea of a market in private provision of social care. All the people speaking against my amendment said, “Oh, well, we are where we are now and it’s too difficult to change”. I think that when it comes to free school meals or school meals—on a later group I am going to say that there should be school meals for everybody—we have to say that this needs a giant leap of change. We cannot allow this to continue as it is now. We have to have the imagination to think, yes, we are in a bad place, but we can do significantly, massively better than this, not just try to have a little improvement.

I shall be brief, because the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has set out comprehensively so much about the amendments that I support, Amendments 175 and 194. Amendment 175 echoes what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said about the need for “holiday hunger” to be sorted out in this country. For a parent the summer holidays are a cliff edge in all sorts of directions. Not only are you deprived of the possible childcare while struggle with your two jobs, your mortgage and so on, but your children are also deprived of possibly the only decent meal that they might get in the day—and I shall qualify the word “decent” when I come back to it in a minute.

16:15:00

Where these projects have been run, the results are extremely good. Children are healthier, children have something to do and parents are much less anxious. I have spoken to numerous teachers over the years when I have been doing food policy, and so many of them say that you can tell which of the kids who come back to school in September have had lousy food for the past six weeks—who have been living on a diet of burgers and bits of pizza and ultra-processed food and watching TV or playing games on their computers. They are behind, and it takes several weeks to get them together.

This is not a false economy; it is what a good society should do, and a direct and easy way in which the Government can help poor kids and help our health system. We all know what happens when children get fat—they turn into fat adults, then they cost the NHS much more money over the long run and over the years. Feeding Britain, of which I am proud to be the chair, runs many of these schemes, so we see at first hand every day the pressure that comes on to families round about now, when they start to look at what is going to happen in the school summer holidays. They are approaching a serious cliff edge in what they are going to do with their kids and how they are going to feed them.

That brings us on to school meal standards. Of course, everybody welcomes the increase in the free school meals allocation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, it is high time, and we all approve of it. However, without decent standards we have a real problem. The kids may get a bagel for breakfast, provided by Greggs, say—I do not mean to impugn Greggs, but on the whole they sell bagels—and we have heard about kids who then get one of the leftover bagels at break and even another bagel to go home with in the afternoon. That means that they are getting about 800 calories of useless food in a day, which is only going to harm them. Giving children good food at schools is the only opportunity that we have to put people on a healthy diet, which is going to mean a healthy adult.

To go back to Feeding Britain, one of our researchers, Professor Greta Defeyter, did the first and only study of the numbers for councils, which has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but also schools, in this regard. Food is always the squishy part of the sandwich; you cannot do anything about your rent or your electricity, so people always spend a little bit less on food. Both councils and schools are taking money from the schools’ budget, and it is getting smaller, and at the same time we are asking schools to produce breakfast. I do not quite know how this funding is going to work—

I invite the noble Baroness to acknowledge that this Government, since they were elected, have committed £1 billion to school meals. It would be nice if she would mention that, as well as everything else, which I am sure we all agree about.

Thank you—I acknowledge that more money is going in and absolutely acknowledge that there is an expansion of free school meals. I am only worried about the evidence that we have seen. Yesterday, we had a whole-day meeting of Feeding Britain, and I am afraid that a lot of the information that we heard is that this is not there yet. I hope that it filters down, because it is a very straightforward thing to do. I have put a lot of things into the amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Walmsley, on what school standards should be. It is a good thing for the Government to aim at, and I hope that they will look favourably on the amendment.

My Lords, I have Amendments 183D, 186A and 187A in this group. I am delighted that the Bill will deliver on Labour’s manifesto commitment to offer universal breakfast clubs for all primary-age children, which will be a significant step towards ending morning hunger in schools across England. But there is a concern that the policy appears to be designed solely for mainstream pupils and, as a result, risks failing to meet the needs of those with special educational needs and disabilities. My amendments would make school breakfast provision more accessible to SEND pupils and create a more individualised approach to the provision. Although most pupils with SEND are in mainstream education, special provision is vital for many children and young people across the country, for whom there are different barriers to accessing education, which need to be acknowledged and supported by government. The format in the Bill for universal free breakfasts applies only to primary-age pupils, which would mean excluding secondary-age pupils in special schools from breakfast provision. That is inequitable and, within those schools, ultimately unworkable. Special schools are more likely than mainstream schools to be all-through settings, where children can be taught based on need rather than age. My Amendments 183D and 186A would therefore extend the school breakfast provisions in the Bill to include secondary-age pupils in special schools. Many of these children also access school transport funding, and it is vital that schools and local authorities work with families to create flexible transport approaches, so that anyone wanting to access breakfast clubs is then enabled to. Additionally, some children with SEND access one-to-one support during the school day. This support is a vital key in unlocking the education system to these young people. Without funding for this support being extended to breakfast clubs, they face the prospect of being locked out. For that reason, I support Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would ensure that breakfast clubs are accessible for all pupils with SEND. Breakfast clubs need to be accessible, but they should be able to deliver a mixed-model approach to breakfast provision. That means being delivered in the classroom or in nurture groups, as opposed to being available only in the normal dining area. Breakfast clubs are harder to access for pupils with SEND, which is why, in special school provision, only 16% of schools partnering with the charity Magic Breakfast operate a breakfast club without another style of school breakfast being delivered as well. I was privileged to witness that at first hand when I visited Eko Pathways school in East Ham recently. More than just instructive, it was an absolute joy to see the children so enthusiastically engaging in the breakfast club. I was struck by the way in which some of them, after queuing for their food, then took it to their classroom and began to tuck in as the lesson began. I accept that that would not be appropriate for mainstream pupils, but it was clearly an important part of making the delivery of breakfast at Eko Pathways school so effective in preparing pupils for their lessons each day. For that reason, I am happy to signal my support for Amendment 187 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister. I turn to my Amendment 187A, which calls for the Secretary of State to gather and then publish detailed information on the state of breakfast club provision in schools. Of course, the Department for Education will monitor the overall uptake levels of school breakfast provision, which is the key metric in understanding how far-reaching the impact of the policy is proving to be. I believe that the DfE should gather representative data on the characteristics of those receiving breakfast in schools, such as eligibility for free school meals, eligibility for the pupil premium and inclusion on the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index, which has been referred to in previous groups today. That list is not exclusive, but these are the measures that include children and young people most at risk of morning hunger. I believe the DfE should also consider collecting what is known as satisfaction data from pupils, teachers and caregivers. Without underlying metrics such as satisfaction, it is difficult to improve and augment the policy to increase its reach. Finally, impact measurements should be considered. These can include measuring positive effects on attendance, behaviour and health and well-being, as well, of course, as educational achievement further down the line. The charity Magic Breakfast collects data in relation to these, through both school surveys and academic studies. I hope my noble friend will agree that the Government should consider a balance of such methods to ensure robust data collection. I suspect she may say in her response that this is not required in the Bill, and I would accept that if she would also give a commitment that the data will be collected along the lines that I have suggested. However, outside of the legislative structure, the Government are showing a commitment to developing better evaluation of policy. The Evaluation Task Force says that it drives “continuous improvements in the way government programmes are evaluated in order to inform decisions”. Including data collection and publication in the Bill would be a strong indicator of the Government’s commitment to evaluation. The risk of not collecting this data is shown by the Welsh Government example. I refer to Amendment 187B in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, regarding impact assessment. I believe that six months is too short a timescale for meaningful assessments to be made. To some extent, the same might be said of Amendment 190 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Cass, but a period of 12 months would at least allow a full school year to be assessed. Data collection is essential. Primary school free breakfast provision has been available in Wales since 2007, but the Welsh Government do not publish, nor seemingly even record, significant data on the effectiveness of their policy. That might explain why there have been no substantial changes to that policy, which has been in place for some 18 years. In 2022, Wales was included in Magic Breakfast’s Hidden Hunger report, which found that, despite the legislation being intended to reach all primary schools in Wales, 85% of disadvantaged pupils were not reached by the provision. In another 2022 report, the Child Poverty Action Group and Parentkind noted that school breakfast clubs in Wales were “not being made available to all families, despite a universal free primary breakfast offer”. Wales was a leader in school breakfast provision, but a lack of monitoring risks the policy falling behind. Robust data collection being mandated by the Bill could avoid the risk of England falling to the same eventuality. Lastly, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is not in his place to speak to his Amendment 184, which seeks to ensure that the Government underwrite the cost of providing breakfast clubs. Although it is not appropriate for that to be in the Bill, I sympathise with the noble Lord’s point. Indeed, this point was also made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Bennett, in their contributions. I was of course pleased to see the rollout in April of the first 750 schools providing free breakfasts for almost 200,000 pupils, but some schools have either not put themselves forward to participate or, in a few cases, have even withdrawn, citing financial reasons. We all want the breakfast club provisions to be in place the length and breadth of the country, and eventually that will happen. I hope my noble friend the Minister will have something to say on the question of schools having their costs covered to ensure that the rollout can be completed as quickly as possible.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 175, 190 and 194. The recent Food, Diet and Obesity Committee special inquiry, very ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was a wake-up call for all of us who served on it. We were shocked by the evidence from parents, campaigners, academics and others about the quality of food in schools. Our recommendations were powerful but are, sadly, unimplemented to date. However, there were bright spots, including Chefs in Schools, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which showed how good food can be delivered at very little extra cost. The Government’s announcement that they want a major shift to prevention in healthcare is welcome, but they need to follow through with children’s nutrition if they are serious about that. Frontier Economics has estimated that overweight and obesity costs the UK economy £98 billion every year. Much of that is due to increased spending on the NHS—money that is then denied to other departments. We have an obesity crisis—especially childhood obesity—in the UK. One in five children is already overweight or obese when they start primary school. That rises to one in four among the most deprived 20% of the population, who are most likely to be receiving free school meals. We also have increasing rates of tooth decay in children, and type 2 diabetes. Before 2000, it was unheard of for children to get type 2 diabetes. Many of the poorest children require a strong nutritional safety net to ensure that they are well fed and well nourished as they grow. Amendment 175 relates to the holiday activities and food programme. The introduction of that programme was a proud achievement of the previous Government. It does what it says on the tin, providing activities and meals to children on low incomes during the summer holidays at a time when they are not able to access free school meals, which many rely on. However, unlike free school meals, the scheme has no basis in legislation; this amendment would change that.

16:30:00

The holiday activities and food programme currently gets only temporary funding and, although it is welcome that the Government have extended the programme for the 2025-26 financial year, after much campaigning by the providers and child poverty and nutrition groups, what happens after that? All the providers, local authorities and charities will have to start campaigning all over again. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, as the chairman of Feeding Britain—I was an original trustee when it was set up by Frank Field—as well as to the charity for putting in so much work, and of course to others who have made a massive difference in this area. This is a crucial scheme, which helps ease food insecurity and boosts nutrition during the school holidays. It should be put on the statute book so we know that the children who need it will keep getting fed.

Others have spoken to Amendment 190 on school food monitoring. Like many others, I welcome the update of school food standards, which is long overdue and a huge step forward. I also support Amendment 194, which would ensure that both school breakfasts and lunches are as nutritious as possible. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and her point about bagels in particular and making sure that breakfasts are healthy, because it will be counterproductive if they are not. Standards are only worth while if they are monitored and enforced. Monitoring has been called for repeatedly by school nurses, medical groups and paediatricians. The Food Standards Agency ran a pilot in 2024, which showed that, if they were properly resourced, they could perform this function. There also needs to be a support mechanism for those school caterers who are not meeting the standards, in order to help them to do so. Monitoring is key for value for money. The Government spends over £2 billion a year on school food, and that is set to rise with free school meals expansion. We need to make sure that that money is spent properly on food that is nourishing for children.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 187 in my name, and I am supportive of others in this group, particularly those in the names of my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to promote and support a mixed model of breakfast provision, already mentioned by my noble friend, which would better meet the Government’s objectives, in the view of Magic Breakfast, which has years of experience of school breakfast provision, and to which I am grateful for its support. I have long been a supporter of free school breakfasts, particularly for children living in poverty, for whom the provision of breakfast can make so much difference to their well-being and their ability to benefit from their schooling. I was therefore delighted that the Government had included them for primary school children in the bill. However, I am persuaded by Magic Breakfast’s argument in favour of a more flexible approach that would embrace other forms of provision as well as breakfast clubs—“breakfast clubs plus”, if you like. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that the duty it places on schools is a minimum. The official guidance for the early adopter scheme makes it clear that schools are encouraged to go beyond the minimum standards. This amendment would signal that more clearly and would support schools in going beyond the minimum. Magic Breakfast very much supports the breakfast club model as a minimum standard, but suggests that, because its inflexibility means that it can limit access to food in ways we already heard about, it is not the best model on its own for tackling hunger and child poverty, which I know the Secretary of State cares passionately about. The two other models that could play a valuable role are classroom-based and nurture-group provision. Classroom provision is delivered within the main learning environment, either straight before the start of the school day or as part of a soft start to the day. The latter can support the development of soft skills and ensure that all pupils are adequately fed and ready to start learning. Nurture groups are commonly used in both mainstream and specialist settings to provide a small-group environment, particularly for pupils with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties. Many Magic Breakfast partner schools deliver such provision in a variety of ways, enabling them to take a more person-centred approach to the needs of pupils. The amendment will support both these models but would leave it open to the Secretary of State to promote other models that go beyond the delivery of food. Magic Breakfast sums up the amendment as encouraging a “place-based approach” to breakfast policy-making. It believes that such an approach has been a key driver behind the scale of take-up of breakfasts in its partner schools. On average, this is 375% higher than among non-Magic Breakfast schools. It suggests that the reason is that alternative models do not require access to childcare or necessarily being at school early. Not every pupil at risk of hunger is able to access before-school provision due to factors beyond their, and often their parents’, control. This is particularly true of those with SEND, an issue that was raised a number of times in the Commons and by my noble friend Lord Watson. A mixed model is better able to respond to difficulties that SEND pupils might have with transport, specialist medication and eating needs and large-group provision. It can offer the kind of pupil-centred provision that is needed. It is no accident that only 16% of special schools partnered with Magic Breakfast operate a breakfast club-only model. I am sure many noble Lords have received the open letter signed by leading charities on this matter. According to Magic Breakfast, the breakfast club model is particularly expensive. In 2021, analysis by the Education Endowment Foundation found mixed models make more efficient use of staffing and that, on average, a mixed model approach was up to 75% cheaper than a pure breakfast club model. I would have thought that that would be music to the ears of the Government. In conclusion, the Government’s laudable objectives with regard to education, hunger and child poverty would be better met by adopting the mixed-model approach put forward in this amendment. If my noble friend the Minister does not feel able to accept this, or an alternative, amendment, I would urge her in her response to first explicitly recognise the case for schools delivering school breakfast in a way that has regard for the varied needs of their pupils and that is focused on alleviating hunger and, secondly, to commit to encouraging mixed models of provision in national guidance.

My Lords, I would like to say a few words about my amendment, which is about a slightly different area but attached to the same part of the Bill. School activity has taken rather a pounding of late. If you link sport, arts, music, culture, youth clubs and so on only to a school, so they happen only in a school setting, they stop when school stops. If you make it just about education—sport is a very good example of this—dropout ages are 16, 18 and 21, because that is when you leave your educational institution. I hope that here we would have an opportunity to get the voluntary sector back talking to and helping young people. On the amendments I tabled, subsection (2A) in Amendment 185 is at least as important, because it means providing voluntary activity in schools so they can identify with and get in contact with these groups outside. The groups outside want to make contact. Their survival and the survival of their activity depends on getting new people in, and they are giving something positive back. Anybody who has had any experience with anything from an am-dram group to a rugby team knows there is a social network that is interdependent and builds up a sense of community and purpose, and helps that group and those people in it, effectively providing almost a family group at times. It is a place where you can find jobs, structure, help, support and purpose; it is all there. Apart from a diatribe that amateur sport will save the world, it is a fact that we are going to very solid, well-established ground here. I do not think anybody is going to disagree that these things are beneficial. We talk about the health aspect and the need for a good diet, but it is possible to put on weight on healthy food if you do not move. Let us look at how we can expand education not just through the education establishment. We should look to people who are doing positive things on a voluntary basis and helping you get out there. Just to cast an eye on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we are about to discuss, this is another good amendment. I know the noble Lord well, and I have no doubt that he will have more to say on it. He refers to me as his “friend in sport”, and I am glad to carry on that one. Basically, if we do not encourage these formal lines back into our education system—unfortunately we have broken, or at least damaged, the informal ones—we are going to lose this contact with somewhere where you go on to do something positive. I look forward to the Minister’s answer, and to her answer on the amendments led by my noble friend Lady Walmsley.

My Lords, while we are still on breakfast clubs, I hope I can jump in to speak to Amendment 184, which relates to the additional costs of breakfast clubs in primary schools, combined with the quality of food expected. The amendment is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Agnew, who is sorry that he cannot be in the Committee right now. Like others in this group, this is, to a certain extent, a probing amendment to understand how much the Government understand about the whole-of-service costs that this part of the Bill will impose on schools and how they plan to meet them, based on conversations with those currently involved in making breakfast clubs work. I support breakfast clubs. I have previously declared an interest as a mum whose daughter goes to breakfast clubs, and I am a big fan of their provision. For me, they provide hugely valuable additional childcare that allows me and my partner to meet our work commitments, but I also recognise the role that they play in ensuring that no child starts school hungry and unable to learn. Turning to the practical implications, let us assume that a breakfast club in a primary school is taken up by 50% of the children in that school. A two-form entry school would require oversight by seven members of staff, and a school with a single form would require four members of staff. This does not include the catering element. That ratio is set out in regulations, so it is not advisory. A single-form entry primary school is highly unlikely to have sufficient unused non-teaching staff resource to handle the new obligation without drawing on directed teacher time. That brings us back to the vital concept of the hard cap on directed time. If, for example, a teacher now has to be diverted for an hour a day to support and supervise a breakfast club, that is around 170 hours a year out of 1,265. Some 15% of the time, they will no longer be available for other duties—most significantly teaching. How are the Government going to account for this? To the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I say that I completely acknowledge the additional money that has been put into schools through last week’s spending review settlement, and previously, but, when we take into account increased eligibility for free school meals—which is welcome—increased SEND costs, teacher pay awards and increased national insurance costs, my understanding is that there is currently no additional funding to meet the costs of a national rollout of breakfast clubs. That is a question that remains unanswered. The same applies to non-teaching staff: more hours will be required, so how will it be paid for? Currently, schools can charge parents for early delivery of children before the academic day begins. As I have said, this enables working parents to drop their children off on their way to work, and it works well. I pay £3 for 45 minutes, including breakfast. This will rise to £4 pounds in September, but with provision extending to an hour. For me, it is fantastic value. Many schools deliver this provision for free or at a lower cost for children in receipt of free school meals, with the costs covered by the pupil premium income that a school receives.

16:45:00

That mechanism currently works well. It is funded partly by the state through the pupil premium and partly by parents, for whom it is affordable and convenient. Therefore, can the Minister please give us more information on how the new landscape will look? I have not been able to find meaningful guidance on whether this mix of provision and funding will be able to continue and the practicalities behind that. Associated with this, I think it would be great if the Minister could provide a bit more clarity about the future of the pupil premium, as it is used to fund a lot of the provision at the moment for pupils on free school meals.

I know the Minister said previously that the Government will continue to spend £3 billion on the pupil premium this year and in 2026, but there appears to be no continued commitment to the pupil premium after that point. Now that we have had the spending review, can the Minister provide any more clarity? She has previously said:

“Over the longer term, we will take action to consider the most appropriate way to distribute the funding necessary to respond to disadvantage and support schools in a range of ways, so that they can use it to help ensure that all children can succeed, regardless of their disadvantage”,—[Official Report, 10/6/25; col. 1301.]

but can she confirm that, beyond 2026, funds that would have gone into the pupil premium will not be used to fund universal breakfast club provision?

I turn briefly to the quality of ingredients and nutritional standards, which others have touched on. At the moment, the national school breakfast scheme provides substantial support to schools with 40% or more pupils in income deprivation affecting children bands A to F and pays for 75% of the food cost. What happens to this scheme in future, and how does that eligibility dovetail with the aims of the Bill? I understand that the scheme runs out shortly, but perhaps the Minister can tell me if that is not the case.

The breakfast club early adopters scheme is aimed at 750 schools, and we have heard a bit about it. The funding for that comprises £500 of one-off set-up costs; £1,099 of lump-sum costs for administration and staffing; 60p per pupil a day attending breakfast club; 78p per pupil for schools with free school meals 6-eligible pupils, and £3.23 per pupil for special and alternative-provision schools. My question here is: will that funding be replicated across all England with the rollout of the clubs? Is that the model that it will follow?

It feels like there is a great deal of work to do here. As I have said, I am a big supporter of breakfast clubs, but in a world of limited resources, I am not yet confident that, in mandating universal free breakfast clubs, the Government will be making the best use of those resources or that delivery will not come at the expense of other parts of schools’ budgets. It would be great to hear some reassurance on those points, so I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s response.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this group of amendments and to follow all noble Lords and give more than a nod to many of the amendments that have already been debated. I also wait in anticipation for my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s amendment, which I would have signed if I had been quicker with my drafting pen. I shall speak to Amendment 186 in my name and I thank my friend in sport, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for co-signing that amendment. I am also grateful to all organisations that have been in contact with me on the issues this amendment addresses. The Government have set out their plans for breakfast clubs, but in many ways those plans are silent when it comes to children with special educational needs and disability. There is a whole series of risks with not being clear in the Bill in relation to the issues that are specific to those groups of children: not least the question of food itself and the attendant issues; transport—how those young people get to school in the first instance—and the specialist support that is often required throughout the school day. Without consideration of those three issues, it is likely that the plans will leave children with special educational needs and disabilities with suboptimal—or potentially no—ability to access the breakfast club provisions. Current data shows that a third of children with special educational needs are entitled to free school meals but do not access them. That stat would increase if you considered the specific context of breakfast. The evidence is clear that, as other noble Lords have pointed out, when it comes to good-quality, nutritious food there is an academic benefit and a mental and physical benefit—food for thought, food for sport. If a third of young people with special educational needs and disabilities are not enabled to take the opportunity of free school meals, it seems clear that the Bill needs to be far more specific when it comes to the nature of provision that can be inclusive for all those who would wish to benefit from such provision. It is a question not just of the nutritious food but of the social network and the relationship element. If SEN and disabled children are unable to access the breakfast clubs, they are cut out of not only the food provision but that important part of the social network—the relationship nature of the whole school day experience. What happens if the transport is structured in such a way that it does not get to the school until the official start of the academic school day? Again, SEN and disabled children are effectively excluded. For many people, food can be a difficult subject to discuss. There are specific issues when it comes to those with disabilities, particularly those who suffer from ARFID and other such conditions. The relationship to food can be complex. The Bill is largely silent in this respect. If the Bill does not specifically address the issues around transport, the provision of that specialist support and food provision, breakfast clubs will not be inclusive and will not enable and empower those with SEN and disabilities. There are many start points in life that impact people’s educational career and, subsequently, their work career. They can be positive or otherwise. Breakfast clubs need to be in that positive bracket. Currently they are somewhere short of it. In short, the Bill needs to be clear that breakfast clubs are inclusive for all. As ever, “inclusive by design” does not just mean making provisions that benefit those with special educational needs or disabilities. It means benefiting the whole school population and the whole school experience. If the Government do not make amendments to this effect, the outcome is far more likely to risk those children with special educational needs and disabilities being disadvantaged before the school day has even begun.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Holmes. I am a little surprised that we are making such fast progress in this Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is making her way here as quickly as possible from chairing another meeting, her amendment having been reached mildly in advance of when she thought. She is passionate on this subject. If anybody can get here quickly from a meeting, it will be one of our finest Paralympians in history. I hope that she will be joining us shortly. I welcome that we have grouped the importance of food with that of physical education and activities. To use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, if she had got her act together, I hope she would have also signed my amendment and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. When it comes to activities, it is exceptionally important. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, a passionate sports fan and an exemplar of fitness and well-being from Lanarkshire, would also have added his name to this amendment. It is great to see the Minister for football now taking her seat on the Front Bench for this important debate, even if she is not wholly focused on the importance of the UK Chief Medical Officers’ Physical Activity Guidelines, which are the subject of my amendment. Before I come to Amendment 185A, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that I thought she spoke outstandingly well about the Healthy Start scheme, but while the Healthy Start scheme focuses on nutrition, physical education in schools contributes to physical activity and overall well-being, which are essential to a healthy start in life. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in focusing on provision before the start of the first school session to improve well-being, highlighted an important point about not just community sports but arts and music and their engagement in the schools programme. In my Amendment 185A, I talk specifically about “the provision of activities consisting of physical activity which contributes to the UK Chief Medical Officers’ Physical Activity Guidelines before the start of the first school session on each school day”, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, we could stretch that out throughout the whole school day. In that sense, this is a probing amendment. By any educational measure, physical activity in our schools would be placed in a category of concern. It requires improvement. It needs special measures. Physical activity in schools, sport, physical literacy, teacher training, the opportunity to engage in sport and the benefits that come from sport in schools have been in decline over not just the past year but the past 20 years. I have said many times that one of the greatest sadnesses in my life has been the fact that despite an outstanding London 2012 Olympic Games, with the fantastic changes that took place in the East End of London, we did not leave a legacy for school sport or in opportunities for young people to engage in sport. The Chief Medical Officer expects young people from five to 18 to engage in moderate to vigorous-intensity physical activity for an average of at least 60 minutes per day across the week. This can include all activities, such as physical education, active travel, after-school activities, play and sports, including walking to and from school. That is a very low bar. In Australia and New Zealand, the chief medical officers add on top of that several hours of light physical activity. The chief medical officers in both those countries take walking and playing out. The UK Chief Medical Officer’s focus on one hour includes those things, so we have a very low bar. Let us look at what is happening in the UK when it comes to delivering on those guidelines. I mentioned the Chief Medical Officer’s basic recommendation for physical activity. The reality is that 30% of children do less than 30 minutes of exercise a day, and a further 22.7% average between 30 minutes and an hour. That means that more than half our children, some 3.9 million, do not meet the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation. If that is not the definition of a crisis of physical education in schools and a crisis of opportunity for our young people, I do not know what is. It is essential that in an important Bill such as this, on well-being, we have at least some mention of physical activity, some mention of sport, some national plan that remedies and addresses one of the biggest crises that we face in schools at present. I put today’s amendment out there as a probing amendment to set the scene for many amendments that are going to come before this Committee much later in the Bill when we will look in detail at what can be done. Right across the board, it is important to look at the curriculum, teacher training, facilities, and co-operation and engagement with local authorities and local clubs, maximising the opportunity for young people to participate in physical education and sport in schools.

17:00:00

Today, those of us in favour of this amendment simply set the scene. I am grateful to my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for echoing my amendment because I think he realises, as I have for many decades in this Chamber, that this is an essential and important point about education. It is one of the areas that many young people engage in and want to engage in. If you are talking about absenteeism, many children who are absent from school will come back to school if they know that quality sports facilities are there. It encourages them to come there. They may, rather unwillingly, sit through hours of classic education to enjoy the possibility of engaging in sport later in the day. So, this is an important educational issue.

I will conclude by saying that this is not a party-political issue. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who is no longer in her place. She has placed importance behind the “power of play” petition which is going to be handed in to No. 10 on Monday by the Children’s Alliance. The enormously important work the charity and the noble Baroness are doing across the parties highlights the importance of play in schools. Play should be right from the early stage all the way through.

We are not just talking about traditional sport; indeed, we should move away from traditional sport. Fewer girls participate in sport than boys. Partly, that has been due to a historical tendency to play sports that girls do not want to engage in. Therefore, we should be doing far more dance in schools than we have done in the past. There is so much work that needs to be done in this. It is a tragedy that we are so far behind the curve of the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendations to this country that it is a crisis. It is a crisis that needs to be addressed, and it is not a party-political point.

We have not seen anything in the last year, and we have not seen much from the previous 20 years. It is a problem that has got worse and worse. I hope that this Government will address that and recognise how important it is, not least because so many of the brightest and best of our young people in schools had the opportunities to get full bursaries to go to the independent sector until recently and benefit from that, and that door is being shut.

I ask the Minister, in considering this amendment and the other amendments before us, whether it is not time for a major announcement from the Government to work towards improving the opportunities for young people in physical education, physical literacy and sport. If she can stand up before this Committee and give us that announcement today, I would be absolutely delighted.

My Lords, I was not originally planning to trouble this chorus, so I will be very brief. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I absolutely endorse and support his Amendment 185A, which he spoke to just now in very cogent and powerful terms. If we can ensure that there is more sport in schools, that will have a read across to health and well-being and it will help counter obesity. I suggest that one of the most important takeaways from this short debate has been the figures put forward and explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, around the obesity crisis we are facing in this country. It really is quite shocking. The impact that will have on the health service in future generations is something we should all be really concerned about. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also made that point extremely well. During my 32 years as an MP, I tried to visit a school every fortnight. Over 32 years, that is quite a few schools. I saw a great variety—a huge spectrum—of performance in terms of school meals. To be honest, you can have whatever standards you want, but if there is not leadership in schools on the part of the head and the chairman of governors, and there is not determination and will to ensure that food is of a high standard, then even with more money schools will not deliver. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, made a very good point that it is not just about cost, as you can deliver better-quality food with really good ingredients at very little extra cost. That has been proven beyond any doubt. I had a look a moment ago at Ofsted’s responsibilities. Ofsted is not actually responsible for food in schools but can comment on the standards of food. I have read a huge number of Ofsted reports over the last number of years, and I do not recall any of them commenting on food standards, even when it is well known that food standards in that school are at a very low level. It is legally the Minister’s department’s responsibility, but Ofsted can comment, and I think that it should comment much more often. Can she comment on that point? I raise very quickly the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, regarding SEN pupils at special needs schools. In my old constituency, there were two special needs schools and there were a number of autistic units in secondary schools. A special school, with the leadership and the right policies in place, can often deliver really high standards of food; I have seen that on many occasions. Normally, there is a determination and will in those schools to make sure the pupils are properly fed and given every opportunity. That is very often in the context of a well-equipped and well-funded special school. However, when it comes to an autistic unit within a secondary school, as my noble friend Lord Holmes pointed out, there are lots of issues around transport, the one-to-one attention that these children often demand, the role of TAs and the fact that very often you have an autistic unit that is separate from the main school, although it is part of the school. I suggest to the Minister that sometimes that unit can get left behind. What is her department going to do about that, because so much of what we heard during this group of amendments is very positive but it requires delivery? Even when the legislation is passed, I hope that some of these amendments will be picked up by the Government. Although my noble friend Lord Moynihan said his was a probing amendment, I see no reason why the Government cannot adopt and support it, go away and think about it and include it in the Bill when we come back on Report. With those few remarks, I hope the Minister will take on board the point that, whatever the Bill says, it will require her and her department to make sure it all happens in the future.

My Lords, I always enjoy the sports love-in we get in these debates. I admire the support we have for each other. I was a great fan of the Blair Government in so far as, on the curriculum, they ensured that in primary schools there was at least two hours of physical education a day—and that happened. They also encouraged swimming and after-school activities, with the setting up of after-school clubs. That was really important but, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, suggested, since those days we have gone backwards. I agree with my noble friend Lord Addington that you can link after-school provision and breakfast clubs to activities as well, and that happens all the time. We have talked about the 400 breakfast clubs, or however many there are, but for years many schools up and down the country have been providing breakfast clubs, either for free or sponsored by a local business or provided by the school itself from its pupil premium or at very little cost. There are probably more breakfast clubs in that category than the current pilot has to offer. We should thank those schools for what they have been doing. I also have a great deal of time for the coalition Government’s decision to bring in free universal meals for all of key stage 1—that is years 1 and 2. The independent results from the provision showed that providing free meals improved attendance and learning, helped children who were in poverty and improved social interaction between children, because when you have breakfast together, you talk and relate to each other, and that is hugely important. The amendments that have been tabled have to be thought through very carefully. They all have something that adds to what we understand. I do not understand, for example, why the Government never consider automatic enrolment. Is it to try to save money? Surely not. I also think that we have got to a stage now where we have the 300 or 400 pilot schemes in the breakfast clubs, and I would like to know when the next phase is going to happen and how many schools we think we will want to encourage. There will no doubt be a question about the provision of kitchens and all those sorts of things. I would like to know the answer to that. We have that. We have the free meals for key stage 1, which have been extended with the Government’s announcement. Presumably we will look at after-school provision at some stage because providing meals for children after school is important as well. There is the issue of meals in holidays. All those have a cost to them. I understand why the Government do not want to do things straightaway, because you have to find the money to pay for them, but we could have a road map of where we want to go—what do we want to do first? What are the next things we want to do?—so that the points made in Committee can be clearly thought through. We started this debate with the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. I was fascinated by the information that she gave us, which was picked up, of course, by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. It is not just about provision; it is about the quality of the provision and how healthy that provision is for children. It is easy to give a plate of toast or whatever, or a soft drink, but that is not necessarily healthy. It is easy to give Kellogg’s—and yes, Kellogg’s would want to sponsor various schools, would it not?—because it is filled with sugar. That is not the breakfast I think children should be having. Those are really important issues and when the Minister goes away from this Committee stage, I hope she will reflect on these amendments, because I think they are potentially life-changing for our children and young people. Finally, let us just remind ourselves that, as of 2023, over 4 million children across the UK live in food-insecure households, with the cost of living crisis creating further problems in terms of access to nutritious food. The absence of school meals during holidays has been linked to cognitive decline, poor nutrition and a rise in child hunger-related hospital admissions. That is independently verified. I thought the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in relation to special schools was hugely important; again, the Minister should think very carefully about that. I thank noble Lords for the amendments, which, if enacted, will make a huge difference to our children and young people.

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the provision of food in schools. It is essential that children have a balanced diet to ensure that their development can progress as it should. As such, this is an incredibly important group of amendments, as a balanced diet is the cornerstone of ensuring that our children grow up healthily. I will speak first to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which I have signed. Amendment 186B is a probing amendment that seeks to understand why the Secretary of State would not be able to exempt a school from the duty of providing free breakfast clubs without a prior application from the school. It seeks to question how this application system will work in practice. Can the Minister say what the process will be and whether there will be a time by which the Secretary of State must respond? Amendment 186C probes the same area but seeks to clarify the consultation process that a school authority must take before making such an application. It seems important that teachers are also involved in the process, so will the Minister give greater detail about the process and explain why the teachers are not included?

17:15:00

Amendment 187B seeks to require an impact assessment on the breakfast club provision that already exists and lasts for longer than the 30 minutes that schools will provide for free. A number of schools already provide a paid breakfast club that lasts for longer—usually an hour. These paid breakfast clubs are essential for working parents, as was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. It will become more complicated for schools to provide a longer breakfast club, and it raises logistical questions. Will there be 30 minutes of paid provision followed by 30 minutes that are free? Will there be two separate areas for the paid provision and the free provision? These are questions that need to be answered, and we hope that the Minister can provide clarity on this area—if not now, in an impact assessment.

Amendment 505B seeks to require a report on the cost and funding. There are concerns that schools will have to cover the cost of this provision, which has the potential to divert budget away from other essential services. We know that the pilot scheme is still under way, so the Minister may not have full answers on this area yet; hence the need for a report to monitor the situation closely.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 161, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, seeks to introduce automatic enrolment on to the Healthy Start scheme for parents with a child under four. Indeed, the Healthy Start scheme, which has been in place since 2006, is an important measure to ensure that low-income families can afford healthy, nutritional food for their children. As the scheme is a financial one, there were previously difficulties in changing it to an opt-out scheme rather than an opt-in one, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, mentioned. Nevertheless, we look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on the amendment.

Amendment 175, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble kinswoman Lady Boycott, seeks to introduce holiday meals and holiday activity programmes for pupils who receive free school meals. Free school meals provide targeted help to children in deprived areas. They allow pupils to eat good, nutritious food, which should be hugely encouraged. That same provision during the school holidays ought to be thoroughly investigated.

Amendments 183D and 186A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, seek to extend the free breakfast club provision to pupils in special schools and through all secondary schools as well. We hope that the Minister will consider this issue.

Amendment 184, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State underwrites the full cost of providing breakfast clubs, so that it includes the cost of using teachers’ directed time as well as that of good-quality ingredients. School budgets have already been squeezed, and it is important that the burden of providing free breakfast clubs does not fall unfairly on these budgets, as this may leave schools in a position where they have to sacrifice other parts of the budget to fund it.

Amendment 185, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would require breakfast clubs to include a number of enrichment activities for the pupils, including art, music and cultural activities. It is obviously very important that pupils are enriched, but it may potentially be difficult to organise and co-ordinate such activities during the breakfast club provision, and we suggest that that merits further discussion.

Amendment 185A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seeks to include physical exercise at the breakfast club provision level. As the noble Lord mentioned, it is crucial that children do enough physical activity in their school day, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his work in bringing this issue to the attention of the Committee. It certainly seems an entirely sensible and correct idea to include at minimum a short period of exercise to ensure that children are ready for their lessons and have been active.

Amendment 186, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, seeks to ensure that breakfast club provision must be accessible to special educational needs and disabled pupils. It is certainly important to make sure that schools ensure that their breakfast clubs are available to all their pupils, which clearly includes making them accessible to pupils with SEND.

Amendment 187, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State considers supplementary models of breakfast club provision. All schools have different facilities and it is therefore important that the breakfast club is logistically possible in all these schools and that this requirement does not mean that schools have to create new spaces to be able to provide such provision. We hope that the Minister will consider this issue carefully.

Amendment 187A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, seeks to ask the Secretary of State regularly to publish data on the breakfast club provision, including the uptake level and satisfaction levels of parents and pupils. It is important that the monitoring of these breakfast clubs is continued beyond the pilot scheme currently running, so we hope that the Minister will acknowledge the relevance of reporting on both these issues, but also on the funding, as I previously mentioned.

Amendment 190 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Cash, seeks to introduce a review of national food standards and the implementation of a national food improvement scheme. An essential part of these breakfast clubs, as we have heard from many noble Lords, is that children are offered healthy food; they must not be offered food that will not fuel their brain for learning. As such, it is critically important that the national school food standards are kept up to date and that schools use good-quality ingredients to provide their pupils with a healthy breakfast that will keep them energised for the full morning. We very much hope that the Minister will recognise the critical nature of ensuring that food is appropriate for these pupils.

This is such an important group of amendments. We thank all noble Lords for their contributions and look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, we know—and it has been expressed several times in this very wide-ranging debate this afternoon—that too many children are not getting the nutrition that they need to thrive at school. We know that hunger affects concentration, behaviour and learning, yet many pupils arrive at school without breakfast. Many schools excel in meeting the nutritional standards expected of their food offer, but some fall short. We also know that excellent schemes such as Healthy Start remain underused, not because families do not need the help but because they are not aware of it. Clauses 27 and 28 seek to close the gap between intention and implementation. Together, they aim to ensure that no child is too hungry to learn and that our school food system works fairly and consistently for all. Amendments in group 7 cover a wide range of areas, from breakfast clubs, school food standards, the Healthy Start scheme and the holiday activities and food programme, and I will respond to all those amendments. To begin with the point about breakfast clubs, the delivery of breakfast clubs is a government manifesto commitment. We have committed to introduce free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school. Of course, I accept that, for very many years, including when I was last in the Department for Education, there have been schools that have offered support for breakfast, or breakfast clubs, in a whole variety of ways in order to support children. However, what there has never been is a consistent entitlement to that opportunity which is universally available for all children and free. That is what this legislation aims to promote. It places a duty on state-funded schools providing primary education to make accessible a free breakfast club lasting at least 30 minutes before the school day, for every pupil from reception to year 6, helping them start the day ready to learn. This is of course about food, but it is not only about food. Free breakfast clubs will mean that every primary school child, no matter their circumstances, is well prepared to learn. It is good for attendance, behaviour and attainment, and it will also support parents to have more choice on when to work and will support families with the cost of childcare. Amendments 183D, 186 and 186A, in the names of my noble friend Lord Watson and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, rightly concern access to breakfast clubs for children with special educational needs and disabilities of all ages in special schools, and access for children receiving education otherwise than at school. My noble friend, the noble Lord and others have made a very fair point about the unique challenges for special schools in delivering breakfast clubs. It is categorically the aim of the Government to design this scheme to be inclusive. We all know that the landscape across SEND is extremely complex, particularly given that needs and abilities can vary significantly across age groups. I also accept the important points made by noble Lords about the challenge of transporting children to school and the challenges of the additional support necessary for some children. We are convinced of the benefits of a breakfast club and we want to start by giving the youngest pupils, regardless of their circumstances, a great start to the school day. However, we are not hiding from the fact that there will be challenges in doing that. That is why we are working with our early adopters—of which there are 750, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Storey. They include special schools and mainstream schools with pupils with SEND. The aim of this scheme is to test what works, where there are difficulties and how the policy can best be implemented. Amendments 185 and 185A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Moynihan, seek to extend the definition of breakfast club provision to include physical enrichment, art and cultural, and youth mentoring activities. Amendments 187 and 187B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to promote alternative forms of breakfast provision, alongside publishing an impact assessment. I absolutely assure your Lordships that I agree that sporting and enriching activities offer fantastic benefits to pupils’ health and well-being. I am enormously delighted that I can respond to the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the Government’s commitment by pointing him to the Prime Minister’s announcement today, while visiting the Lionesses to offer them support in the forthcoming Euros tournament. He announced a new approach to school sport, with new school sport partnerships bringing together schools, local authorities, local sports clubs and national governing bodies, and a new enrichment framework for schools to ensure that all young people have equal access to high-quality sport and extracurricular activity. The new approach includes aims for minimum teaching times for PE, and for girls to be given the same opportunity as boys to play sport at school, as well as equal access for those with special needs and disabilities. I think that is an important announcement, and I hope that noble Lords will look further at what the Prime Minister has announced today, as well as offering their support to the Lionesses in advance of the Euros.

17:30:00

There is already excellent provision in the before and after-school system that offers these activities to pupils, some of which we have seen in the early adopter scheme. St Vincent’s academy in Hull, for example, is now employing a sports coach to run sports activities as part of our early adopter scheme. Coleridge Primary in Rotherham, another early adopter, is offering designated areas in their club to children with EHCPs, where they can play chess or create art. However, it is unrealistic to expect all schools to offer all these activities all the time. We intend to give schools flexibility beyond the minimum requirements, as we want schools to be able to build on their existing offers and do what works for their communities. We will provide case studies and learning from our early adopters, which will allow them to shape provision that meets their circumstances and their pupils’ needs.

We are currently testing, via the early adopter scheme, how the free 30-minute clubs work alongside and build on the best breakfast club provision that already exists. We will commit to sharing our findings with the House, but I hope I have already explained why we think the universal free provision that we have included within this legislation, and is our manifesto commitment, is the right approach. Our starting point is getting the benefits of the club to as many pupils as possible, and we want to see how early adopters do that, as well as spreading best practice on how they use their flexibilities for enriching activities.

Amendment 187A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson, seeks to require the collection and publication of data on breakfast clubs. My noble friend and others are absolutely right to emphasise the need for monitoring and reporting on the impact of the new breakfast clubs. The nature and level of monitoring and reporting required will naturally vary over time as delivery of free breakfast clubs becomes embedded in schools, but we will absolutely be collecting and publishing data from schools on breakfast clubs as we test and learn, as we roll out nationally and beyond. We already have powers to collect a range of data from schools. Particularly for the early adopters, we will regularly monitor pupil take-up of free breakfast clubs, barriers to implementation and perceived outcomes, and gather data for assessment of impact on pupils, including on their well-being. I hope that reassures my noble friend that we are taking very seriously the need to collect data, to monitor and to report, including on outcomes, as well as on the process of setting up breakfast clubs.

Amendment 184 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, seeks to probe the cost of free breakfast clubs and how that will be met. I recognise the intent behind this amendment: no one wants schools left out of pocket. We have been clear that we do not expect teachers to run breakfast clubs, which is why we have tripled investment in breakfast clubs to over £30 million for the financial year 2025-26. Early adopters have already received a start-up grant to support the setting up of their breakfast clubs and will receive additional funding to cover food delivery and staffing costs. The amount that schools receive is dependent on take-up of the breakfast club and school characteristics. From the early implementation, we have learned that targeted funding works best when it is adaptable, allowing schools to tailor resources to their needs and build on what is already in place, and we will continue to learn as this scheme develops. I can assure noble Lords that we are committed to supporting schools properly but through flexible funding, not rigid statutory guarantees that assume a particular model of delivery. Further information about funding for the national rollout will follow in due course.

I appreciate the detail that the Minister has gone into and that further information about the national rollout will happen in due course, but we have just had the comprehensive spending review, so can I ask whether the funding for the national rollout is included within the DfE’s settlement from the comprehensive spending review or whether there will be additional funding on top of that settlement to fund the national rollout? I am not asking how it will work but whether it is in the CSR settlement or whether there will be more, in addition, at a later point.

What we have announced as part of the spending review settlement is separate to the funding for the national rollout, about which we will bring forward information. On Amendment 505B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, early adopters are key to ensuring that we get implementation right before national rollout. This learning will help develop our statutory guidance. More information will be made available, including on the exemptions process, to Parliament and in the public domain. On that exemptions power, in relation to Amendments 186B and 186C, I understand that there may be extreme and, critically, individual circumstances that could prevent individual schools meeting their duties to provide breakfast clubs. The exemption power is designed to address this on a case-by-case basis. That is why schools would be expected to apply and to be able to demonstrate their exemption eligibility under one of the criteria set out in the legislation. Our expectation is that any school seeking an exemption will actively engage with its school community, the local authority and the department to ensure that it has done all it can to meet its breakfast club duty.

I am sorry to interrupt. It may be me—I may have missed it, as it getting to the end of the week—but I am not sure that my noble friend responded to Amendment 187 with the Government’s position on the mixed models. I know she talked a lot about physical activity and so forth. If she did say, can she repeat it? There is quite a lot that she is having to cram together into different slots, and I do not think there was anything explicit about the mixed model promoted by Amendment 187.

The point I made was that I and the Government disagree with my noble friend that there should be a sort of all-flowers-blooming approach to breakfast clubs. I set out the reason why the Government believe there should be a basic set of conditions and criteria for breakfast clubs. Of course, it is completely possible that schools may well then decide to put on other provision alongside the basic provision laid out in the criteria set out for breakfast clubs in legislation—this is one of the things that we will look at in the early adopters scheme—but the Government are not favouring the idea that there would be a variety of different routes. That is because of the points I made about this being about the provision not just of food but of the club and of the 30 minutes of childcare. Those things are quite an important basis of what is being delivered through the breakfast club programme.

I just have one more question for the Minister before we move on from breakfast clubs. I really appreciate what she said about the pathfinder schools being used to understand how, for example, the very clear provision that the Government want would work alongside existing provision or extended provision and to learn from that. Can the Minister commit to publishing the findings of those pathfinder schools and that initial work and laying those findings before the House before we consider the regulations that would come subsequent to this legislation, so that we can see and fully understand what has been learned and taken on from those initial 750 schools when moving to a national rollout?

I have already made clear that monitoring and evaluation are a fundamental part of the early adopters scheme. That will not only enable us to work out how to develop the scheme further in terms of a national rollout but allow noble Lords and others to analyse the extent to which the model is working and what some of the challenges may be around issues raised by noble Lords this afternoon.

To be really specific, will the outcomes of that monitoring and evaluation be made available before the regulations are laid to implement breakfast clubs nationally? That is my question. If the Minister’s answer is no, that is fine. Maybe she has been clear, but I would hope it would be yes—that is what I would like to know.

What I have been absolutely clear about is that the point of the early adopters scheme is to enable us to design the national rollout. If the noble Baroness wants me to commit to bringing back further information to the House, I am of course willing to do that. My point is that the information will in fact be much more widely available in terms of all of the issues that have been raised by noble Lords. I thought that I have been pretty clear about that.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the statement that was made by the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon, which is very welcome. It is very similar to a proposal made by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which, sadly, did not happen, in the build-up to the London 2012 Games. One reason why it faltered was because the cost associated with delivering those objectives was very high indeed. I happen to believe it was well worth the budget. Can the Minister confirm whether the costs associated with what has been announced this afternoon will be covered by her departmental budget, or are they coming from elsewhere in government?

No, I am not going to go into those details, and neither would the noble Lord expect me to. He challenged me about whether any announcements had been made, and I pointed him to one made today. I will just point out, however, that the reason why the plans outlined by Prime Minister Gordon Brown did not come to fruition was because, of course, after 2010, Gordon Brown was not the Prime Minister anymore and those who were did not choose to take forward those plans. That is why we have had to wait until this point, under a Labour Government, for another commitment to the sort of sporting entitlement that he asked about earlier. To move on from breakfast clubs, I turn to Amendments 190 and 194 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Boycott, which seek to establish a school food improvement scheme and to update the school food standards. I recognise the importance of these reforms and the vital work that noble Lords have done to raise the profile of school food policy. That is why I am pleased that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was able to announce in the other place, on 5 June, that we are working with stakeholders and experts from across the sector to revise those standards, to ensure that they support our work to create the healthiest generation of children in history. We will share further details on this consultation in due course. I invite noble Lords to engage on this, including on the important question of how we can ensure that schools comply with the updated school food standards. I am sure that that will build on the work already done by the compliance pilot and by the work done to support governors to challenge and assure the quality of food that is being offered in their schools. There were several questions raised relating to free school meals and entitlement. We will of course have the opportunity to return to those and to deal with them when we come to the group that is specifically about free school meals. That is why I am not covering them now.

17:45:00

Amendment 161 seeks to enshrine in law a scheme for the automatic enrolment to Healthy Start. Healthy Start is supporting 358,000 vulnerable people. As others have mentioned, application to Healthy Start requires an eligibility check, which makes it more difficult for there to be auto-enrolment, because the prepaid card is a financial product and relevant legislation means that it cannot be issued without the applicant accepting terms. But the point about uptake is important. To improve uptake, the NHS Business Services Authority will write to those eligible to encourage them to apply to the scheme.

I began by discussing free breakfast clubs in schools and have acknowledged the value of food and activities for the well-being of children. This does not stop in school holidays. Turning to Amendment 175 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I can assure her that the highly regarded programme will continue to receive the support of the Government, who remain committed to the holiday activities and food programme, having this year allocated more than £200 million to it.

I hope that, given the time, despite me responding to several interventions, noble Lords will accept the assurances and explanations that I have given and feel able not to press their amendments.

My Lords, I have really enjoyed this debate, which has covered many aspects of the well-being of children, including good food and exercise and the effects they have on their health, learning and ability to socialise. I particularly enjoyed a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, when he said he enjoyed seeing the children “tuck in”. I think all of us want to see children tucking in to healthy, tasty food. I was a little disappointed by the Minister on Amendment 161. I had hoped that she would be able to tell me how she can do it, rather than why she cannot, but I think I shall have to be satisfied for the time being. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, responded to the recommendations of the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, and I expressed disappointment that all she was able to tell me was that she was going to implement some of the things that the previous Government had already promised, but she did promise that there would be more. I said that I was really encouraged by that, and I hope that the Minister took on board that I said earlier, in terms, that I very much welcomed the widening of eligibility for free school meals and the commitment to reviewing school food standards, which Minister Morgan promised me last November. That is very good indeed. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that I welcome every extra penny that goes to providing children with more good food. My noble friend mentioned Tony Blair. I do not know if the Minister is aware that a few months ago, Henry Dimbleby and Dolly van Tulleken produced a report called Nourishing Britain, in which they interviewed previous Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State for Health and other appropriate Ministers and asked them what they wished they had done. Most of them said that they wished they had done more. Tony Blair said that his advice to a Government is to be bold and act fast. While welcoming what the Government are already doing, I say to them—and I hope I will not be blamed for saying this: be bolder and act faster. I hope that the Minister will recognise that, although the Government have taken some important steps forward, there are still a number of places in which to do even better. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 161.

Amendment 161 withdrawn.

Amendment 162 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 163

Moved by

163: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause— “Child poverty targets(1) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the publication of the Child Poverty Strategy and no later than 31 March 2026 if that strategy has not been published, lay regulations made by statutory instrument that establish binding child poverty targets.(2) Child poverty targets must include—(a) targets for reducing the number of children living in poverty, and(b) timescales by which each target must be achieved.(3) The Secretary of State must lay an annual report before Parliament setting out—(a) steps they have taken to deliver on the child poverty targets, and(b) progress that has been made towards the child poverty targets.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to set binding child poverty reduction targets in regulations.

Amendment 163 in my name would place a duty on the Secretary of State to set binding child poverty reduction targets and report on them annually to Parliament. This amendment will hold the Government to their promise to reduce child poverty and enable them to measure their progress. This amendment would secure long-term focus on tackling child poverty which transcends changes of government. I have listened to the former discussion and I am of the opinion that a lot of government and parliamentary time goes into chasing the horse once the horse has bolted. That is one of the big problems we have. We are talking about food and the fact that our children do not get fed properly; the poverty of knowledge, experience and need means that there are many millions of children in this country who have inherited poverty and, because they inherited poverty, they have a particular attitude towards food. I myself came from the Tizer-swilling, ice cream, Kit-Kat, Twix generation that took all those sorts of things, largely because that was what was on offer. I was culturally educated and socially created in that tradition. I would like to see the Government have targets on reducing poverty, and I would like to have a debate on how we reduce it. I am not saying that I stand against the idea of giving children food—I welcome it. We welcomed it in the Big Issue and we celebrated the occasions when people like Marcus Rashford rushed forward and said, “Let’s have more food and free school meals for children”. I am a great believer in that. But the point is, when are we going to move beyond always responding once the horse has bolted? When are we going to move to a situation where we prevent children needing this? One of the things that we could be doing is setting targets. We would be helping the Government, and ourselves, to look at all the things we can do to get rid of poverty, prevent poverty and cure people of poverty. I do not think that being well fed at school will necessarily make enormous changes to the trajectory of your life if you have been an inheritor of poverty. That is one of the major problems that we have. We have this situation where we are always coming up with bright and clever pilots, programmes and initiatives. Governments spend an enormous amount of time doing that. I would love a situation where we try to say goodbye to poverty, and that will mean moving beyond these emergencies. I listen to the Government and the debates in society and I feel, in a way, that they are not much different from refugeeism. They are not much different from the internal refugees who exist in Britain: the people in the poorest situations who have inherited poverty. What we are doing is trying to make poverty a little bit more comfortable. I am calling for the Government to have targets so that we can measure the effects of their efforts and advise and help them to move beyond this emergency-ism into prevention and cure-ism. Those are the kinds of areas I am interested in and why I tabled Amendment 163. Will the Government commit to targets to reduce child poverty? Will the child poverty strategy include targets? I beg to move.

My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in support of Amendment 163, to which I have added my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for tabling it. A recent article in the academic journal Social Policy & Administration on the harm done to children by the benefit cap and the two-child limit, demonstrated the implications of poverty for children’s well-being. The authors concluded that their evidence provides “a stark illustration of the multiple and severe harms”, including social and emotional harms, “caused by poverty, and … the benefit cap and the two-child limit”. Similarly, other academic research points to the “hidden injuries” and “degradations” suffered particularly by families in deep poverty. The Children’s Society’s The Good Childhood Report makes clear the damage poverty does to children’s well-being. New research from the Child Poverty Action Group, of which I am honorary president, highlights the ways in which lack of money can prevent secondary school children attending school and limits their time at school. The establishment of the child poverty task force and the commitment to an ambitious child poverty strategy, which is the kind of thing the noble Lord is asking for, is thus very welcome. In a report I wrote recently for Compass, I supported the case made by End Child Poverty and many others for legally binding targets with clear milestones, pointing to the experience of the last Labour Government, when targets helped to galvanise action on child poverty, leading to a reduction of 600,000 or six percentage points. That experience underlined the importance of targets to the effectiveness of the emergent strategy. CPAG conducted interviews with 40 practitioners with a range of expertise relating to child poverty. They were unanimous in their view that an effective strategy must set clear targets. CPAG argued that such targets for the short, medium and long term need to be “aspirational yet achievable”, learning from other countries. The practitioners also make the case for a target relating to the depth of poverty, such as reducing average or median poverty depth. This, they suggest, “will spur the strategy to increase incomes for all children in poverty and help to demonstrate progress even for children who remain in poverty”. It might be “making poverty more comfortable”, to quote the noble Lord—like him, I would like to see the end of poverty—but in the short term, for those who are really pushed deep into poverty, making it slightly more comfortable is, perhaps, no bad thing. It would also help to counter the argument sometimes used against targets: that they encourage a “poverty plus a pound” mentality that thinks the job is done once enough people are pulled just across the poverty line. Incidentally, the same could be said of a parallel duty to measure children’s well-being, which is the subject of a later amendment. In its latest poverty report, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation observed that the average person in poverty has an income 28% below the poverty line, up from 23% in the mid-1990s. Those living in very deep poverty have an average income 57% below the poverty line—an increase in the gap of nearly two-thirds over the past 25 years. Families have been pushed deeper and deeper into poverty, largely due to the huge cuts in social security made by the Conservative Governments.

18:00:00

I have benefited from the advice of Professor Kitty Stewart of the LSE, who is an expert in poverty measurement, and she agreed that a poverty depth target, probably based on the median depth of child poverty, would be helpful in the current context, although she rightly warned that the introduction of a deep poverty target should not be interpreted as meaning that it, and not the wider target, is about real poverty. Poverty may be at its most intense for those in deep poverty, but it is still very real for those closer to the poverty line. So, if the noble Lord, Lord Bird, intends to bring the amendment back on Report, will he consider adding a deep poverty target?

Finally, I realise that the Minister will no doubt say that we have to await the publication of the child poverty strategy, which has been postponed until the autumn. Whatever one thinks of that delay, and there are arguments for and against it, the time must be used by those at the very top of government to make the case publicly for why the child poverty strategy is so important—indeed, the Government’s moral mission—and if, as I hope is the case, it is now accepted that the two-child limit and, I would argue, the benefit cap, must go, explain why this is the fair thing to do. Otherwise, I fear that trying to meet any target, however modest, would be like running up a down escalator, far from the very welcome promise of an ambitious strategy.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 163, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bird, to which I added my name. One of the advantages of membership of this House is the free subscription to the New Statesman, which recently devoted a whole issue to Britain’s child poverty epidemic. From it, I will quote Andrew Marr, who wrote that “child poverty is inescapably central to any party with a sense of justice and fairness—it creates damage for a lifetime”. As a teacher, I am increasingly aware of the growing research that shows that education is not the leveller that we thought it was. What comes in goes out. Poverty, lack of opportunities, transport and cultural capital all impact on a child’s progress and attainment. As Gordon Brown said, it costs more not to invest in children than to invest in them. We have déjà vu here. Once again, like the curriculum review, the Bill is arriving before a crucial report. This amendment, so movingly and passionately introduced by my noble friend, enshrines that the findings of the child poverty strategy are acted on. If they are not, a lot of work that we have been doing on this Bill will eventually be proven to have been expensively wasted.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his tour de force. One thing he did not say was that, as soon as children, particularly children from low-income families, go into school, the gap in their learning narrows as a result of child poverty. Growing up in poverty is strongly linked to lower educational outcomes, worse health and reduced lifetime earnings. As of 2022-23, 4.3 million children, 29%, in the UK lived in relative poverty. Rates are higher for single-parent and minority-ethnic families. An estimated £500 million in unpaid child maintenance exists, and many lone parents do not receive the money that is due to them. The Child Poverty Act 2010 led to measurable progress until—and this is crucial—the targets were removed in 2016. During that period, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%. We could all get involved in talking about the effects of child poverty, but the amendment is about saying, “We need to have targets”, and that is absolutely right. You cannot go on a journey unless you know what you want to achieve and measure as you go along. I will repeat the evidence to support that: the Child Poverty Act 2010 had targets, and it led to improvements. As soon as those targets were removed, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%. What does that tell us? Does that tell us targets are right or that they are not the best way of moving forward? I do not know, but my common sense tells me that you need to have targets to understand where you are going. I do not understand what I am saying, to be quite honest, because I thought the targets were—

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I have not spoken on the Bill, but I have been present for quite a lot of the debates. I am slightly confused by the what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, and I wonder whether he meant to phrase it like that. He said that when the targets were removed, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%. Does he mean it the other way round—that it rose, rather than fell? I just wondered whether he might be able to clarify that.

I have to be careful here with what I say. When are you are in Committee, you are dealing with dozens of amendments, and you get handed briefs to do that. Initially, I read that to be the way the noble Baroness said it. But when I read it again, I thought, “This does not make sense. Could it be the other way round?” I slightly inwardly panicked and thought, “I am not going to mislead the Committee and say something that is not correct”. I am going to put that down and say that my common sense tells me that if you are doing something, you need to know where you are going on that journey. You need to be able to understand that a target is set and ask, “Have I reached that target or not?” The best example of that is—

I am so sorry; this is perhaps just to put the noble Lord out of his misery. I remind noble Lords that under the last Labour Government, there were targets. They were made legally binding in the 2010 Act, but the targets were already there, and child poverty fell. Under the subsequent Governments, child poverty started to rise again, and it has risen. I am not saying it is just because of the targets, but the targets certainly helped to galvanise civil society, local authorities and central government. That is why the noble Lord’s gut feeling is absolutely right.

It is wonderful to be surrounded by so many supportive people, including someone in the Official Opposition, who has just told me it should be the other way round. What I originally said should have been the other way round. You have only to look at the NHS to see that: when we had clear targets in the NHS, we could see the progress that was being made or not being made. As soon as we did away with targets, we did not know how successful or unsuccessful we were. I support this amendment because it says, “If we are going to deal with child poverty, we need to say what we want to achieve and the targets we want to set”, and we can monitor them and know whether we are successful or unsuccessful. I apologise for misleading the Committee.

My Lords, I begin by stressing that reducing child poverty is a goal that we clearly share across the House, and tackling the challenge of child poverty must be a priority for every Government. This Government have been very clear on that point. Understandably, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, reflects his desire to drive forward real progress on this issue, and he brings extraordinary experience from his own life. My remarks and caution about the noble Lord’s amendments are in the spirit of honesty and respect to the noble Lord and in no way diminish the aims of his amendment but raise, I hope, reasonable questions about the approach. As the noble Lord said—I have never heard the phrase used like this before, but I thought the concept of inherited poverty was very helpful—we know that child poverty stems from a number of different interconnected factors, including employment patterns, housing costs, structure of families, educational opportunities and regional economic conditions. My overriding concern is that having binding central targets risks oversimplifying this very complex challenge and could overlook local interventions that genuinely improve children’s lives. The challenges and underlying causes of a child living in poverty in Hackney or in Jaywick are significantly different, despite them being only about 50 miles apart. In fact, I would argue that, for a child growing up in poverty, the differences between Bristol and Weston-super-Mare, which are on each other’s doorstep, are also very great. We have seen repeatedly how targets can distort behaviour and priorities. When governments and local authorities face binding targets, there is a risk that they are driven to pursue interventions that improve statistics rather than outcomes. This can lead to short-term fixes that artificially move families just above the poverty threshold without addressing the underlying causes; somewhere back to the empty stable and bolted horse that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, referred to. However, I absolutely recognise the reality behind the call that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made to make particularly deep poverty more comfortable—a slightly curious concept, but I think we all understand exactly what she means. Child poverty, as noble Lords know, manifests differently across England—from rural communities that face challenges with transport and access to employment, to urban areas grappling with housing costs and concentrated deprivation. What works in Manchester would be inappropriate for rural Devon, and I would argue that local authorities, combined authorities and community organisations are perhaps often better placed to understand and respond to their specific poverty challenges than central government. Setting binding targets risks creating a hierarchy of government priorities which may not reflect emerging needs or, indeed, changing subjects. Such targets risk us focusing on specific areas rather than the underlying causes of child poverty. So again, I do not agree with the approach set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, but I do agree with his ambition; and I also agree with the call of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for action as well as words. As I said in opening, I know that the Government are very focused on reducing child poverty, and I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I just ask her why she thinks that all the charities working in the field and with local authorities, as well as academics, are calling for legally binding targets, if they would have the effect she says and would not help to address the systemic causes of poverty?

Obviously, I respect their opinions, but there is plenty of evidence—and the noble Baroness will know this in other contexts, not necessarily about child poverty—where targets have distorted behaviour, not always delivering on the aspiration of those who recommended them at the time. Before I sit down, I would like to put on record a clarification about my closing remarks earlier on the first group that we debated today. I remain very concerned about the lack of a comprehensive and up-to-date dataset and analysis of the financial position of independent providers won from the Government, but I was wrong to say, in the earlier debate on Tuesday evening, that the figure the Minister quoted regarding the profits of the independent children’s home sector was for the whole sector. When I reread Hansard, possibly for the third time, it was clear that she had stated that it was for the largest 20 providers. In fact, the figure was for the 19 largest providers, but none the less I apologise to the Committee, to the Minister and to officials.

18:15:00

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I inject one further thought that she might agree with? While the sentiments adduced in this debate are entirely right, and the concern is absolutely an important concern, does she agree that, in that discussion of centrally imposed targets versus the removal of targets, looking at the particular circumstances is profoundly important? The targets were removed after what those of us who do financial services call the global financial crash, when GDP declined considerably—in fact, we are still seeing the effects of what happened in 2008—but, because child poverty is relative, a decline in GDP has a material impact on whether child poverty goes up or down. I wonder whether that should be part of the consideration of where the targets fit. My own view is that some targets are important, but it is more important to get GDP going, which I think is the Government’s intent in this case, so relative child poverty of itself becomes less of a problem.

The noble Baroness makes a very helpful point, and I absolutely agree with it.

Very briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Hampton in saying that education is fundamental here. You do not resolve poverty unless a child is put through education successfully. Therefore, my plea is that the main message from this debate should be that local authorities should prioritise promoting education for children in poverty. That is actually the way to a successful resolution of this problem.

I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for the clarification at the end of her comments. Amendment 163 has enabled us to have a very good debate about the importance of making progress on child poverty. I agree fully with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and my noble friend Lady Lister for ambition on reducing child poverty. The success of the last Labour Government in tackling child poverty is the legacy that we are aiming to build on in this one. We want to see an enduring reduction in child poverty over this Parliament as part of a long-term, 10-year strategy for lasting change. The child poverty strategy, which we will publish in the autumn, will set out the Government’s strong commitment to this and, importantly, how we plan to achieve this reduction. The strategy will tackle overall child poverty as well as going beyond that to focus on the children in the deepest poverty, lacking essentials and what is needed to give every child the best start in life. I very strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bird, that this is a multifaceted problem. Several noble Lords have identified particular issues that are likely to benefit children. I agree that education, and particularly recognition of the need for education for disadvantaged children, which is also a key theme for this Government, is an important part of that, but there are in fact a complex and interrelated range of issues that lead to child poverty and that can help to alleviate it. We have already started to take substantive action across major drivers of child poverty through the spending review 2025. This includes: an expansion of free school meals, which will lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of the Parliament; establishing a long-term crisis and resilience fund, supported by £1 billion a year; investing in local family support services; and extending the £3 bus fare cap. We have also announced the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation and £13.2 billion across the Parliament for the warm homes plan. Our commitments at the 2025 spending review come on top of the existing action we are taking, which includes expanding free breakfast clubs, as we talked about today; capping the number of branded school uniform items that children are expected to wear, which I think we will talk about on Monday; increasing the national minimum wage for those on the lowest incomes; and supporting 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions. The Child Poverty Taskforce will continue to explore all available levers to drive forward short and long-term action across government to reduce child poverty. The strategy will look at levers across four key themes: increasing incomes, reducing essential costs, increasing financial resilience and better local support, especially in the early years. This will build on the reform plans under way across government and work under way in devolved Governments. We agree that timely reporting is important in monitoring progress. The Government already have a statutory duty to publish poverty statistics annually. In addition, in the autumn we will set out the monitoring and evaluation arrangements we will put in place for our strategy for this year and future years, so that the progress we make is transparent for all. I very much take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made about accountability, both to this House and more broadly, for making progress on the strategy, but our view is that statutory targets for child poverty would not in themselves drive reductions in poverty. They can be reversed, and have been in the past, so do not serve as an effective means of binding government to a specific course of action. As my noble friend referenced—although only to say that she did not agree with it—they also risk adversely narrowing the focus of effort to moving the children closest to the poverty line over it, rather than the direct and comprehensive approach that we will take to helping children in relative and deep poverty across the United Kingdom. I cannot help but add that noble Lords have come up with all sorts of reasons as to why things might have changed in 2010, but my view is that the defining issue in whether children get out of poverty is not whether targets are set but the nature of the Government at the time. The last Labour Government saw reductions in child poverty; this Labour Government are committed to achieving that as well. I hope that provides assurance to noble Lords.

I have a last point to make. I am obviously disappointed by my noble friend’s response on targets, but she talked about monitoring and accountability. One of the really good things about the way the Child Poverty Taskforce has gone about its work has been the way it has engaged with—and listened to—both parents and children with experience of poverty. One recommendation made by a lot of people in the sector is that this engagement with those who have experience of poverty should continue as part of the monitoring and accountability mechanism. I just wanted to throw that into the pot.

I thank my noble friend for recognising the enormously broad way in which the Child Poverty Taskforce has undertaken its work, under the leadership of my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It has been about looking at the whole breadth of actions that this Government can take, and engaging with those who have the most experience of what it means to be poor, as well as others who represent them. I hope and believe that broad approach and the commitment of this Labour Government will make the real impact to children that we all seek.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her assessment, but I do not agree. It is interesting that, when she outlined how she will tackle poverty, she mentioned school uniforms, breakfast clubs and social housing. I have an opinion, which I expressed earlier; I think that food clubs are a response to the fact that the horse has bolted and we are chasing it down the hill. The same goes for uniforms: they are not necessarily methodologies to dismantle poverty.

Does the noble Lord accept that I was not making that argument? What I was actually arguing—in agreement with him—is that we need a multifaceted approach and that we need to look at the causes for people ending up in poverty. Taking action to reduce the costs for families around the country—the costs he has just referenced—is an important thing that the Government can do, alongside the more strategic, detailed and cross-cutting work that the child poverty task force is also doing.

I agree with the Minister 100%. We should never, ever abandon people who are in an emergency. But, if that is what we are doing, and if that is what most of our efforts go into, we will never come to the day when we dismantle poverty. My problem—I have talked about this on a number of occasions in the House—is around social housing. I had an argument with a leading Member of this House, who was in social housing for many decades. I made the point to him, “Isn’t it interesting and damning that, if you give somebody social housing in current times, there’s a distinct possibility that their children and their children’s children—and, probably, their children’s grandchildren—will live in poverty?” Because social housing produces only in the region of 2%, 3% or 4% of the social mobility of finishing your levels and getting into university or an apprenticeship. Social housing is not a route out of poverty; it is, in a way, a stumbling block. We will not move forward until we revolutionise social housing and go back to the kind of social housing that I had when we moved from the slums of Notting Hill and into a Catholic orphanage. We then left that and went into social housing in Fulham, where we had sociable housing: the people there included police officers and a trainee teacher. I have talked about this on countless occasions. We had our first parking warden; we did know what to do with him, because most of us did not have a car. The point is that there was a social element, including the disabled and the old. The problem is that, because social housing has lost its sociability and has become a place of refuge and deep need—which we cannot turn against—we have people who remain for ever in an emergency. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, because they argued for targets far more eloquently than me—this is my first amendment, so I am getting used to it and learning on the job. The point is that targets will get us thinking about those kinds of levels. What do we have to do next to get people out of poverty? We have to go beyond the food, the uniforms and the social housing. We have to get to the enemies of the people who pass through poverty, because they are “mind-forg’d manacles”. I am not decrying this, but I had an argument a few years ago when they were saying, “Why don’t we list all the ingredients that go into a Mars bar, a KitKat, a Twix or a bottle of Coca-Cola?”, so that people would read them and say, “I’m not going to eat that”. The “mind-forg’d manacles” of poverty mean that you will go for the Coca-Cola whether or not it is good for you. These are the things that we need to do to dismantle poverty. One of the simplest ways is to concentrate the Government by bringing in all the philosophical, intellectual, cultural and social reasons why people are caught in poverty.

18:30:00

The only reason I am not in poverty is because I was such a pain in the rear that I got arrested every year between the ages of 10 and 16. I learned to read and write in a boys’ prison. I then went into a young offender institution, where they said to me, “What you want to do in your spare time?” I said, “I want to draw, I want to paint and I want to read books”. I was given a route out of poverty, which was education. Until we buy into the idea of having targets, we will be drifting. To be repetitious before I sit down, your Lordships will remember week that last I referred to Napoleon. He said that a battle strategy was the most useless thing on earth—but that you are lost without it.

My Lords, if the noble Lord brings his amendment back, will he consider adding a target on deep poverty? A lot of what he has said so eloquently has been about people who have been pushed, by a range of policies, into deep poverty.

I have never heard of the concept of deep poverty. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said that poverty is different if you are in Weston-super-Mare or in Bristol. I was privileged to be banged up with people from the countryside, from the little cities and the big cities. I met all of them. We had a uniformity of thinking, which was so self-destructive. There is uniformity. There is a philosophy of poverty. Until we break through that, we are not going anywhere. The idea of relative poverty is ridiculous. Unfortunately, we have increasing poverty because we have not attacked the inheritance of poverty. So many people break out of poverty because the parents choose not to simulate or duplicate what has happened before. My wife’s family come from poverty in India. They said goodbye to poverty. All the children have gone through college, done the levels and been to university. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 163 withdrawn.

Amendments 164 and 165 not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 6.34 pm.