Moved by Lord Laming That this House takes note of the continuing
increase in the number of children and young people being committed
into the care of the local authorities. Lord Laming (CB) My Lords,
I am very pleased that we have the opportunity for this timely
debate on such an important subject, and I am most grateful to
colleagues around the House who will contribute to it. Furthermore,
we all know that the Minister has a keen interest in this subject.
I hope...Request free trial
Moved by
That this House takes note of the continuing increase in the
number of children and young people being committed into the care
of the local authorities.
(CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased that we have the opportunity for this
timely debate on such an important subject, and I am most
grateful to colleagues around the House who will contribute to
it. Furthermore, we all know that the Minister has a keen
interest in this subject. I hope it will help if, at the outset,
I set out some points on which I feel sure we can all agree.
First, it is clearly a matter of great importance whenever the
state decides to take over the parenting of someone else's child
or children. To remove a child from the care of its parents is
not an action to be undertaken lightly. In each case, the
decision must be soundly based on a careful assessment and with
clear evidence as to why this most serious action is
justified.
Secondly, it therefore follows that children must never be taken
into care for what might be called trivial reasons; this action
must be taken only after other possibilities have been carefully
considered.
Thirdly, for these reasons, in the vast majority of cases the
problems of the family and the threat to the safety and
well-being of the child have been identified at a much earlier
stage by one or other of the key front-line services. It is very
likely that the child will have been thought at an earlier stage
to be at risk and in need of special attention. Sadly, this
information is not always shared. As a result, the opportunity
for early intervention is often lost, resulting in a crisis and,
inevitably, the child having to be taken into care.
Fourthly, once the child has been taken into care, the local
authority has a legal and moral duty to be a good parent. That
means that every subsequent decision and action taken should be
seen to be in the best interests of the child. The law is clear
that the well-being, safety and proper development of each child
is of paramount importance.
It is sad to say, but the record of the state as a substitute
parent all too often falls well short of an acceptable standard.
This is partly because, over the last decade, many local
authorities thought it a good idea to outsource their services.
In a nutshell, this meant that they placed the provision of these
much-needed local services in the hands of private companies and,
in some cases, hedge funds. The 2022 report by the Competition
and Markets Authority makes for sorry reading. The House magazine
summed it up well when it stated that the report
“highlighted a highly fragmented, complex market, that means
individual councils find it hard to plan for and therefore
provide their own residential and foster care, leaving them at
the mercy of private providers”.
One consequence of that is that, in some cases, the financial
charges for the care of an individual child can be nothing short
of breathtaking. In addition, because of these changes, in many
cases children are being placed huge distances away from their
home area, their wider family, their school, their friends and
even their siblings. Even worse, many are being placed in
unregistered accommodation.
The increase in the number of children being admitted into the
care of local authorities must be a matter of great concern to us
all. In brief, in 2010 there were 64,460 children in care in
England; by 2015, that number had increased to 69,460; by 2023,
it had grown to 83,840, and it is still growing today. I am sure
we can all agree that we should question why that is so. What is
happening in our society that is resulting in so many more
children being placed in local authority care? There will be many
contributing factors to be considered and I am sure the Minister
will refer to some of them, but surely the first and most obvious
reason is that over the past decade there has been, year on year
in real terms, a marked reduction in the funding of local
government services. That has resulted in the cutback of many
preventive family and child support services.
Despite the recent allocation of additional funding to local
authorities, for which I pay tribute to the Minister, the reality
is that, while these recent increases in finance are welcome, the
funding of essential services by local authorities has not yet
got back in real terms to where it was in 2010. Yet, during that
same period, there have been huge increases in demand for family
support and child protection services. Indeed, there is a real
danger, as we sit here today, that the situation could become
much worse. According to the Local Government Information
Unit,
“Over half of councils face bankruptcy within next
parliament”
unless local government funding is reformed. To add emphasis to
that point, the chair of the Local Government Association states
that more than eight in 10 local authorities are expecting
financial hardship to increase locally in the next 12 months.
That is why in many local authorities the non-statutory services
that are essential in the support of families and young people
have been dramatically reduced, along with financial support to
some outstanding charities operating in this field.
So the essential steps of early referrals, joint assessments and
agreed action plans across the key services that enabled many
families to overcome whatever difficulties they encountered are,
in many parts of the country, no longer available. As a result,
all too often, helpful early intervention in the family is
delayed until the crisis has happened, and as a result there is
no alternative to the child being taken into care.
The MacAlister review, commissioned by the Government, made clear
that the social services care system is
“increasingly skewed to crisis intervention, with outcomes for
children that continue to be unacceptably poor and costs that
continue to rise”.
Thank goodness that in this country we have some remarkable
foster carers who generously invite into their families a
hitherto unknown child with special needs, as well as some
outstanding staff in residential units.
I pay tribute to the Minister for all she is doing to address
matters such as kinship care and the development of local hubs.
The guidance issued by her department states:
“Local organisations and agencies should have in place effective
ways to identify emerging problems and potential unmet needs of
individual children and families. Local authorities should work
with organisations and agencies to develop joined-up early help
services … through a Family Hub model”.
I agree with that, but we must not delude ourselves. Services for
children and families are far from where we would wish them to
be.
Let me put this in a wider context, because it needs to be
emphasised. It is not as if this country has been faced with a
huge increase in the number of children being born. On the
contrary, since 2010 the fertility rate in Britain has been
falling below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. It
now stands as low as 1.4 children per woman. The stark reality is
that, while the birth rate has been going down, in contrast, the
number of children taken into care has been going up markedly. It
is surely time for us all to pause and undertake a careful,
honest and well-informed assessment of the stark reality of the
position of services for children and families and to decide on
whatever way ahead can be achieved.
I end with a sobering thought. While there are almost 84,000
children in care in England, I am advised that, today, there are
only 73,000 soldiers in the whole of the British Army. The
reality is that it would be hard to squeeze all the children in
care into Wembley Stadium. We are now on track to record 100,000
children in care in England. Surely this is unacceptable, and it
must cause great concern to the whole country. Should not these
figures give us all reason to think again? Children are our
future. Each child is precious. Surely we can do better; surely
we must do better for each of these children. We can do better
for them, and I hope we will. I beg to move.
3.23pm
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to contribute to a debate opened so
powerfully and movingly by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, one of
our country's leading experts on social care—from whom,
incidentally, I have received much personal kind encouragement
about aspects of my work throughout my time in your Lordships'
House.
I have just one purpose in contributing to this important debate.
It is to commend in the strongest terms the work being done to
enable more children in care to find places in our nation's
boarding schools—schools which provide for so wide a range of
achievements, including in sport, music and other arts subjects.
I declare my interest as president of the Independent Schools
Association, one of a number of organisations in the independent
sector whose members include schools with boarders.
It is important to remember that there are number of fine
boarding schools in the state sector of education. As I have
often pointed out in your Lordships' House, this is a time of
ever-increasing collaboration between schools in the two sectors.
Huge encouragement is to be drawn from the enthusiasm with which,
to a greater extent than ever before, they are working together
to their mutual benefit, and our country's gain.
Experience shows that some children in care thrive in boarding
schools, loving the wide range of opportunities that they
provide. It is equally clear that other children would not profit
from a boarding education. Local authorities need to identify
those children who would benefit, and to make suitable provision
for them. In carrying out this aspect of their work, in recent
years, they have had growing encouragement and support from this
Government, offered not in any spirit of dictation, but out of a
desire to ensure that advice and guidance are available for local
authorities to draw on when they wish.
A highly regarded charity, backed by the Government, stands ready
to assist local authorities in the discharge of their duty. It is
called the Royal National Children's SpringBoard Foundation. In
its own words, the foundation works,
“with Local Authorities across England and Wales to identify
children who are looked-after or identified as being ‘in-need'
who might benefit from the opportunities of a boarding school
education, to broker placements in schools best placed to meet
their academic, social and pastoral needs, and prepare and
support them to thrive throughout their bursary placements”.
Is this not a service that everyone, whatever their political
views, should welcome and encourage?
In the last four years, the foundation's work has enabled more
than 200 children in care to secure fully funded places in
independent and state boarding schools. This has been achieved as
a result of the foundation's involvement with more than 50 local
authorities and more than 200 boarding schools which have
committed themselves to giving priority to children in care when
filling up bursary places. These are important developments which
should be noted by all those concerned to ensure that the varying
needs of children in care are properly addressed.
Last year, the foundation got Nottingham University's education
department to provide an independent assessment of how children
for whom boarding places had been provided were doing. The
university's exercise showed that such children were four times
more likely to achieve good GCSE grades in English and Maths than
other vulnerable children. They were five times more likely to
study successfully for A-levels and to go on to university.
Interviews conducted with the young people themselves showed
that,
“in their view, such opportunities can be life changing”.
As for the cost, the Nottingham researchers estimated that:
“savings to the public purse from sending 210 children in the
study to boarding school were in the region of £4.47m”.
Can there possibly be any argument against expanding these
cost-effective, life-changing opportunities for children in
care?
3.28pm
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for this
timely debate—to use the cliché, The sad truth about our
children's care system is that it is always timely because the
crisis just keeps going and getting worse.
The basic statistics, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Laming,
referred to earlier, make very grim reading. Some 84,000 children
are now in care—up 20% in a decade. Also, in the last decade
there has been a tripling of the percentage of over-16-year-olds
in care and a tripling of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
The system is under increased pressure, particularly since the
financial crisis, and these pressures are worsening month by
month. The LGA has estimated a shortfall of £4 billion in our
local government care system. As the noble Lord, Lord Laming,
pointed out, there has been a shift in spend away from early
intervention, which has reduced by nearly 50% since 2010, towards
late intervention, which has increased by nearly 50% in the same
period. The result is a big shortage in local authority-funded
placements. Sixteen secure homes have shut since 2002.
The real crisis, though, comes from how local authorities—purely
through constraint and pressure—have been forced to respond in
different ways. First, there has been a huge increase in private
sector residential care, which is now 85% of all homes. Why is
this important? It is important because this is when local
authorities lose control of the type, location and cost of
provision. It is when private equity involvement increases, often
with up to 20% margins for the largest companies. This sometimes
leads to dangerously high levels of debt, the risk of which is
borne ultimately by the local authorities and the very children
whom they are supposed to be protecting.
Secondly, hundreds of vulnerable children are now being sent to
unregulated homes because of a chronic shortage of places. There
has been a 277% rise in the number of children placed in
unregulated children's homes since the pandemic. Just think of
that; the most vulnerable children of all are in illegal
placements.
Thirdly, there has been a tripling of children living in
supported accommodation without any care at all. NGOs such as the
Family Rights Group worry that the Government's new regulatory
approach will unintentionally confirm this as the new status quo.
There is also the greater use of placements that involve distance
and separation from family. Over one-third of children in the
system are separated from their siblings. The average distance
from family is now 18 miles, and over 20% of children live over
20 miles from their families.
We also have the inadequate use of kinship care, although I
applaud the Government and officials for taking steps towards
rectifying this in recent months and years. Groups such as Become
and Kinship, as many noble Lords will know, have championed this
issue ferociously. At the moment, however, only 15% of all
children in care are in kinship care. The care system has not
traditionally explored these options early enough, nor offered
enough help to those family and friends who might provide that
kind of care.
On top of this, there are labour shortage issues, with a 20%
vacancy rate in social worker posts, a very high turnover in
children's homes and a declining number of fostering
households.
It is a bleak picture, but we should acknowledge, as the noble
Lord, Lord Laming has said, that the Government have taken some
steps forward. Commissioning the MacAlister review was one, along
with the development of local family hubs and the provision of
more funding. Michael Gove and the Chancellor recently made some
announcements on the children's care estate. Of the percentage of
funding that MacAlister envisages, something like 10% to 12% has
been put in place so far.
Some of the things Government should do are not really about
extra funding, although they will involve some extra funding.
Take kinship care as an example. The organisation Kinship
estimates that, for every 1,000 children looked after in
well-supported kinship care rather than local authority care, the
state saves £40 million and increases their lifetime earnings by
£20 million. We also need stronger enforcement of the existing
obligation for local authorities to have a kinship care policy.
More than one-third do not have one, even though they are
required to. We need more proactive strategic planning involving
families—a shift to state support rather than simply increasing
child protection inquiries, over 70% of which do not result in
further action. We also need much better regulation of children's
homes to stop the debt problem and the leakage into the
unregulated sector.
We need considerably more money, and I have a small suggestion of
a down payment. Some £600 million per year comes from the carried
interest loophole in the private equity sector. Many of the
companies within that run these children's homes. That would be a
very small down payment to an increase in funding for this
much-neglected sector.
This House and the other House have to make sure that we keep
this as a priority. It is a sector that does not have the strong
voices, sharp elbows or the champions that other children's and
health issues have. It gives us more responsibility to keep that
voice strong.
3.33pm
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on securing
this critically important debate and introducing it so
expertly.
Pressure on children's social care is at an all-time high. As we
have already heard, there are almost 84,000 children in the care
system. In my view we are facing a perfect storm, with escalating
numbers of young people coming into a system that has become
increasingly focused on delivering late intervention services, in
particular high-cost residential care placements. Councils are
unable to invest in early intervention services that can prevent
families reaching crisis point and children having to enter care
in the first place.
The figures are stark. On average, the cost of a residential
placement is four times that of a foster placement. In the last
10 years, spending on early intervention has almost halved, while
spending on late intervention has risen by almost one-half.
We know that more children are entering care with complex or
multiple needs. There has been an increase in the number of older
teenagers entering care. School age children in care are more
likely to have special educational needs and mental health
problems. Children in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods are
over 10 times more likely to be in care or on a protection plan
than those in the least deprived 10%.
I think we can all agree that children in care need stability to
heal and thrive, yet for too many their experience of care is
characterised by instability: being moved from home to home or
school to school, being separated from siblings, being moved far
away from their support networks, or facing a revolving door of
social workers and other professionals.
Over the past decade, as we have heard, there has been a
significant change in the way that care placements, particularly
residential care placements, are provided. As of last year,
private providers operated over 85% of all children's homes. The
Competition and Markets Authority has reported how this changing
market has led to what it calls a power imbalance between private
sector providers and local authority commissioners, reducing
local authorities' control over the type of provision that is
developed, where it is located, and the cost. Little wonder that
there are increasing concerns about the role of private equity
companies in providing residential care, excessive profit levels
among the largest providers and the rising sums that councils are
having to spend on residential care.
A recent report by the investigative journalist Justine Smith in
The House magazine, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord
Laming, provided truly alarming figures, including a 25% hike in
prices in just two years, at the same time as 23% profit margins
were taken by the biggest operators. The Competition and Markets
Authority report also highlighted that the level of debt carried
by some of the largest private providers presents a real risk to
local authorities and the wider care system. A real concern is
that studies have shown that for-profit children's homes are too
often rated of lower quality than other provision types.
We need to introduce a more effective children's social care
commissioning system as a matter of urgency to help reduce the
reliance on private sector firms that are carrying large amounts
of debt. I can put it no better than the words of Josh
MacAlister, chair of the independent review of children's social
care, who said:
“When sovereign wealth funds are investing in your country's
children's homes, you know there is something very wrong”.
Like the noble Lords, Lord Laming and Lord Wood, I am concerned
about the use of unregulated care homes, which is the subject of
another recent Observer investigation. It seems to me that
something is going very wrong. I would be grateful if the
Minister told me what the Government are doing about this.
Sadly, I do not have enough time to talk, as I would have liked,
about the Government's strategy for reforming children's social
care. As I have said before, it is a very much a step in the
right direction but does not go far or fast enough to address the
scale of the challenge. I would therefore like to finish by
asking the Minister a couple of questions. First, the
Government's Spring Budget provided some welcome additional money
for extra children's home placements. It said that the Government
were going to develop proposals to combat profiteering in the
sector and look at new ways of unlocking investment in children's
homes. Could the Minister please spell out what these proposals
are and how quickly they are likely to come into effect? Finally,
could she also give a timetable for when the Government plan to
publish a children's social care Bill, which would provide a
vehicle to bring forward many of the reforms of children's social
care that this Government committed to in their Stable Homes,
Built on Love strategy?3.38pm
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, like others, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord
Laming, for his introduction to this debate, which we all found
as powerful as it was accurate.
My contribution is as a family lawyer who has been involved in
public law care proceedings for much of my professional life,
latterly as a judge in the family court, and as someone who has
had to make care orders. In some cases, the outcome is sadly
obvious and the process relatively easy, but in many cases the
decisions required of the person making them are agonising,
particularly when they may involve irrevocable changes for
parents and children.
The increase in the number of children subject to care orders is
not the result of any changes in the law. Most decisions are
governed by the fundamental needs of each child for safety,
security, stability and permanence. The courts have to consider
all viable options and, particularly since the Human Rights Act,
rigorous analysis is expected. Fortunately, this is one of the
few areas where parents have automatic entitlement to legal aid,
and vitally, the child is independently represented.
The system of children's social care should, of course, offer
support to families well before any crisis is reached and before
the courts become involved. The reductions in financial and human
resources, not least the curtailment of Sure Start, have meant
that it is now often only a crisis that activates the system.
Earlier and effective engagement with parents, overcoming their
mistrust and gaining the involvement of the wider family in
family group conferences are crucial in setting out the
expectations of parents and avoiding the need for care
proceedings. They must, in the same way, enable exploration of
the prospects for kinship care. A recent initiative by the Family
Rights Group called “Reimagining pre-proceedings” emphasises the
structure and value of preventive work, which can and should be
done to head off care proceedings and stabilise the family. That
sort of work should be the norm, not the exception, serving to
reduce high levels of late intervention.
The system depends on the retention of trained social workers
who, as Josh MacAlister wrote in his 2021 report, have to make
complex and challenging decisions every day. They require the
skills and confidence to provide informed and robust assessments.
Parents and children, as well as the courts, need continuity in
the allocation of social workers. When, as too often happens, a
stressed social worker leaves or moves on, progress can be
halted; a familiar face vanishes, making a difficult case more
difficult. If that happens after proceedings have started, there
will be added pressure on the Cafcass children's guardian to try
to steer the proceedings forward in the right direction.
Not all cases are susceptible to pre-proceedings work. The other
demanding category of cases concerns applications for care orders
in respect of newborn babies whose mothers have avoided any
antenatal care. They slip under the radar, yet 47% of newborns
subject to care proceedings are born to mothers who have
themselves been subject to such orders. The local authority
becomes aware of those mothers only when they arrive in hospital
to give birth, when it may have to make urgent applications for
an emergency protection or interim care order. Very often that
involves mothers who have used drugs during pregnancy; there is
nothing more distressing than seeing and hearing a newborn baby
who is withdrawing from drugs. If there is no reliable support in
the wider family, the local authority has to struggle to find
suitable foster care or specialist placements at short notice,
then struggles to avoid changes of placement. The costly resort
to private providers has been mentioned.
As the President of the Family Division has said, judges are
being forced to perform functions that are properly the role of
the state. I have stressed the importance of pre-proceedings
work, and I wish briefly to point to other work that could and
should be done, building on initiatives that deserve more than
patchy support. First, more is required to ensure and underpin
wide operation of family drugs and alcohol courts. They can
divert parents away from conflict with social workers, towards
the help and support they need to have a realistic chance of
recovering and retaining their children.
Finally, much more is needed to support parents, particularly
mothers, after a child has been removed. The saddest statistic is
that at least one in four women will return to court having had a
previous child removed. Too often they have reacted to the
removal with an ill-considered decision to have another baby,
with all too often the same consequences. They are truly wretched
cases to deal with. Therefore, I certainly hope that the
Government can endorse the intensive and expert work being done
by the charity Pause to prevent this cycle of removals.
3.44pm
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for securing this
timely debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for
his remarks just now, with which I strongly agree. Yesterday
afternoon I attended the launch of the Child of the North APPG's
report, Children in Care in the North of England, and heard the
compelling testimony of two young women, Rebekah and Kirsty,
whose lives have been impacted by experiences in the care
system.
The number of children entering local authority care is
increasing nationally, but the north of England persistently
records the highest rates of children in care. Local authorities
bear the financial burden, with their budgets increasingly
directed towards often unregulated private residential care
providers, as other noble Lords have referred to, rather than
long-term investment supporting families before they reach crisis
point; a child in trouble can also be a family in trouble. We
have a cycle in which cuts lead to reduced preventive services,
resulting in more children entering care and budgets further
spent on crisis intervention. As the Child of the North APPG
heard yesterday from Amy Van Zyl, CEO of the Newcastle-based
charity REFORM, there is a critical need for liberated methods of
tackling systemic issues rather than overregulation, which can
result in silo working, and a full recognition that deep-rooted
issues of poverty are a major factor in the alarming statistics
behind which are the lives of real people.
I want to highlight the use of family group conferences, which
are mediated meetings involving parents and wider family members
to help determine how best to support their children. This model
originated in New Zealand, a country with which I am familiar, in
response to the disproportionate number of Māori and Pasifika
children being removed into state care. They empower families to
make their own decisions for their children, placing children's
voices at the centre. A study published by Foundations last year
confirmed that family group conferences reduce entry into care.
However, unlike in New Zealand, UK local authorities are not
obliged to offer them. Will the Government extend their
preventive services so that every family, where there are
concerns about the care of their child, is offered a family group
conference?
The north-east also has the highest proportion of kinship care
households in England, with one in 50 children living in the care
of a relative or family friend. I welcome the Government's
publication of the national kinship care strategy, which marks a
leap forward in recognising the invaluable contributions of
kinship carers. However, the strategy does not go far enough to
provide them with the financial, practical and emotional support
they need. Some 12% of kinship carers are concerned that they
cannot continue caring for their children in the next year if
their circumstances do not improve, with most citing financial
pressures as the reason.
The Government's strategy announced a pilot scheme through which
certain kinship carers will receive a financial allowance. With
kinship care having clear benefits over other care arrangements,
when will the sacrifices of kinship carers be recognised through
the rollout of funding, equal to that of foster families, in all
local authorities?
I finish by quoting the words of a care leaver featured in the
Child of the North APPG's report:
“The point of being in care is to be cared for”.
I question whether our current system can truly deliver this and
urge the Government to consider a vision for long-term,
sustainable solutions to this chronic situation.
3.48pm
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, no one is better qualified to lead a debate on children
in care than the noble Lord, Lord Laming, whom I first met 40
years ago when I was a junior Minister and he was already a
colossus in the world of local authority social services. Since
then, he has been instrumental in developing national policy on
childcare and holding Governments to account.
I begin with a word of tribute to the statutory workforce and the
voluntary workforce looking after children. As we have heard,
they operate in very challenging circumstances and quite often
they enable a child who has had a very difficult start in life to
have a happy outcome. I want to focus my remarks on the role that
adoption, fostering and kinship care can play in meeting the
challenges we have been talking about. I declare a minor interest
in that some time ago my wife and I did some respite fostering. I
am grateful to Carol Homden of Coram for bringing me up to
date.
I welcome some of the initiatives that this Government have
introduced, such as the extra pupil premium, the adoption support
fund and, recently, the kinship In passing, I note that it
shows what a Minister, Edward Timpson, can achieve if left in the
same place for five years, ably supported by my noble friend on
the Front Bench. But the country faces a demographic challenge.
As we have heard, the numbers of children coming into care
continue to grow and, within that population, as we heard from
the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, there are more complex problems
because the children who come into care are older.
On the supply side, the people who traditionally fostered and
adopted are ageing, and they are not being replaced. The number
of children in care who have been adopted has fallen from 3,590
in 2019 to 2,960 last year, and between 2015 and 2022 more
fostering households deregistered than were replaced. The
traditional families who adopted and fostered are increasingly
having to look after elderly parents, and quite a few have
grown-up children still living in their home because they have
been unable to move on. This trend is reflected in the latest
Ofsted figures, which reveal that in the year ending March last
year there were 125,000 initial inquiries from potential foster
carers, a drop of 9% on the previous year. This was confirmed by
Ofsted, which said:
“As the number of children in care continues to grow, matching
them with the right carers becomes increasingly difficult. This
makes it more likely that very vulnerable children will face
placement breakdowns and further disruption to their lives”.
A recent fall of 11% in local authority foster care households
has meant, as we have heard, that councils are increasingly
turning to expensive agencies, putting further pressure on their
budgets. At the same time, they are losing the experience of the
foster parents leaving the market. Part 1 of the Children and
Families Act was meant to
“speed up the adoption process and enable more children to be
placed in stable, loving homes with less delay and
disruption”.
This was a worthy ambition, not least since adoption is the most
stable form of placement, but adoption has fallen. We see the
consequences of not getting this right. Some 25% of the prison
population are former care leavers and 25% of those sleeping
rough have been in care. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord
Wood, and others, children in care are moved too often, further
away from home and away from their siblings.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that as a country we
can do better. For example, we saw the response to the Homes for
Ukraine campaign when a further crisis confronted this country.
We need to encourage more people to adopt, to foster and to enter
kinship care. That means looking at the low conversion rate of
inquiries to acceptance; only 6% of the initial 125,000 foster
care inquiries resulted in successful applications to become a
carer. The journey needs to be better advertised, more user
friendly and quicker.
We also need to look at the financial offer to the groups I have
mentioned, as we heard from the right reverend Prelate, financed
by savings on expensive residential care. Should there be such a
black and white distinction between adoption and fostering, which
discourages many from moving from fostering to adoption? Can we
make better use of existing foster parents to recruit new ones?
Can we broaden and diversify the fostering population? Crucially,
as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, can we resource
children's services so that they can recruit and retain qualified
staff to supervise the whole process? I hope this debate can
build on what has been done and lead to better outcomes for
children.
3.54pm
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on securing this
important debate. He and I are kindred spirits in feeling
compelled to highlight the urgent social care crisis facing
children and young people in this country, and to set out overdue
solutions that the Government must take to ensure that children
grow up feeling safe, happy, healthy, loved and hopeful about
their futures. That is what the charity Barnardo's strives to
achieve; I declare an interest as its vice-president.
The pressures on children's social care are at an all-time high.
There are now more children than ever in the care system—as we
have heard, over 80,000. The growing number of children entering
care is concerning, not least because children who grow up in
care continue to experience a range of poor outcomes compared
with their peers. They are more likely to end up homeless, in
prison, or have mental health issues. The impact of having more
children placed into the care of local authorities has long-term
consequences for society, which will come back to haunt us if
nothing is done urgently.
Over recent months and years, we have seen the resources of
councils that have to care for children increasingly stretched,
with many local authorities at financial breaking point,
affecting their ability to meet the needs of children and
families. Recent evidence from the Local Government Association
found that nearly one in five councils is concerned about
bankruptcy in the next two years. This means that the system has
become increasingly focused on delivering acute and late
intervention services, rather than early intervention services
that help prevent families reaching crisis point.
Barnardo's and other leading charities recently commissioned
research on this very subject. In their report The Well-Worn
Path, they found that early intervention services had been
reduced by 45% in the last 12 years. The report also found that
increased spending on children's residential care, particularly
private sector provision, is putting considerable strain on local
authorities. Although spending on children's social care
increased by £800 million last year, £4 in every £5 of that
increase is going on late intervention services rather than early
help. Evidence has shown that if the Government increase spending
on early intervention services, it would not only improve
outcomes for families but be more cost effective long term. It is
a false economy to cut early intervention services.
There is also the moral case: the Government should provide early
help to families in need so that more children can remain living
safely with their birth families. In turn, local authorities can
focus on providing the highest possible level of care for those
who enter the care system. Sadly, I know from my work with
Barnardo's on its Double Discrimination report that black
children are more likely to be in care compared with their peers.
They need our help and consideration more than ever, before they
end up on a conveyor belt of crime and mental health issues.
We have seen some changes, including the extension of the
children's homes estate announced in the Spring Budget, but a
children's social care Bill was noticeably missing from the
King's Speech in November. I know the Government commissioned the
independent review of children's social care, which the
children's charity sector largely endorsed, especially its
legislative changes. But although the Government are going to run
“families first” pathfinders, looking at improved early help in
12 areas, most of the country will see no change until 2026.
Children and families cannot wait that long; the crisis is on
their doorstep right now.
We must keep children and families together to reduce the number
of children placed into the care of local authorities. I ask the
Minister, who has shown real commitment to this issue: will the
Government commit to investing in early intervention and
transform children's social care by adopting all the
recommendations set out in the independent review of children's
social care, and to having a children's Cabinet-level Minister to
bring cross-governmental policies together to benefit our
children's well-being?
All children, especially those in care, need to be nurtured and
loved unconditionally if they are to grow up to be well-adjusted
adults contributing to society, and positive role models to their
children. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime.
3.59pm
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for
bringing this important debate forward and for the very
compelling case that he set out in his introduction. I am also
grateful for the immensely valuable contributions made by other
Members.
It is surely one of the primary tests of a civil society that,
where it is necessary for a child or young person to be brought
into care, the very best outcomes are made possible through the
quality and consistency of that care, whatever financial
constraints arise in the economic cycle. So many outcomes later
in life are directly related to childhood experience. That is why
it should be an all-party commitment that money for children's
services should be ring-fenced, including those that enable vital
early help and intervention, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, the
noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and other noble Lords expressed so
well.
We cannot risk children's social care becoming merely a
blue-light emergency service only able to respond in a crisis.
The current financial context is only getting worse, with the
costs of placements for children in care now seen as one of the
biggest financial risks across many upper-tier local authorities.
Nottinghamshire County Council, a well-run and fiscally prudent
local authority, expects to look after no more and no fewer
children in the next year. Its looked-after numbers have been
relatively stable for the past four or five years. However, the
cost of looking after its 950 children will rise by around £7
million this year, with the average cost of a placement for each
child now at £132,000 per annum compared to £119,000 a year ago.
Local authorities need to know what plans the Government have to
ensure that children continue to receive the right support at the
right time.
There are two areas that I will bring to your Lordships'
attention: early intervention and support for foster carers. At
this point, I also declare an interest as having been a foster
carer for over 12 years. First, reduced local authority funding
is already having a disproportionate impact on services that
provide vital early intervention. The Stable Homes, Built on Love
review and strategy recognised the huge value of offering help
earlier, especially the value of support based in local
communities, which often work with key agencies. One such
community partner that has been working successfully in this area
is Safe Families, a Christian faith-based charity that works with
more than 35 local authorities across the country, including
Nottingham. It is focused on providing community-based support
networks that help to prevent needs from escalating and children
needing to go into local authority care. However, in eight of the
35 authorities, Safe Families has had funding reduced or cut,
because the local authorities simply do not have the finance to
continue funding the service, even though they recognise the
immense value of that work. Compelled to cut funding to all but
statutory services, not only are we failing families but we will
see an increase in costs as the numbers of children going into
care continue to rise now and in the years to come.
Secondly, funding constraints lead to less support for foster
carers at a time when there is an ever-growing crisis in
recruiting and retaining them. I thank the noble Lord, Lord
Young, for highlighting just how serious that issue has become.
Over the last five years, there has been an 8% decrease in the
number of approved foster carers in England. Yet the independent
review in 2022 recommends that over 9,000 new foster carers be
recruited within three years. More concerning still is the number
of carers leaving the service each year. According to figures
published by Ofsted in November, during the last financial year
there was a net loss of 1,050 fostering households, which we
simply cannot afford. A bold national focus and campaign on
recruiting new foster carers needs to be placed alongside a far
more robust retention strategy.
In my work as a foster carer, I have met many dedicated carers
whose contribution to the well-being of some of the most
vulnerable children is inspirational. The difference they make
needs to be celebrated and properly rewarded. In summary, I ask
the Government to review what further steps can be taken without
delay to ensure that there is a sustainable, equitable funding
settlement for all local authorities, and to dedicate investment
in early help services and multiagency support that is
ring-fenced in order to reduce the number of children who need to
be brought into care.
4.05pm
Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said that the state had a
poor record as a substitute parent and often fell short. Every
contribution that we have heard today has agreed with that. They
agreed with the principle that, if possible, families should be
kept together, and that is the statutory responsibility on local
authorities. Too often, however, as we have heard, intervention
comes too late and other things mitigate against that.
The independent review by Josh MacAlister, who was CE at
Frontline when I was the chair of Frontline—I am currently the
patron of Frontline—is really visionary. I congratulate the
Government on putting some of that review on its pathfinder
areas, but I feel that the radical reset that that report asks
for is the fundamental answer to this question. It would enable
social workers to work alongside a series of other professionals.
It would enable us to get family help together much earlier. It
also recognises the vital role that many kinship carers and
guardians play. I ask the Government to accelerate their rollout
of that programme because, as the noble Lord, Lord Wood, and
others have said, to do otherwise really is a false economy. This
is money you get back when you invest it early.
My other point is about the family drug and alcohol courts. These
are a really impressive experiment that act as an alternative to
conventional care proceedings. Where they have been tried, they
have had quite extraordinary results. There was a recent
evaluation that found, for example, that half the children in
FDAC proceedings have been reunited with their primary carer,
compared with only 12.5% in standard proceedings. Some 33% of
parents have ceased to misuse drugs and alcohol versus only 8% in
standard care proceedings, and only 7% of the FDAC cases have
used external expert witnesses— some noble Lords will know that I
have had a long-standing beef about that—compared with 90% in
conventional proceedings. It is really a very impressive
record.
What that project needs now is some commitment from the
Government to provide a fairly small amount of ring-fenced
funding. I have just heard that one project in Cardiff that was
enthusiastically supported has had to be withdrawn because of
lack of funding. I would appreciate a response from the Minister
on that point because, as others have said—the noble Baroness,
Lady Benjamin, made the point very well—what we do today
influences the outcomes for these children for the rest of their
lives.
4.08pm
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for securing such
an important debate and for his insight based on a huge amount of
experience and expertise in this subject. As the noble Lord, Lord
Young, said, there is no person better placed to lead this
debate. As my noble friend Lord Wood said, this debate is timely
because, regrettably, it is always timely.
I recently had the privilege and pleasure of hosting an event
with the charity Become, which has been mentioned by a number of
noble Lords. They brought with them a group of young people who
spoke clearly of their experience in the care system and the need
for change. As has come through strongly in all the speeches,
there is no greater responsibility of any government at whatever
level than to ensure that looked-after children get what they
need to be happy, feel loved and thrive; and that these most
vulnerable young people—now numbering, shockingly, around
84,000—are actually looked after and cared for.
As the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said, it is the responsibility of
a local authority to be a good parent. As the noble Baroness,
Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, clearly
children who are care-experienced can end up with a life-long
adverse impact. They are disproportionately more likely to have
special educational needs; they are disproportionately more
likely to be represented in prison populations and
disproportionately more likely to suffer from poor mental health
and low employment rates. There is an intergenerational legacy of
poor outcomes.
I want to make it clear that I recognise that Ministers have
repeatedly made heartfelt commitments to dealing with the issues
facing children in social care. I genuinely do not doubt the
Minister's concern to ensure that children and young people get
the care and support that they need and have a right to. However,
the fact remains that they are not currently getting this. As the
noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, we are facing a perfect storm.
That is despite the Conservative Party's clear manifesto
commitment, the findings of the excellent independent review led
by Josh MacAlister, which the Government commissioned, and the
government strategy that is being rolled out.
There is still too little funding in the system to support the
aspirations of the strategy. There are too few people—too few
social workers, foster carers, and adoptive parents. That is not
to say that we do not have phenomenal people working in this
field or that every privately run care home is careless with
those children in its care. However, the system is flawed.
Children and young people are paying the price, with too many
moved too far, in some cases up to 500 miles away; as my noble
friend Lord Wood said, they are moved an average of 18 miles away
from home. Too few children and young people are supported by
foster parents or kinship carers, and too few are getting the
consistency of care they need from social services or social
workers. The model of provision is simply broken, and unless the
Government provide the radical reset which the independent review
they commissioned called for, the problems the review identified,
both current and future, will not be addressed.
One of the key points made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and
others, including the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was that leaving
intervention to a crisis point is too late. As the right reverend
Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, said, we should
not allow children's social care to become solely a blue-light
emergency service.
Countless noble Lords raised the fact that rising costs of
children's social care placements and the pressures on local
government funding mean that funding has been diverted away from
early intervention and into services for children already in
care.
A number of noble Lords gave some tragic examples of how a
failure to intervene and support families can play out. With
local government funding already at breaking point, how do the
Government expect local authorities to deal with the crisis in
children's social care and invest in early interventions, and how
soon will the DfE roll out the pilots intended to support early
interventions, including family hubs?
The noble Lord, Lord Young, highlighted the continued
significance of adoption in the context of falling adoption
levels, and the government strategy has some welcome commitments
on foster care, recruitment and retention, and support for
kinship carers. The right reverend Prelate spoke passionately
about foster care from his own experience, and the noble Lord,
Lord Young, highlighted the fact that more foster carers are
deregistering than registering, describing some of the reasons
for this and the loss of experienced foster families that this
causes.
My noble friend Lord Wood highlighted the benefits of kinship
carers, in particular the cost savings to the state and the
earnings benefit to children and young people later on in life.
What is the Government's assessment of efforts to provide greater
support to kinship carers, and has their number increased in
practice?
The Local Government Association highlighted in its briefing for
this debate that the current vacancy rates of children and family
social workers leaving during the year, and sickness absences,
are the highest in the DfE's data series. There are thousands of
vacancies, and social care is reliant on agency workers. What
impact has the Government's strategy had so far on recruitment
and retention of social workers? Does the DfE indeed have a
children's social care workforce strategy?
Children and young people who are care-experienced come
disproportionately from the most disadvantaged and deprived
backgrounds. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, black
children are also disproportionately represented in the care
system. Once in care, around three-quarters of all girls are
fostered compared to just over half of boys. What is the
Government's assessment of the long-term impact of this
inequality?
I commend the comments from a number of noble Lords who
highlighted the broken nature of the market model. The
Competition and Markets Authority social care market survey was
raised by several speakers, including the fact that resources are
therefore diverted away from prevention to cope with rising
costs. As my noble friend Lord Wood said, 85% of children's homes
are currently in the private sector. The Competition and Markets
Authority also raised concerns about the level of debt carried by
some private providers—that point was raised by the noble
Baroness, Lady Tyler. What is the Government's assessment of the
viability of the sector, do they have contingency plans for
market failure, and what conversations have the Minister or the
department had with Ofsted about the failure to prosecute illegal
and unregulated care homes in England, as highlighted by the
recent Observer newspaper article?
This subject is worthy of a much longer debate. As I have been
going through my speech, I have been crossing bits out because I
do not have time to say everything I would like to. What is
needed is not another debate but action. Good intentions and
heartfelt words on a Thursday afternoon are not enough. Too many
children and young people are being failed, and unless the
radical reset called for in the Independent Review of Children's
Social Care and referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady
Cavendish, becomes a reality, the situation will not be resolved.
I look forward to the Minister's response.
4.15pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord,
Lord Laming, for securing this important debate. As your
Lordships know, when one comes into this place, people tell you
about the extraordinary experts who sit in the House of Lords,
and I do not think anyone epitomises that expertise in relation
to children more than the noble Lord, Lord Laming, which he
manages to combine with greater humility than anyone.
In preparing for this debate, I was lucky yesterday afternoon to
be able to talk to our Children and Young People's Advisory
Board, made up of children and young people with care experience,
and our Care Experience Forum, made up of colleagues within the
department who have experience of the care system, to hear first
hand about what matters to them. I hope the House will bear with
me while I reflect their thoughts. Of course, they do not talk in
the language of system change, which all of us can agree is
needed; they talked about what mattered to them personally, about
the human elements.
They were such simple but powerful things, including the value of
great communication. All too often they talked about the fact
that they did not know what was happening to them or their
siblings, they did not feel that the approach looked at the
family in the round—whether that was through a family group
conference or the work that FDAC does in a more rounded way—and
they did not feel that they were listened to. That was from those
who were in the care system but, possibly most troubling, I also
heard about a remarkable young woman who had not been taken into
care and was desperately unsafe in her family. Then, there is a
feeling that it all stops when you get to 16. Similarly, they
talked about stability, which the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler,
picked up; the numerous social workers and the need—why is it so
much to ask?—for a reliable adult whom they can trust. The noble
Lord, Lord Meston, also reflected on that turnover of staff.
They talked about the need for greater wraparound support for
kinship arrangements. One young woman talked about her and her
two siblings going into kinship care with her aunt, who was a
single parent with three children of her own. Perhaps
unsurprisingly, that was not sustainable, but she felt that with
more support it might have been. I hope very much that our work
through the Children's Social Care: Stable Homes, Built on Love
strategy shows our commitment to laying the foundations to
address those very human issues as well as all the structural
change that needs to happen to make that a reality.
Our strategy recognises that the number of looked-after children
has increased by 23% over the last 10 years and, as a number of
your Lordships noted, now totals 83,840. This rise is due to two
key factors—the number of asylum-seeking children entering the
system and children spending more time in care. Since 2019, if
one takes unaccompanied asylum-seeking children out of the
picture, the figure has gone down for non- unaccompanied
asylum-seeking children, from 27,950 children going into the care
system in 2019 to 25,910. None of us knows what a right number
would be, but I am trying to put some of this in perspective.
This is reflected in the number of children coming into the
16 or over having risen sharply
by 40% since 2019 to almost 9,000.
Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the noble Baroness,
Lady Twycross, talked about the issues of children living over 20
miles from home. I thought that figure might have gone up but
surprisingly, it has remained relatively stable. It was 20% for
children in 2019 and 21% in 2023. However, I am not questioning
for a second that we want children as close to home and to their
connections as possible.
Almost all your Lordships spoke about the importance of early
intervention. We know that families need support before crisis
point. We know that early intervention can change the lives of
families and help them to overcome challenges before they reach
crisis point. We have already invested in this area. We are
testing how the multidisciplinary family help teams can provide
targeted support through the “families first for children”
pathfinders. Overall, we have announced over £1 billion for
programmes to improve early help services from birth to
adulthood, including through the family hubs.
The tension that we face is whether we can go faster, as was
mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wood, and the noble Baroness,
Lady Cavendish. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, also
challenged in that regard. We are genuinely trying to strike a
balance, checking that we get the implementation right before we
scale up more rapidly. I accept that other noble Lords may have
different views on that, but there are too many examples of
individual pilots that have been very successful in this area and
then, when they get scaled, the impact is diluted. Therefore, we
need to be sure that we are building on solid foundations and
understand how to deliver at scale. The noble Baroness, Lady
Benjamin, asked whether I would commit to all the recommendations
in the independent review. She will have seen the Government's
response setting out what we accept wholly or in part.
A number of your Lordships rightly focused on kinship care. We
believe that where children cannot live with their birth parents
full-time, it is best for them to live with people whom they
already know, trust and love. That is why we are championing
kinship care arrangements through our first kinship care strategy
and the launch of a financial allowance pilot in up to eight
local authorities. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of
Newcastle asked about financial support for kinship carers. Of
course kinship carers are incredibly important. We talked about
just over 83,000 children in the care system, and the data is not
as up to date; we have estimates for 2021 of 121,000 children
living in kinship care. That figure alone is greater than all
other forms of care put together.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, asked about family group
conferencing. We are network pilot to
trial family group decision-making in kinship care settings.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham picked up the issue of
adoption. Adoption remains the best stable, permanent option for
some children, particularly younger children, and can provide
them with a loving and stable family for life. Adoption orders
have increased slightly this year, for the second year running,
but there has been a decline in recent years of children under
five coming into care, and we know that most children who are
adopted are under five. However, the main focus of our adoption
strategy is to improve the speed with which children are matched
with families. The number of children waiting to be matched with
a new family has fallen from 2,800 in June 2019 to 2,210 in June
2023.
I turn to fostering, which was raised by the right reverend
Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, my noble friend
Lord Young and many of your Lordships. Over two-thirds of
children who are in formal care are in foster care. The numbers
of children in foster care again are roughly stable—55,760 in
2019 and 57,020 in 2023. We are investing £36 million to deliver
a foster care recruitment and retention programme, and we are
working with more than 60% of local authorities to do this. My
noble friend Lord Young questioned the effectiveness of this. Our
first regional recruitment support hub—Foster with North
East—went live in September last year, and the second in the east
Midlands in March. We have eight more regions going live this
month, so it is a little early to report back on progress.
My noble friend Lord Lexden talked about the important work of
the Royal National Children's SpringBoard Foundation. We fully
support its work and value it greatly.
Many of your Lordships, led by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, spoke
about the importance of children's home reform. We are committed
to resolving the issues which your Lordships raised. The
Government are allocating over £400 million to local authorities
for children's homes, increasing both open and secure facilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, raised the issue of
unregulated children's homes; of course, it is not acceptable
that unregistered provision is being used. Running an
unregistered children's home is obviously an offence and Ofsted
has the powers to prosecute those involved.
We heard from your Lordships about the huge financial pressures
on local authorities as a result of the use of private children's
homes. Your Lordships also referred to the review of the
Competition and Markets Authority, which we have accepted; we are
implementing all the recommendations to reshape the system.
Obviously, one of the impacts of shortages in that area is the
placement of children far from home, so we are introducing a new
regional model of regional care co-operatives. We are designing
two pathfinders this year with health and justice partners, which
will be supported by £5 million of funding. We will announce the
successful areas later this year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, asked about funding for the
workforce and whether we have a workforce strategy. We do, of
course, and we have committed £50 million annually to that. The
noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Benjamin, asked when we
would introduce legislation. In our reform of social care, our
focus in these first two years is very much on addressing the
most urgent issues.
I close by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for
initiating this debate, all your Lordships for contributing, and
all those who support locally, nationally, within charities,
within local authorities and in the department for their support,
so that we can help deliver the change that children and young
people who are or have been in care deserve and so that they can
thrive.
4.31pm
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I hope all noble Lords agree that this has been a
terrific debate. I am most grateful to every contributor because
of what I have learned: every contribution shared new information
and expertise with me. It means that there is a whole new agenda
developing, which needs to be addressed, along with a continuing
range of issues. I am grateful to the Minister, and I very much
hope that, together, we can take this debate forward for the
interests of children in our society.
Motion agreed.
|