Cookies: We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on our site. By continuing to use the site you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more.

House of Lords Hansard

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

04 April 2017
Volume 782

    Commons Amendments

    Motion on Amendments 1 to 11

    Moved by

  • That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 11.

  • 1: Clause 4, page 5, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 6 and insert—

    “(6) In this section—

    “relevant child” means—

    (a) a child who was looked after by the local authority or another local authority in England or Wales but ceased to be so looked after as a result of—

    (i) a child arrangements order which includes arrangements relating to with whom the child is to live, or when the child is to live with any person,

    (ii) a special guardianship order, or

    (iii) an adoption order within the meaning given by section 72(1) of the Adoption Act 1976 or section 46(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, or

    (b) a child who appears to the local authority—

    (i) to have been in state care in a place outside England and Wales because he or she would not otherwise have been cared for adequately, and

    (ii) to have ceased to be in that state care as a result of being adopted.”

    2: Clause 4, page 6, line 13, at end insert—

    “(8) For the purposes of this section a child is in “state care” if he or she is in the care of, or accommodated by—

    (a) a public authority,

    (b) a religious organisation, or

    (c) any other organisation the sole or main purpose of which is to benefit society.”

    3: Clause 5, page 6, leave out lines 24 to 36 and insert—

    “(2) A registered pupil is within this subsection if the pupil—

    (a) was looked after by a local authority but ceased to be looked after by them as a result of—

    (i) a child arrangements order (within the meaning given by section 8(1) of the 1989 Act) which includes arrangements relating to with whom the child is to live, or when the child is to live with any person,

    (ii) a special guardianship order (within the meaning given by section 14A(1) of the 1989 Act), or

    (iii) an adoption order (within the meaning given by section 72(1) of the Adoption Act 1976 or section

    46(1) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002), or

    (b) appears to the governing body—

    (i) to have been in state care in a place outside England and Wales because he or she would not otherwise have been cared for adequately, and

    (ii) to have ceased to be in that state care as a result of being adopted.”

    4: Clause 5, page 6, line 43, leave out from “is” to end of line 45 and insert ““looked after by a local authority” if the person is looked after by a local authority for the purposes of the 1989 Act or Part 6 of the 2014 Act.”

    5: Clause 5, page 6, line 45, at end insert—

    “(5A) For the purposes of this section a person is in “state care” if he or she is in the care of, or accommodated by—

    (a) a public authority,

    (b) a religious organisation, or

    (c) any other organisation the sole or main purpose of which is to benefit society.”

    6: Clause 6, page 7, line 46, at end insert “or

    “(c) appears to the proprietor of the Academy—

    (i) to have been in state care in a place outside England and Wales because he or she would not otherwise have been cared for adequately, and

    (ii) to have ceased to be in that state care as a result of being adopted;”

    7: Clause 6, page 8, line 11, leave out from “is” to end of line 13 and insert ““looked after by a local authority” if the person is looked after by a local authority for the purposes of the Children Act 1989 or Part 6 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (anaw 4).”

    8: Clause 6, page 8, line 13, at end insert—

    “(5A) For the purposes of this section a person is in “state care” if he or she is in the care of, or accommodated by—

    (a) a public authority,

    (b) a religious organisation, or

    (c) any other organisation the sole or main purpose of which is to benefit society.”

    9: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—

    “Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain

    Schedule (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain) contains amendments relating to—

    (a) the placement by local authorities in England and Wales of children in secure accommodation in Scotland, and

    (b) the placement by local authorities in Scotland of children in secure accommodation in England and Wales.”

    10: Clause 11, transpose Clause 11 to after Clause 31.

    11: Clause 32, transpose Clause 32 to after Clause 30

  • My Lords, for five months last year this House diligently scrutinised the Children and Social Work Bill and produced an important piece of legislation to improve the care and protection of our vulnerable children, and the support provided to those who work with them. Since November, that process has continued in the other place and I am delighted that as a result, the Bill has now been brought for our consideration today. I hope that after today’s debate noble Lords will agree that the Bill is now in good shape and that our productive dialogue on its provisions should move on to the critical matter of effective and timely implementation.

    This group of amendments strengthens areas of the Bill to which the House has already devoted much time. These are small but important refinements; I will endeavour to explain how they will make the current provisions of the Bill still more impactful.

  • Amendments 1 to 8 deal with educational support for children adopted from care. I am sure noble Lords across the House will remember the thorough debates we had on this topic and, in particular, the heartfelt intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady King. On Report in October I confirmed to the House,

    “that the Government will table an amendment to the Bill in the other place to bring children adopted from care outside England within the scope of Clauses 4 to 6”.—[Official Report, 18/10/16; col. 2288.]

    I am delighted to say that Amendments 1 to 8 deliver on that commitment. Taking account of the differing care systems around the world, they provide for support from the virtual school head at local authority level and designated teachers within schools for children who have been adopted from care in countries outside England and Wales. I am sure the House will welcome this development.

    Amendment 9, along with Amendments 22 to 28, and 30, are concerned with the small number of children—20 at present, according to our most recent data—who are placed by local authorities in England and Wales in secure accommodation in Scotland. Making such placements is a well-established practice allowing local authorities to consider a fuller range of specialist provision in seeking to identify the most appropriate placement for a child in their care and making best use of the available capacity within Great Britain. The amendments, therefore, do not make any substantive change to current practice or policy but are rather a technical fix to make clear the powers under which a child might be placed in these settings and address a legal gap identified by the Family Division of the High Court in September last year.

    Apart from Amendments 10 and 11, which simply move clauses to new positions in the Bill for housekeeping purposes, the remaining amendments in this group relate to the social work clauses of the Bill.

    I thank noble Lords for their challenge and scrutiny in relation to the new regulator for social workers, Social Work England. I am delighted that we have reached an agreed framework for the new body, one which I believe puts us in an excellent position to drive forward the reform and support needed in the profession. I give my specific thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Warner, whose continuous engagement in this subject has greatly helped us achieve a legal framework that supports all our ambitions for the profession while promoting and maintaining the vital protection of the public.

    I shall spend a little time on Amendment 14. This new clause will make it possible for government to pursue improvement work for the profession and set improvement standards that make it clear what social workers should know and be able to do to practise effectively. It is only right that vulnerable children and adults should expect strong professional practice from their social workers. We know that they do not receive that strong support and that quality varies across the sector. Almost one in four councils inspected under Ofsted’s current inspection framework has a judgment which indicates that its practice is inadequate. In the light of that startling statistic, it is critical that the Secretary of State is able to bring forward improvement activity that she believes will help raise the standard of social work practice by making clear what standards are expected of children and family social workers and assessing social workers against those improvement standards.

    In other professions, we might expect a professional body to undertake that work but, for now at least, there is no such body for social workers. With the distinct regulatory functions that Social Work England will rightly have, we believe the Secretary of State is in the best position to drive this improvement forward. Indeed, she is the only person who can. In doing so, she will, of course, want to work exceptionally closely with the social work profession.

    Amendment 14 will be the subject of review, as is already set out in Part 2, and we will consider whether it is appropriate to transfer the improvement role in the future to another body, which this amendment also allows for.

    My honourable friend Edward Timpson has set out in the other place and in speeches to the sector his belief that a sector-led professional body is an important part of the social work profession’s development, and he has made clear his desire to see proposals from the sector about how such a body might be created. I would like to be clear that the improvement standards under Amendment 14 are intended to be distinct from the professional standards that the regulator, Social Work England, will set. This is an important distinction. The improvement standards will define specialist standards of practice over and above those required by the regulator for registration. The Secretary of State will have no role in taking action against individual social workers who do not meet the regulator’s standards.

    In enabling the setting of specialist improvement standards for social workers and enabling assessment against those standards, this clause is critical to the future of the children’s social care system, to social workers and to the children they help and support. It will enable the introduction of a national assessment and accreditation system for child and family social workers, and will enable similar arrangements to be applied in social work with adults where appropriate. This follows extensive consultation with local authorities, including 31 enthusiastic pilot councils, and with representatives of social workers themselves.

    The national assessment and accreditation system will provide for the first time a consistent way of recognising the specialist knowledge and skills that child and family social workers, supervisors and leaders need for effective practice. In doing so, it will trigger a sharper investment in continuous professional development, a focus on the quality of practice and a social work profession more confident in its knowledge and skills and in the professional quality of the work that social workers do with children.

    The Government have recently consulted on the national assessment and accreditation system. The consultation closed on 14 March and almost 400 individual responses were received, including responses encapsulating the views of hundreds of social workers. There is a great deal of support for the aims of the new system but there was a wide range of comments about how its rollout can happen in a way that minimises disruption to the social work workforce. We are considering these comments carefully, and Ministers will announce their decisions on the way forward later this year.

    In addition, we are working closely with the 31 local authorities that have volunteered to be part of phase one of the rollout of the accreditation system. Recent feedback from them suggests that they continue to see great value in having an indicator of their social workers’ capabilities and a lever to drive a sharper focus on continuing professional development.

    The remaining social work amendments, Amendments 15 to 21 and 31 to 33, are a set of technical and consequential changes aimed at bringing clarity to the law governing the social work profession and bringing it into one succinct piece of legislation. These new clauses and amendments and the associated schedule merely provide clarity to the legislation, which will offer simplicity and transparency to the law governing the social work profession. They do not make substantive changes to the content of the present legislative framework but, rather, ensure a continuation of current provisions in light of the changes made by Part 2 of the Bill, particularly to maintain the support that the Government already provide to social work training.

    Through Amendment 15, the Government want to make it absolutely certain that the Secretary of State is still able to ensure that adequate provision is made for social work training, as is currently the case. This includes the ability to provide financial assistance to those undertaking training, as well as to the various organisations such as higher education institutions, working in partnership with local authorities, that provide social work training. The Secretary of State currently has functions of this nature under Section 67 of the Care Standards Act 2000. Amendment 15 would replace those functions in respect of social workers in England, setting out the Secretary of State’s powers in this area using modern drafting and in a way that makes clear her powers in relation to social work training in one clear and dedicated piece of legislation. The amendment is intended to ensure the continuation of current support to those bodies providing social work training, including higher education institutions, something that the Government are absolutely committed to. I beg to move.

  • My Lords, I am pleased to say that the Bill has been significantly improved by scrutiny in both Houses. The Minister has been of particular help in this iterative process by being willing to listen and to amend according to the informed debate in Committee and on Report in this House. We support the amendments listed in this group that extends the duty of local authorities in respect of children adopted from state care outside England and Wales, as well as the other changes in this group regarding secure accommodation and improvements to social work training and standards. On this, I have been alerted by the British Association of Social Workers of its concern that the training is not expressly linked to institutions of higher education. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that concern.

    On Amendment 14, we support the action to improve standards in social work training and social work in children’s services, but I regret that the Minister has today linked training with children’s services that are deemed less than satisfactory when inspected by Ofsted. At this point I declare my interest as in the register as a councillor in the Borough of Kirklees and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

    I continue to express my concern that the Bill adds to the duties and responsibilities of local authorities—and of schools—at a time when local authorities are adjusting to very large reductions in their funding, when the Government have made a commitment that there should be no new responsibilities for local government without the funding being provided. I hope to hear from the Minister that there will be additional funding for children’s social services to reflect the additional duties and responsibilities that the Bill rightly places on them. We cannot have something new and improved without providing the means to achieve it.

    With those comments, we generally support the amendments in this group.

  • My Lords, I add a few words to those of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. I particularly thank the Government for the amendments to Clauses 4, 5 and 6, which were in response to a promise made to the noble Baroness, Lady King of Bow, and me during the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. They will certainly improve the position of children in this country adopted from abroad, but, as you would expect, the amendments can only bring those children within the scope of the measures in the Bill.

    The battle is not over for the parents of those children, because many of them are now coming to the age where they transfer from primary to secondary school and are having difficulty getting into the school which their parents feel is most suitable for their particular needs. Is the Minister aware that some parents and I have spoken to Mr Edward Timpson about the need to extend priority admissions and pupil premium plus to those children? We are waiting to see whether the Government will make those changes. Will the Minister agree to meet me and some of the parents of those children so that he may hear for himself their concerns? Having said that, they asked me to say that they thank the Government and very much welcome the changes that they have made.

  • My Lords, I, too, thank the Government for how far they have come since we started work on this Bill in this House many months ago. However, I raise one question, which I raised yesterday in the very helpful drop-in session held by the Minister, which refers to government Amendments 9 and 30. Government Amendment 9 allows children from England and Wales to be held in secure accommodation in Scotland. As we know, the circumstances in which a child looked after by a local authority may be deprived of his or her liberty by placement in secure accommodation are listed in Section 25 of the Children Act 1989.

    Government Amendment 30 sets out a new schedule. Paragraph 5 of that schedule refers in particular to the Children (Secure Accommodation) Regulations 1991. It states:

    “In regulation 1 … ‘This Regulation and Regulations 10 to 13 extend to England and Wales and Scotland’”.

    Does that mean that Regulations 2 to 9 and 13 do not apply to children detained in Scotland? That is very important, because those regulations contain the requirement to obtain the child’s and parents’ consent to a move and the right to independent periodic review. If the regulations as set out in the government amendment are to be believed, those rights are removed from children who are transferred to Scotland.

    I suspect that this is either an administrative oversight or has been left out not deliberately but because the implications were not wholly appreciated. I should be grateful if the Minister could clear up this question.

  • My Lords, I too welcome much of what the Minister has said, as well as the work undertaken by the Government and the Members of the other House, particularly their acceptance of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady King, on adopted children, as promised. The Minister’s last words highlighting the continued financial support for higher education institutions to train social workers are also very important and very welcome.

    I share my noble friend’s concern about proposed new Clause 9 regarding secure accommodation in Scotland. I recognise that there is a crisis in the care of looked-after children. Since the death of baby Peter the number of children taken into care has risen year on year, and we anticipate that the number will increase even more steeply. There is pressure on foster placements and pressure on children’s homes in England and Wales. I recognise that it is sometimes better to send a child a long way from home if there is excellent and specialist provision to meet their needs. However, as a patron of a children’s advocacy charity, I know very well from young people themselves that what they wish for above all is continuity of positive relationships, so sending more children further away from home is always a matter of concern. I know that the Government are apprised of that principle. The thought that we are making it easier through this legislation to place more children out of England and Wales, far from their local authority—in Scotland—therefore causes me concern. The President of the Family Division of the High Court, Lord Justice Munby, said that this was something that needed to be considered, but he also said that there should be a joint Law Commission report into it. My concern is that it needs to be thoroughly considered. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister that, before this amendment is implemented, there will be thorough consultation to consider its implications.

    On Amendment 14, on the improvement of standards for social workers, I agree that standards need to be improved. There has been a long-standing concern about the quality of education of social workers. I recognise that they have often not been fully equipped to practise when they have completed their courses. However, it is right to insist that the Secretary of State should consult with the social work profession and higher education institutions in developing these standards. The Minister was fairly reassuring on that point although he did not explicitly mention the higher education institutions. My concern is that there is a risk that ideology and strongly held personal prejudice can lead judgment in the development of social work. The role of the social worker is highly emotionally charged, and it always has been. These people step into the lives of families and children for understandable reasons. The widest possible consultation with academics and practitioners would avoid the risk that the prejudices of one individual or one group could shape the standards too sharply.

    I recognise the benefits of the innovative training models such as Frontline, which the Government introduced. The Minister has been fairly reassuring on this last point so I will not go further on that. I do not intend to speak again this afternoon but I warmly welcome the next set of amendments and the introduction of statutory personal, social health and economic education. A long-standing concern is that teachers in schools are just not equipped to teach the difficult subject of sex and relationship education. I hope that by putting this on a statutory basis many more teachers will be properly equipped and children will get the education they need.

  • My Lords, I too welcome what the Government have done in responding to some of the concerns that have been expressed about the Bill. They have shown their willingness to listen and to make amendments and I commend them for that.

    I just want to raise an issue around secure accommodation. My warning lights always start flashing on the subject of children’s secure accommodation. It is very difficult to regulate this area and to ensure that good care is provided, because the unit costs tend to be extremely high. If we have now got to the point where we have to take children over the border—where they have to cross the Tweed to get their secure accommodation—we should start to be concerned. This sector has shrunk and shrunk and shrunk in England. This was starting when I was chairman of the Youth Justice Board, up to 2003, and it is very difficult to get people to work in it, to set the systems up and to ensure that they continue to be safe.

    There is something to be said, not just for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, but for taking an independent look at this sector and its economic viability. This is an area where, in effect, you almost have to pay for spare places to be available because you do not know when a child is going to require that accommodation. The Government now need to have a long, hard look at this. The sector has been shrinking for some time; it has proved difficult to get the finances right and to secure good staff. People are doing their best, but things can often go wrong in this sector. It is very difficult to ensure that these places are regulated properly. The Minister might want to write later, rather than responding today, but will he and his department consider whether a review of the sector is long overdue?

  • My Lords, the Minister has paid due tribute to Members of this House for their contribution as the Bill was scrutinised some months ago. In return, the Minister’s willingness—and that of his colleague in the other place, Mr Edward Timpson—has been commendable and is much appreciated. There is no doubt that the Bill has changed quite considerably. I particularly welcome the fact that regulation of social workers is now to be undertaken by an independent body, subject to the oversight of the PSA. I also welcome the Government’s decision to accept that the innovation clauses which the Lords took out would not be reinserted in the other place. Essentially, they involved giving local authorities the ability to override primary legislation, so we have maintained an important principle.

    The Minister has introduced a number of interesting amendments. I will follow other noble Lords in asking one or two questions. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, have raised important points in relation to secure children’s homes in Scotland and the amendments brought forward by the Minister. There can, of course, be no objection whatever to dealing with the technical deficiencies which have been identified, but there is a concern that, across the last six years, there has been a, I think, 22% reduction in secure accommodation places for children. There would be a concern if these provisions were used inappropriately to transfer young people across the border because there were not sufficient resources in England. I hope that the Minister can assure me that this is purely a technical provision, that the Government are actually committed to ensuring that there are sufficient places in England, and that young people are not sent unnecessarily long distances from their homes. As the noble Lord and the noble Earl said, that cannot do very much to improve the quality of their lives, which is the purpose of secure accommodation.

    I recognise that the provisions on improvement standards for social workers are a logical outcome of the Government accepting the proposition that social worker regulation should come under an independent regulator. The noble Lord said some welcome words about the Government’s desire to encourage the development of a sector-led improvement body. Clearly, efforts have been made in this regard in the past that have not been deemed to work, but the Government are right to try to inspire another go at getting this right. The noble Lord will probably know that both BASW and UNISON have raised concerns about the Secretary of State setting standards and whether they are linked to the national assessment and accreditation scheme. I shall not go into that in detail, but clearly there is a concern among social workers about the way in which the scheme could be used potentially to penalise individual social workers. I hope that the noble Lord will set my mind at rest on that.

    In taking forward these proposals on the establishment of a new regulator and the setting of standards and their assessment by the Secretary of State, I hope that there will be, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, full engagement with the sector, including with UNISON, BASW and other bodies. There is a particular role for the chief inspector of children’s services here. I look across the Floor of the House at the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who was a most distinguished chief inspector of social services a few years ago. It is a very difficult role comprising being a principal adviser to Ministers and being head of a profession while upholding the public interest. The chief inspector of children’s services has a very strong role to play in trying to pull the stakeholders together rather than necessarily just confronting them. I hope that she and the Minister will take this suggestion as one that is meant in the best possible way. In the end, if this provision is to work effectively, it is very important that we take the profession with us as much as we can on this journey of improvement. The Opposition fully support the Government in seeking to improve standards in the profession. That is why we support the broad thrust of the Bill.

    The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about training providers. There has been concern, particularly in the light of the debate on the higher education Bill, about who the providers might be. If the Minister could give some assurance about the quality of provision in social work training, that would be very helpful.

    I am grateful to the Minister for his work on the Bill, the amendments he has brought forward and for the overall thrust of where we are now going, which we support.

  • My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their helpful comments. I repeat that these amendments, although important, are, for the most part, relatively minor. However, I will attempt to answer the points that were raised.

    On the point about the role of higher education institutions, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as I said, the amendments in this group already include provision for financial assistance for organisations, including HEIs, providing social work training. The Government already play a role in ensuring that adequate initial HEI training is available and are absolutely committed to continuing to do this. This clause allows for this funding to be provided to HEIs, and the Government are committed to continuing this support.

    The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about funding. We have published a new burden assessment of the Bill’s provisions, including a commitment to provide additional funding where appropriate.

    The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about issues that some parents face when their child transfers from primary to secondary education. I would be delighted to meet her and the parents concerned to discuss this matter further.

    The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Warner and Lord Hunt, also talked about secure placements in Scotland and generally. Placements in Scottish secure homes have happened, commonly, over time. These amendments are necessary to fill a legislative gap relating to secure placements in Scotland by English and Welsh local authorities—a technical point. While important, they do not seek to change policy; as I say, they are a technical fix.

  • In answer to the point about parental consent, Section 25 itself contains no requirement for parental consent, and the proposed amendment does not alter the position as set out in law currently. That is, there is a duty on the placing authority to endeavour to promote contact between the child and their parents and any person who is not a parent but who has parental responsibility for the child and any relative, friend or other person connected with the child, unless it is not reasonably practical or consistent with the child’s welfare. Such cases may include where the child has been abused or the parents or parent pose a significant risk of harm to the child.

    On the question that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, raised in particular, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about whether there is a shortage of placements in this regard, at the moment we are talking of 20 children going across the border, but that is not a reason for not being concerned about the point. The commissioning and provision of secure accommodation rests with local authorities, which have a duty to ensure sufficient provision.

    However, in recognition of the absence of a clear national picture of supply and demand for secure beds, and in response to calls from ADCS and other stakeholders to allow better central oversight, last May my department began funding a central co-ordination unit for secure welfare placements. This is run by Hampshire County Council and supports local authorities to find suitable placements for young people. The process is designed to ensure that places are allocated more quickly and easily as soon as a child is identified as needing secure accommodation. Emerging data from the unit are starting to give us a much better picture. I can say that it indicates that there may be pressure on the availability of welfare beds in the English secure estate, and we are engaging with ADCS, the LGA, secure accommodation providers, the MoJ and NHS England to establish how we can better plan and allocate this provision in the future.

    I entirely agree with the point the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made about the absolutely essential importance of taking the profession with us every step along the way. On the point about consultation, which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, also raised, the amendment itself requires consultation, and we are absolutely committed to a full and open consultation.

    I hope that I have been able to do justice to most of the points raised and that noble Lord across the House will support the Motion to approve these Commons amendments.

    Motion agreed.

    Motion on Amendment 12

    Moved by

  • That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 12.

  • 12: After Clause 32, insert the following new Clause—

    “Education relating to relationships and sex

    (1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring—

    (a) relationships education to be provided to pupils of compulsory school age receiving primary education at schools in England;

    (b) relationships and sex education to be provided (instead of sex education) to pupils receiving secondary education at schools in England.

    (2) The regulations must include provision—

    (a) requiring the Secretary of State to give guidance to proprietors of schools in relation to the provision of the education and to review the guidance from time to time;

    (b) requiring proprietors of schools to have regard to the guidance;

    (c) requiring proprietors of schools to make statements of policy in relation to the education to be provided, and to make the statements available to parents or other persons;

    (d) about the circumstances in which a pupil (or a pupil below a specified age) is to be excused from receiving relationships and sex education or specified elements of that education.

    (3) The regulations must provide that guidance given by virtue of subsection (2)(a) is to be given with a view to ensuring that when relationships education or relationships and sex education is given—

    (a) the pupils learn about—

    (i) safety in forming and maintaining relationships,

    (ii) the characteristics of healthy relationships, and

    (iii) how relationships may affect physical and mental health and well-being, and

    (b) the education is appropriate having regard to the age and the religious background of the pupils.

    (4) The regulations may make further provision in connection with the provision of relationships education, or relationships and sex education.

    (5) Before making the regulations, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

    (6) The regulations may amend any provision (including provision conferring powers) that is made by or under—

    (a) section 342 of the Education Act 1996;

    (b) Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Education Act 1996; (c) Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1996;

    (d) Part 6 of the Education Act 2002;

    (e) Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008; (f) the Academies Act 2010.

    (7) Any duty to make provision by regulations under subsection (1) may be discharged by making that provision by regulations under another Act, so long as the Secretary of State consults such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate before making the regulations under that Act.

    (8) The provision that may be made by regulations under subsection (1) by virtue of section 70 includes, in particular, provision amending, repealing or revoking any provision made by or under any Act or any other instrument or document (whenever passed or made).

    (9) Regulations under subsection (1) which amend provision made by or under an Act are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

    (10) Other regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.

    (11) Expressions used in this section, where listed in the left-hand column of the table in section 580 of the Education Act 1996, are to be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of that Act listed in the right-hand column in relation to those expressions.”

  • My Lords, the Government want all children to have access to age-appropriate relationships education, relationships and sex education—RSE—and personal, social, health and economic education that relate to the modern world. We believe this is vital to ensuring that pupils are taught the knowledge and skills they need to stay safe and develop healthy, supportive relationships, particularly in view of their increasing use of online technology and social media. I know that many noble Lords in this House have worked tirelessly to raise the profile of this issue and I thank them for their valuable contribution.

    As my honourable friend the Minister of State for Vulnerable Children and Families stated on Report in the House of Commons, we have listened to calls for further action on this. That includes from professionals working in the field, from parents and carers and from young people themselves. Evidence presented to numerous Select Committees has added to the weight of evidence, and many teaching unions have also called for mandatory status, as have leading parent representative bodies such as Mumsnet and PTA UK. The growing concerns about child sexual abuse and exploitation, and about children sharing and viewing inappropriate materials, have convinced us that there is a compelling case to act in relation to pupil safety.

    Amendment 12 places a duty on the Secretary of State to make relationships education and RSE mandatory. The strength of this approach is that it will allow us to engage with a wide range of interests and expertise ahead of putting the duty into effect. The outcome of this engagement will feed into both the legislative process needed to make these subjects mandatory and the guidance that will support schools in delivering high-quality, inclusive relationships education and RSE.

    We are creating a regulation-making power to enable the Secretary of State to make PSHE mandatory. It is clear that the most pressing safeguarding concerns relate to relationships and RSE, but it is evident that wider concerns about child safety and well-being relate to the types of life skills that this subject can cover, such as an understanding of the risks of drugs and alcohol, and safeguarding physical and mental health. That is why we want to have the ability to make PSHE also mandatory, subject to the outcome of thorough consideration of the subject and careful consideration of the fit with the content of relationships education and RSE.

    The wider engagement to consider content will begin this spring, and we expect that it will result in draft regulations and guidance for consultation in the autumn of this year. Following the consultation, we will lay regulations in both Houses, alongside final draft guidance, allowing for a full and considered debate. We envisage that the statutory guidance will be published in 2018, once the regulations have been debated and approved by both Houses, and at least one full year before the academic year 2019-20.

    Our proposals have already been debated fully in the other place, and I have also had the opportunity to discuss them with some noble Lords individually and in drop-in sessions. Therefore, I know that there will be particular interest in certain points of detail, and it may help to cover some of them briefly at the start of the debate.

    First, we do not want to be overly prescriptive on content and therefore have chosen not to specify in the Bill the exact content of the subjects. We know that the rapidly changing risks that young people face mean that the legislation could quickly be out of date if we attempted to list key topics. We will ensure that our external engagement results in a clear understanding of the full set of knowledge and skills that relationships education, RSE and PSHE should provide for children and young people.

    However, Amendment 12 will ensure that the Secretary of State will be required to issue guidance on delivering these subjects to which all schools must have regard. The amendment also requires that the guidance is given with a view to ensuring that pupils learn about safety in forming and maintaining relationships, the characteristics of healthy relationships, and how relationships may affect mental and physical health and well-being.

    It will be essential, of course, that the content of these subjects is age appropriate. We expect the new subject of relationships education for primary schools to focus on themes such as friendships, different types of family relationships, how to deal with bullying and respect for other people. We anticipate that RSE in secondary schools will include topics such as sexual health, including sexually transmitted infections, and sexuality—all set firmly within the context of healthy relationships. It will also cover helping pupils to understand the law in relation to sex. This will complement elements already taught in the science national curriculum.

    This will contribute to wider government efforts to improve all elements of internet safety. We want Britain to be the safest place in the world for young people to go online. We know that more needs to be done and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has commenced work on a new internet safety strategy. The DCMS will consider all available options. It will want to talk to all the leading stakeholders, collect evidence and test solutions before delivering a sensible package of proposals.

    We will consider the need for PSHE topics in this context and we expect our analysis to cover the broad pillars of healthy bodies, lifestyles and healthy minds, economic well-being and making a positive contribution to society. The amendment will ensure that education provided under these subjects is appropriate not only to a child’s age but to their religious background. The Secretary of State must give guidance to schools on how to deliver this, but this provision will give faith schools the flexibility to teach these subjects reflecting the tenets of the faith, while still being consistent with their duties under the Equality Act.

    We expect all schools to ensure that young people feel that relationships education and RSE are relevant to them and sensitive to their needs. As part of our wider engagement, we envisage working with organisations such as Stonewall and the Terrence Higgins Trust, which are already supporting schools very well in this area. The guidance will draw on existing good practice on how to provide good-quality, inclusive subject content that is also consistent with the ethos of the school.

    Schools will be able to consider how best to teach these subjects, taking account of the age and religious backgrounds of their pupils, but not whether to teach them. The amendment does, however, provide for a right to withdraw from sex education in RSE for parents who would prefer to teach some or all of sex education to their children themselves. We will ensure that the right to withdraw is consistent with current case law regarding the age at which a pupil may have the right to make their own decisions about whether to withdraw from sex education or not. I want to assure noble Lords that all this will be covered in regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure and therefore debated in both Houses.

    The amendment does not provide for a right to withdraw from relationships education for pupils receiving primary education. This is because we envisage relationships education will focus on themes such as friendships, family relationships and dealing with strangers. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this is appropriate and important for all children to learn.

    We are committed to giving schools time to prepare fully for these important changes, so that they will be ready to teach high-quality relationships education, RSE and potentially PSHE, pending the findings from our engagement and consultation. We therefore anticipate implementation will commence from September 2019.

    I have mentioned already that we intend to conduct a thorough and wide process of engagement, both to develop regulations and guidance and to assess what support the sector may need as a result of this legislation. The department will begin this process of engagement as soon as possible after Royal Assent. We are considering what expert advice the department requires to help inform this work. We envisage seeking expertise in school leadership and the subject matter. As we have already set out, we intend to consult on the draft regulations and guidance in the autumn of this year.

    The process will include activity with the teaching profession; subject associations such as the PSHE Association, whose former CEO Joe Hayman deserves recognition for working tirelessly for this cause for many years, and the Sex Education Forum; faith groups such as the Catholic Education Service, the Church of England and other leading faith representative organisations; leading children’s stakeholders, such as Barnardo’s, the Children’s Society, the National Children’s Bureau, the NSPCC and other voluntary sector groups such as Stonewall, the Terrence Higgins Trust and the End Violence Against Women Coalition; teaching unions; and organisations that work in this space with schools and children such as the Young Enterprise. Perhaps most crucially, we want this work to engage directly with children, young people and parents, so we can be sure that the end result delivers what they need and that we are helping children and young people to be safe and happy as they grow older.

    Of course, we would also like noble Lords to contribute to this wider engagement, particularly those who have expertise and experience in these areas; for example, in online safety. I look forward to working with fellow Peers on this.

    I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting this considered approach to reforming this area of the curriculum in collaboration with schools. I know there are some amendments in this group that other noble Lords will wish to speak to, but I trust that the House will welcome the important principles I have set out and welcome, as I do, these Commons amendments. I beg to move.

    Amendment 12A (as an amendment to Amendment 12)

  • Moved by

  • 12A: Line 4, after “relationships” insert “and sex”

  • I will speak to Amendments 12A, 12C and 12E in this group. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and his ministerial colleague Edward Timpson for having brought this very important amendment for-ward. They are to be credited and congratulated on what they have achieved. The Minister said that many Members have raised this issue and its profile over a long time in this House. It is hard to believe, as my noble friend Lady Maddock is reminding me, that it was perhaps only 20 years ago that we were debating Clause 28—do noble Lords remember that? How quickly things have changed. Of course, during the time of the coalition, we had equal marriage as well.

    I want to thank not only the Minister and his Government but also all those who have campaigned on this issue for quite some time. When you think of PSHE, there is only one person in this Chamber you automatically think of. She is not in her usual place but she is here. That person is—I have forgotten her name. Help!

  • Noble Lords

    Massey!

  • It is the noble Baroness, Lady Massey—I had a senior moment. She has constantly asked Question after Question and always emails to say, “Make sure you are in the Chamber when I ask my Question”. I am sure that she is thrilled with the result. I am sorry for forgetting her name.

  • We need to be aware of the problem. When I first started teaching at a primary school on a council estate in Prescot, once a week for 12 sessions we took the BBC sex education programme “Merry-Go-Round”. At that time there were not some of the frightening issues that children now face in primary schools. I shall come back to that issue in a moment.

    To put this in context, the Terrence Higgins Trust in 2016 found that one in seven young people did not receive any sex and relationship education at school. Of this frightening figure, over half—61%—received SRE only once a year or less. The colloquial term was “the drop-down days”. Currently, millions of children are not getting the right kind of information about relationships. Sensitive issues such as relationships with the other sex, with the same sex, domestic violence, abuse, female genital mutilation, forced marriage and stranger danger are all out there and young people do not get the proper support and guidance that they should get.

    It is not only about saying—as we are—that we should have sex and relationship education but about the quality of that provision and the teaching of the subject. That is why I again welcome the Government’s decision to provide guidance on this matter. It was only three years ago that Ofsted found that of those secondary schools teaching sexual relationship education, as it was then called, 40% required improvement because the teaching was inadequate. We need to make sure that the teaching, materials and content are right.

    My concerns lie in two areas. I hope the Minister will clarify the first area, which concerns the Government’s amendment, when he responds. To a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on sex and relationship education in schools, the Minister gave a fulsome reply. He said:

    “We plan to undertake a comprehensive programme of engagement with stakeholders about future provision in these areas. A key element of that engagement process will be gathering and using evidence to enable us to get the balance of subject content right … enabling schools to design appropriate lessons”.

    Putting that to one side for a moment, I also note that in their amendment the Government refer to the religious backgrounds of pupils. My Amendment 12C seeks to explore what the religious background means. Does it mean, for example, that the programme of study, when it is developed after consultation, will be age appropriate and include something about gay relationships? I assume that that content might include something about safe sex and contraception. How does that square with the traditions or the religious background of a particular faith school? Does it mean that they can say, “We are not happy about contraception or gay relationships so we will withdraw from those aspects of relationship and sex education”? I want the Minister to be very clear in his reply. I know that there are issues around the Equality Act, but I hope that the Minister can say basically what is in my amendment, which is that once the consultation has taken place and the programme of work is agreed, which is only right and proper, it will be expected of all schools, irrespective of their faith traditions or background, to teach these aspects.

    The second issue I want to address goes back to primary education. We have come a long way so I am not going to push this, but I want to make the point. I regret that the sex part is not to be included with relationships. Primary school-age children usually have a teacher who they see on a daily basis in a small setting where it is natural to talk about sex and relationship education. Children are facing pressures ranging from sexting to access to pornographic sites and stranger danger, so it seems that as well as relationship education, sex education should go with it. It is interesting to note that around 53% of 11 to 16 year-olds have seen explicit material online and it is a matter of concern that new research undertaken by the security technology company Bitdefenders reports that children under the age of 10 now account for 22% of online porn consumption. If we divorce sex and relationship education, that has the potential to cause problems. As Michael Flood has rightly said in volume 18 of his Child Abuse Review,

    “pornography is a poor, and indeed dangerous, sex educator”.

    I regret the fact that we will not be giving primary school-age children sex and relationship education together.

    I thank the Minister for bringing forward this provision and am pleased that this is going to be an affirmative process.

  • My Lords, I wonder if I might speak given that I was named—but not shamed—in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and I thank him for his tribute. I feel that I must speak on what is quite an historic occasion. I am one of those people in your Lordships’ House who has spent many years trying to get the issue of personal, social and health education, including relationships and sex education, into the curriculum, and the word “compulsory” is music to my ears. I give the amendments a huge welcome and I think that the Government have been brave in putting them before us today. At last we can see real progress on this.

    The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is right to say that these issues have been around in Parliament for the past 20 years. I recall my noble friend Lord Knight speaking in 2010 at a teachers’ conference at which he received a standing ovation when he said that PSHE would be made compulsory by the Labour Party. Sadly the issue was washed away in the wash-up and it never happened, but I shall never forget my noble friend’s standing ovation.

    Until now, despite vocal support from children and young people, parents, teachers and other professional bodies, the words “must” and “make provision” have not been applied to these aspects of education; that is, forming and maintaining relationships and how they may affect physical and mental health. Nor have schools been required to make policy statements in relation to the education provided and to make them available to parents or other persons. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, mentioned many organisations, to which we are all grateful for their consistent support for this area of education. Children—it is they who are important here —will have the right to learn about issues that they are concerned about. They will have the right to learn about, for example, the danger of online pornography, abuse and how to protect themselves. But that is not the only thing: they will have the right to learn that most relationships are, in fact, fulfilling, happy and make sense to have.

    Regarding the religious aspect, the best sex education teacher I ever met when I was an adviser was a nun. She said to me on issues such as abortion and homosexuality, “I do teach these things. What I do is put forward the Roman Catholic view of what these mean to the Church and to myself, but I do talk about and feel that I can talk about them because I have put the viewpoint of my Church. It does not prevent me helping children to understand what such issues are about”. I deeply respect that person for what she said to me.

    Here I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I remember a conversation with him when he was first made a Minister. I realised then that he understood the importance of enabling children to receive education in school to help them understand themselves, their behaviours and attitudes, and their own rights and responsibilities. I thank him for the legislation that is now before us. I am sure that he had a huge impact on making it happen.

    I of course have concerns about delivery. I realise that amendments from colleagues are totally understandable, but we have to get on with delivery. Of course teachers will need to be trained and they will need resources. I wonder how the many excellent resources on PSHE, character education, citizenship and so on will be rationalised and brought together to form a holistic approach. Maybe schools will do it themselves. I do not know. I share Stonewall’s concern; maybe the Minister can respond to this. Do the Government agree that the new legislation and guidance must comply with the Equality Act and will therefore require all schools, including those with a faith character, to provide education on LGBT issues? In Amendment 12, to be inserted after Clause 32, is the sentence,

    “the education is appropriate having regard to the age and the religious background of the pupils”,

    intended to ensure the faith schools can teach LGBT issues while still respecting the faith ethos of a school? I go back to my nun.

    I am delighted that issues relating to sex education and PSHE are now being discussed in this Chamber openly and with respect. I again congratulate the Minister on his influence.

  • My Lords, my Amendment 12B is in this group. Today is a day of great celebration for me because ever since I came into your Lordships’ House, I, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Gould, who is not in her place, have campaigned across party for this. I thank the Minister most sincerely for making it a reality for children. They have wanted it and demanded it; I hope they will now get it at a very high quality. The fact that it will be mandatory will mean that teachers will train specifically to give them the skills to deliver this sensitively and with an understanding of the young people.

    My amendment would remove subsection (2)(d). It is simply to probe the Government’s intentions. The subsection says:

    “The regulations must include provision … about the circumstances in which a pupil (or a pupil below a specified age) is to be excused from receiving relationships and sex education or specified elements of that education”.

  • If the programme of study is designed as the Bill intends it to be, there should be no need for any parent to want to withdraw their child. However, the current situation—and it is hard to believe, I know—is that a parent can withdraw their child from sex education up to the age of 18 if they stay on at school in the sixth form. In this day and age, that is downright ridiculous. I understand that the Government intend to look at that and come back with regulations which bring the situation much more up to date. When they do so, I hope that they will bear in mind that for 25 years we have been signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of Child. A proper course of PSHE and relationship and sex education will give a child the right to life-saving and life-enhancing information that will enable them to work towards a healthy body, a healthy mind and healthy relationships in their future life. If they have all that, they will become productive members of society.

    It is also important that we bear in mind the “best interests of the child” principle, which I think was introduced in 1945. It is in the best interests of the child that they have all the information about these issues that they need to keep them safe and help them to be healthy and happy. Whatever they hear from their parents, they will then be in a position and have the tools to make their own judgments and choices, which is vital.

    I will be honest about the fact that I do not feel that parents should have the right to remove children from this life-saving information at all, but I am not pressing that point today. I want to ensure that the consultation will be wide enough—I hope that I will be able to contribute to it—and that the Government bear in mind those principles to which we are already signatory and look at examples such as Gillick competence, which relates to children’s ability to make decisions for themselves about things such as contraception and privacy of their medical records. We need to look at the child’s ability to understand the issues and make the decisions for themselves. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, they have a right to do that. This is just a probing amendment. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord will tell us about the Government’s approach to the regulations.

  • My Lords, I have Amendment 12D in this group. I apologise to the House for not having spoken at previous stages of the Bill, but this is a new clause that was introduced in the other place. In fact, I blame the Minister for dragging me into this—his officials, having noted my reference to compulsory sex and relationship education in relation to a debate on online pornography in the Digital Economy Bill, kindly invited me to the meeting on this subject with him.

    I want to add my personal support for this major step forward in making sex and relationship education compulsory. In particular, with the proliferation of online pornography, teaching young people not to treat each other as portrayed in online pornography, teaching about connection, respect and love, and most of all, teaching about consent when it comes to sex are becoming increasingly important.

    Of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as other noble Lords have said. I have particular concerns about faith schools being able to teach pupils that same-sex relationships are wrong or sinful, or that engaging in a physical relationship with someone of the same sex is wrong or sinful, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, has just mentioned.

    I accept that there are strongly held beliefs in many faiths about sex generally and sex between people of the same sex in particular, and we have to be sensitive to them. But we also have to be aware of the psychological harm that can be done to young people from across the range of gender and sexual diversity. Bullying of any kind is to be condemned, but bullying based on gender or sexual diversity is particularly damaging. Those who wish to engage in such bullying take encouragement from those in authority who teach that same-sex relationships or sex between people of the same sex is wrong.

    My specific concern is that we go from a situation where homosexual sex and relationships are not taught at all—Ofsted reported in 2013 that only 5% of pupils were being taught about such things—to a situation where homosexual sex and relationships are being taught in all schools, but in many schools, in accordance with faith traditions, pupils are told that such relationships are wrong or sinful. Research conducted in 2012 showed that 55% of lesbian, gay and bisexual youth had experienced homophobic bullying in school and 41% of those bullied attempted, or thought about, taking their own lives. Separate research in 2014 showed that of more than 7,000 LGBTQ 16 to 25 year-olds, over half reported mental health issues and 44% had considered ending their lives. I know from bitter personal experience as a young gay man who was a devout Christian that devastating consequences can result from the isolation, the guilt, the embarrassment, the shame and the bullying that emanate from intolerance.

    This is a probing amendment to seek reassurance from the Minister that schools cannot use compulsory sex and relationship education to teach a one-sided and condemnatory view of same-sex relationships, including the physical aspects of such relationships. To say that same-sex relationships are not wrong in themselves provided there is no physical aspect to them is neither a realistic nor a humane position. What protection does the Equality Act provide, and what will be contained in regulations to prevent an increase in intolerance of sexual and gender diversity as a result of making sex and relationship education compulsory? The campaigning group Stonewall is repeating the 2012 research to which I referred earlier. This will provide a benchmark against which any adverse impact of these provisions can be measured.

    As the Minister alluded to earlier, there are already 200 faith schools working with Stonewall to deliver good-quality, LGBT-inclusive sex and relationship education without undermining the faith ethos of those schools. How will the Government ensure that all faith schools follow this good practice?

    I also support my noble friend Lady Walmsley in her concerns about parents’ ability to withdraw their children from sex and relationship education. I am concerned that in some faith schools, on the advice of the head teacher, all parents could withdraw all their pupils from these lessons, with the teacher facing an empty classroom.

  • My Lords, I shall speak to government amendment 12, rather than to any of the amendments to it. The Government and the Minister will, I expect, have seen a recent statement by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool, speaking as chairman of the Catholic Education Service. He emphasised that the aim and ambition of Catholic schools has always been,

    “to educate the whole person. Our schools have a long track record of educating young people who are prepared for adult life as informed and engaged members of society, and high quality RSE plays an important part of this. We welcome the Government’s commitment to improving Relationship and Sex Education in all schools. Catholic schools already teach age-appropriate Relationship and Sex Education in both primary and secondary schools”.

    I think it is important to emphasise the words, “age-appropriate”.

    The statement continues:

    “This is supported by a Catholic model RSE curriculum which covers the RSE curriculum from nursery all the way through to sixth form”.

    In addition, the statement welcomes,

    “the Government’s commitment to protect parental right of withdrawal”.

    The statement continues, and I support it:

    “It is essential that parents fully support the school’s approach to these sensitive matters. The experience of Catholic schools is that parental involvement is the basis for providing consistent and high quality RSE at home and at school”.

    The statement concludes:

    “We look forward to working closely with the Government to shape any new guidance to enable Catholic schools to continue to deliver outstanding RSE, in accordance with parents’ wishes and Church teaching”.

  • My Lords, I am very happy indeed to support government Amendments 12 and 13 on relationships and sex education and on PSHE. Compulsory provision and statutory guidance are necessary in these areas. The Church of England welcomes this and we very much look forward to the consultation.

    We particularly welcome the decision to reverse the name and put “relationships” rather than “sex” at the heart of this policy. This is not about just sex or sex education. It puts sex in its proper context of committed and consensual relationships. But it is also about friendships, resilience, good disagreement and living with difference. It is about tackling bullying, self-image, social media, advertising and so much else. It is about supporting children and preparing them for adult life.

    I have listened carefully to the proposers of the amendments to Amendment 12, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. I agreed with a great deal of what they said and would not want to disagree with eminently sensible points, not least about bullying and making children or young people feel that they do not belong or that there is something wrong with them. We oppose homophobia and all such things very strongly from these Benches.

    However, I am not sure that those amendments to Amendment 12 are necessary. The Church believes very strongly that all forms of education have to be in co-operation and partnership with parents, faith communities and, indeed, the wider community. Educating children is not a matter just for the state. It has to be in co-operation with parents. Achieving that co-operation, as far as possible, with parents and faith communities is what is going to work in making the education better and, indeed, building up the resilience and the community cohesion that we really need in our society. So I oppose the amendments but not the spirit in which they are offered, nor many of the good comments that have been made in support of them.

    I am open, as others in the Church would be, to the Government working through what the appropriate age is. Eighteen does seem a bit old for not allowing children to make their own decisions until then. Those sorts of things need to be thought through in the context of the way that society is developing and young people are developing. But the idea of age-appropriate and religious background-appropriate education is entirely right and proper. Just because some elements in society try to steal children’s childhoods from them does not mean that we should collude with that. Children must be allowed to be children and we should not be teaching at primary school or at very young ages what is not necessary or appropriate there.

    It is entirely right to be teaching relationships in the primary sector in the way that the Minister described; we support that fully. But we on the Bishops’ Benches believe that the Government and the Commons amendments have got this about right and we are very happy to support them.

  • My Lords, there is sometimes a moment for all sides to recognise a chance of real conciliation—and I think that this is it. As a practising Catholic who voted and spoke in favour of same-sex marriage, I hope that I may be in a position to refer to this. The fact is that the Government have brought forward something which can be agreed by all sides in a remarkable way. The amendments ought therefore to be treated in the elegant way in which they have all been presented—in other words, as probing amendments for the Government to say something more about their views.

    This is a hugely difficult area because it is not only age-appropriate; there is also the question of it being situation-appropriate, as some young people have such a terrible experience of relationships that no age is young enough to teach them what might happen. I have rarely been as moved as I was when I was a Member of Parliament and used to go to my local youth prison and saw boys who could so easily have been one’s own children in a situation where they had done terrible things—but, given their backgrounds, you could not honestly blame them. You could say that they were guilty but you could not blame them for what had happened. I am also enormously impressed by those who overcome that sort of background. They are another group whom we ought always to think about. Schoolteachers have a real problem in trying to deal with all this.

    We also have to be careful not to underestimate many of the other important decisions in life. The whole nature of religion and the contribution that religion gives must not be excluded because we are worried about one thing alone. We are very much in danger of moving from an entirely unacceptable position at one end to a position at the other end which excludes a different set of people from proper participation in what the Government seek to do. I therefore very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will take this as an opportunity to say that in our discussions, and in the listening mode which the Government are in, we need to come to an attitude that may last for a long time and stand the test of time. It will of course change because, within that, teachers will learn better how to balance these very real differences because they will be doing it more widely.

    I am encouraged both by the statement of the Archbishop of Liverpool, which it was very worthwhile to read out, and the elegant way taken by those with whom one has had strong arguments in the past—the National Secular Society and others. If we can take this moment, capture it and ensure that we get the best out of it, this will be a very special moment for the future of education.

  • My Lords, briefly, I congratulate the Government on bringing these amendments forward. They are a very welcome advance and I am extremely supportive of Amendments 12 and 13. All credit to the Minister and his colleagues for having the courage to grasp this nettle after so long and come forward with amendments. So it may seem a little churlish if I add a “but”. My “but” relates to Amendment 12B, which was so elegantly spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I want to enter into the spirit of the way in which she spoke to it to probe the Government a little on the issue of age and the ability to withdraw children from this education.

    We have to recognise that there is a need to make some of this compatible with some of the other aspects on which we judge children: for example, the age of criminal responsibility. It would be extremely strange to give people a chance to withdraw their children from this kind of educational opportunity at an age which is older than the age of criminal responsibility, which is based on the principle of doli incapax—children not understanding the implications of what they have done. There are other bits of our social system that need to be taken into account when we write guidance on these issues for children.

    We also have to remember that the state does not give parents an absolute right to do whatever they want with their children. The state does step in. It withdraws children from their natural parents when it thinks that they are being abused or that it is not safe for them to stay in the care of their parents. That is based on another principle, well set out in the Children Act 1989: the best interests of the child. We need to balance the principles of the best interests of the child and the willingness of the state to intervene when it thinks a parent is behaving seriously unreasonably and damaging a child. We have to make the rules in this area consistent with rules operating in other areas, such as the age of criminal responsibility.

    So I hope that, while the Minister and his department are framing the guidance, they will be able think about these wider issues, including the ability of parents to withdraw their children from this kind of education. It may be that we have to set some point in time where we cannot accept that parents can withdraw their children from this—whatever set of beliefs they happen to hold. At the end of the day it is their children, not they, who are going to have to cope with the world that they are moving into. We have an obligation to think about children and not just about the rights of their parents.

  • My Lords, I rise briefly to lend my support to this important group of amendments. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, I think this is a historic occasion. Many people, including many distinguished noble Lords, have campaigned for this over many years. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough, I am very pleased that we are now talking about relationships and sex education in that order. It is something I spoke about in my maiden speech, and I am very pleased to see it introduced.

    I shall make two quick points. The first is that, in the considerable number of debates we have recently had in your Lordships’ House on children’s mental health and during the passage of the Bill, we have heard about the strong link between relationship distress and poor mental health. It seems self-evident that supporting young people to develop relationships skills—conflict resolution, good communications, understanding about respectful relationships, the importance of friendship and family relationships, and expectations about what a healthy relationship looks like and what an abusive relationship looks like and what you need to do about it—is likely to lead to much better mental health and well-being for all young people, which is something I am sure we all want.

    My second point is that good-quality relationships and sex education requires good-quality, competent and trained educators. At the moment, very few teachers have been given specific training in this area. On too many occasions the subject is picked up by rather reluctant teachers. Sometimes they are biology teachers, and sometimes they come from other disciplines. It is vital that if we are to make a reality of this hugely welcome step forward, for which huge credit goes to the Government, it is vital that they look at the training and role of specialist teachers and, where appropriate, the role of specialist voluntary sector providers.

  • My Lords, Amendment 12 presents us with significant changes in the law on sex and relationships education that were introduced in another place rather late and with very little scrutiny. The changes were accompanied by a policy statement from the Government. While the Government will no doubt cite many organisations in support, it is Parliament that scrutinises proposals and determines the law, and I find aspects of this particular policy change troubling.

    In setting out my specific concerns, it is important to begin by being clear about what makes for good sex and relationships education. The evidence clearly suggests that parents have a key role to play and that we should be working hard to engage them more, not less. It is specifically in this regard that I find the Government’s proposals rather troubling.

    Before looking at some of the relevant research, however, I want to say that I am not convinced that very much can be achieved by the proposed division between sex and relationships education. It seems to me that often the two subjects are mutually interdependent, and I am not at all convinced that they can really be separated in the way the Government suggest.

    With that in mind, I turn to an important article from 2009 in the journal Paediatric Nursing, which concludes:

    “there is an association between parental communication, parenting style, and adolescent sexual activity and contraception use. Maternal communication has been shown to delay sexual intercourse and increase contraceptive use. Maternal communication has rich potential as an intervention to impact positive adolescent sexual decision making and contraception use”.

    If we are to engage seriously with parents on relationships and sex education, we need to do so on the basis of a relationship of trust that affords respect. The main message that comes from these proposals, however, is one in which the state seeks to tell parents what to do by removing the right of parental withdrawal from the relationships aspect of SRE. At the moment, parents can withdraw their child from any aspect of teaching under the sex and relationships education guidance. This includes all aspects of relationships education. Moreover, the freedom to withdraw a child from sex education will also be removed if puberty falls, as the departmental policy statement suggests it will, under the wider PSHE topic in primary schools, as there is no proposed parental right of withdrawal from PSHE.

    I do not raise these concerns because I want parents to be withdrawing their children from SRE. I do not think the evidence suggests that many parents are using the right of withdrawal to withdraw their children. My concern is that, when we are engaging with SRE, we are engaging with a subject that, more than others, has to be seen as a joint project in which the research confirms that parents have a key role to play. Knowing what I do about human nature, I think the Government’s proposals are likely to be read by many parents as a statist land grab in which the underlying message from the state to parents is, “We don’t trust you”. I think this would be hugely damaging and could result in a big increase in home schooling. I hazard a guess that this will be a huge issue in responses to the Government’s consultation.

    As a Member of your Lordships’ House who is committed to a smaller state, to localism and to choice, I find these proposals troubling. This is the kind of issue that should have been teased out in a proper debate, but it has not been properly debated because these far-reaching changes have been introduced at almost the 12th hour. Moreover, the proposal that everything should effectively be done through regulation means that we will be afforded only one solitary further opportunity for debate, with no amendment.

  • The scale of changes proposed in respect of parents at primary school level is particularly far-reaching. First, the discretion about whether to teach relationship education, which currently governors have in consultation with parents, is removed, as the subject is made mandatory. Secondly, the freedom to withdraw children from relationship education is completely removed by the amendment. Thirdly, the freedom to withdraw a child from sex education will also be removed if puberty falls, as the departmental policy statement suggests it will, under the wider PSHE topic in primary schools, because there is no proposed parental withdrawal from PSHE.

    The Government’s policy statement also makes clear that, in secondary schools, the parental right of withdrawal from sex education will be up to only a certain age of the child, yet to be determined under subsection (2)(d). The policy statement reads:

    “Providing a parent with a blanket right to withdraw their child from sex education is no longer consistent with English caselaw”.

    It is not clear what this will mean in practice.

    The Government say in their policy statement:

    “parents should have the right to teach this”—

    sex education—

    “themselves in a way which is consistent with their values”.

    I am disappointed that the Government do not recognise that this right should apply to the relationship element of sex education as well as the factual knowledge in both primary and secondary schools. Noble Lords will know that these subjects are sensitive and can be controversial. Parents will have different views on what constitutes a healthy relationship, depending on their culture and religious background. They should be able to exercise their right to have their children educated in line with their religious or philosophical convictions, established through Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Amendment 12B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would remove the requirement for the regulations to address the question of parents being able to withdraw their child even from sex education. I hope that your Lordships will not support this amendment for all the reasons I have set out. I also have to disagree with the proposed extension of sex education as a mandatory subject in primary schools, as would be required by Amendments 12A and 12E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I hope that the Government will resist those further changes.

    I hope that, as the Government draw up their guidance and regulations, they will do four things: first, that they will clarify that the right for parents to withdraw their children from relationships education will in fact continue; secondly, that they will make it clear that sex education cannot be taught under PSHE without a right of withdrawal; thirdly, that they will take steps proactively to engage parents and give them a greater rather than a lesser role in the way that relationship and sex education is taught in our schools; and, fourthly, that if they conclude that they want to change any aspect of primary legislation, they will not do so through secondary legislation but instead introduce such changes through a future education Bill, where they can be properly scrutinised.

    The Government need to repair the damage done by sending out to parents the message, “We don’t trust you”, by replacing that with a different message based not on words but on substantive policy action.

  • My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but an issue has been raised that I want to underline. I entirely support government Amendment 12 from the Commons. It seems to me very good sense and I therefore do not support the various amendments to the government amendment. One point in particular comes out from the warning given by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, about trust in parents and what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said about the lack of proper education, with those who do not really know how to teach it in schools.

    If Amendment 12 is to work, and I very much hope that it will, the Government must look with great care at the education of those who are going to teach this subject. If the schools continue to have a large number of people who are not properly educated to do so, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, about the trust of parents will be entirely lost and the benefit of Amendment 12 will itself be lost.

  • My Lords, we are approaching the final destination of the “Magical Mystery Tour” which has been the Children and Social Work Bill. The Minister is of an age that he will understand the allegory. Indeed, it was 50 years ago this month that that song was recorded. It is not quite as long as that but it is still quite a time since the Bill was introduced to your Lordships’ House. Indeed it is sobering to consider the changes to the political landscape in the in the 11 months since then. David Cameron was Prime Minister, Nicky Morgan was Secretary of State for Education and the Minister himself was assisted on the Front Bench by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park—all of whom have now departed, although only one is pleased to have done so.

    It would lengthen this debate considerably, and I am not going to do it, if I were to list the various amendments to the Bill secured by Opposition parties and Cross-Benchers in your Lordships’ House; only one of them required a vote, albeit on the most contentious part of the Bill—the original Clause 15 under the somewhat euphemistically named heading, “Power to test different ways of working”. I do not propose to open that for debate this afternoon but, given that the Government have chosen not to reinsert the clauses that were taken out in your Lordships’ House on Report, what does the Minister feel has changed between his impassioned speech against deleting the clauses on Report in November and the Government’s decision not to attempt to reinsert them?

    In relation to Amendment 12F in my name, the intention was to ensure that the Government accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in regard to guidance and regulations. The response from the Minister to the committee chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who was on the Woolsack until a few moments ago, was received yesterday by noble Lords. It does and does not meet those recommendations, I would say. Indeed, it indulges in some rather tortuous syntax in doing so. Not all regulations relating to the new provision will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We now know that amendments to existing legislation will be subject to that procedure but that regulations that do not amend primary or secondary legislation will not be. Nevertheless, in what appears to be a confusing—some might say contradictory—statement, the Minister’s letter goes on to say: “In practice, the affirmative procedure will apply to all regulations which we will be making to establish the new regime”.

    It would be most helpful if the Minister would clarify what “in practice” means because either it is affirmative or negative. I am not aware of a halfway house. If it is the Government’s intention that what they call the new regime should be in the affirmative procedure then why not just say so? The Minister’s letter has just about done enough to satisfy me on Amendment 12F, but it would have been helpful had it been more clearly worded. The Minister stated to noble Lords in his letter of 13 March that he expected the guidance to be published early in 2018. We hope that he will meet that deadline and ensure that it is updated regularly as becomes appropriate.

    It goes without saying that we very much welcome the inclusion of Commons Amendments 12 and 13. In my 18 months of facing the Minister at the Dispatch Box, I have on several occasions raised the need for sex and relationships education and personal, social, health and economic education to be formally part of the curriculum—not nearly as often, of course, as my noble friend Lady Massey whom I was very pleased to hear complimented on her hard work on this over a long period. The response from the Minister was that it was not the availability but the quality of PSHE teaching that mattered and that it was important that all children have access to high-quality teaching—something that the Government did not believe would be achieved simply by statute. There was pressure from noble Lords in all parties and an Education Select Committee report in 2015 was unequivocal in its recommendation. In Scotland, sex and relationships education was already part of the curriculum, yet it seemed that nothing would convince the Government to alter their position on this, although we were always assured that it was “under review”—as all government policy should be at all times.

    I have no doubt that a change of Secretary of State played an important part, but it took a cross-party effort and the involvement of the Women and Equalities Select Committee in the other place to build sufficient support and momentum behind the issue. I commend both that committee and Ministers for the fact that this has resulted in the new clauses proposed by Amendments 12 and 13 being inserted in the Bill. The amendments place a duty on the Secretary of State to make relationships and sex education a statutory requirement through regulations and give her power to make personal, social, health and economic education a statutory requirement in all schools. The fact that this includes state-funded and independent schools in all cases is also to be welcomed.

    I have some questions for the Minister on the amendments. It is, of course, correct that the provisions will ensure that the education provided to pupils in relationships education and RSE is appropriate to the age of the pupils and their religious background. This issue has been touched on quite a bit in relation to the Equality Act and the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, all dealt with aspects of it. I echo the comments made by noble Lords in relation to the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Education Service has been quite progressive on this matter and has been in touch with noble Lords setting out its clear support for the proposals, which I welcome. However, it is feared that some faith schools may seek to circumvent the legislation by teaching that same-sex relationships are somehow wrong or sinful. I was encouraged by the Minister’s comment on the Equality Act in his opening remarks and his assurance that all details will be covered by regulations debated in both Houses. A lot of people will take comfort for having that on the record as this legislation enters the statute book.

    Ofsted’s role under this legislation will be no less important. Will the Minister give assurances that Ofsted will have the necessary resources—including additional ones if necessary—to allow it to make sure that the new legislation is adhered to? This is particularly important in regard to sexual offences in schools, some 5,000 of which were reported to the police by UK schools over the three-year period to 2015. Of these, 600 were rape, which seems barely credible, but this is what the police report. As we have heard, many boys are learning about sex from online pornography and some schools are failing in their legal obligation to keep girls safe. The Minister will, no doubt, agree that Ofsted must include these issues in its inspections and this should be set out clearly in the inspections handbook. Can he confirm that that is the case?

    With the exception of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, noble Lords were broadly, if not completely, behind the Government’s amendments. I disagree with the case made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, although it was well argued. I do not see this legislation as being in place of parents—it should complement what they are doing. At the moment, parents will be handling sex education in the way they believe is appropriate, but for many it is an extremely difficult subject to tackle. Many noble Lords will have been in that position themselves some years ago and it has not changed. It is essential for schools to ensure that all pupils learn about safety in forming and maintaining relationships, the characteristics of healthy relationships and how relationships may affect physical and mental health and well-being. Research by the charity Barnardo’s, which works with victims of sexual exploitation, has revealed that many who were groomed to be sexually exploited were not always aware that they were being manipulated or coerced for sexual purposes. These issues have to be taken into account but they are in areas where many parents fear to tread.

    There are many aspects of harm to young people which we hope the new legislation will at least alleviate. However, there must be an ongoing campaign to bring as much information to young people at the earliest appropriate age for their own safety.

  • There is also the issue of resources for teacher training on relationships and sex education and PSHE. Other noble Lords have mentioned this point. PSHE used to have career development funding but the Government have cut it so now there is very little in the way of training or development around this. Now that both are to become compulsory, can the Minister say what plans the Government have to ensure that teachers receive the necessary training and are provided with all the necessary resources to maximise the effect of the new provisions? That will take time, of course, but the Government should already have planning in place to prepare for the introduction of RSE and PSHE in the academic year 2019-20.

    The Bill is in a much improved condition. We welcome the fact that the Minister and his colleagues in the other place have been willing to listen and to act where the need arose. I thank him and his officials for the considerable number of meetings that have been facilitated since the Bill left the other place, which have been of real value to noble Lords in their understanding of the intentions behind the legislation and how it might work. I also thank my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lady Wheeler, and our legislative and political adviser, Molly Critchley, for their continued hard work on the Bill.

    The words that I used in the Third Reading debate in November bear repeating. As the Bill completes its journey, we at this end of Parliament can point to it as a strong example of what we do well in your Lordships’ House, and why it is more necessary now than it has ever been.

  • My Lords, I am grateful for the many comments that have been made in relation to these amendments. I assure noble Lords that we have considered all the issues that have been raised very carefully. We will continue to do so as we develop the regulations and statutory guidance. The Government are clear that children need to have the knowledge and skills at the right time to help them confidently navigate the modern world.

    These amendments are not at all driven by the need to lighten my or my successors’ loads by avoiding the necessity of answering regular—I will not say endless—questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, on this subject. I record my gratitude to her for the tireless way in which she has campaigned on it.

    The role of parents is central to many of these issues. We are clear that schools have a role in supporting parents to ensure their children develop the knowledge and skills they need to stay safe and happy, hence making the subjects covered by Amendment 12 mandatory. We therefore think it is right that we encourage close working between schools and parents on content and delivery of lessons.

    Amendment 12A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to make RSE mandatory in primary schools. I thank the noble Lord for a helpful recent meeting on this. I know that he welcomes the overall proposals made by the Government, as he said today. We want to focus on ensuring that all children can access relationships education at primary school. This will likely include age-appropriate content, online risks such as pornography, particularly in the later stages of primary, and will involve supporting children to learn the building blocks of how to develop mutually respectful relationships both online and offline. This will then provide a solid foundation for RSE at secondary school.

    Primary schools will, of course, continue to teach the same as now in the science curriculum. This is a very sensitive issue for many parents, as a number of noble Lords have said, and we need to respect that. Our approach is to trust and encourage schools to engage with parents. This allows schools to take a collective view with parents on whether they would like some elements of sex education to be taught at primary. We know that currently some primary schools teach sex and relationships education in an age-appropriate way. The Government’s intention is to preserve the current situation for parents to allow them to excuse their child from any non-science related sex education taught at primary. The right to withdraw would not apply to science teaching, as now. We will engage with the teaching profession and experts, such as the Sex Education Forum and religious groups, to ensure that the guidance clarifies what should be taught to younger pupils to equip them as they begin to make the transition to adulthood. We will also talk to parents so that we can factor in their views about the age-appropriate content they want their children to be taught.

    Amendment 12B, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, seeks to remove the right to withdraw. I thank the noble Baroness for raising the issue. However, we believe that it is important to make appropriate provision for a right for parents to withdraw their child from sex education within RSE. We believe it is right that parents have the option to teach this to their children themselves, in accordance with their values, if they so wish.

    We have not provided a right to withdraw from relationships education at primary because this will focus on core concepts of safety and forming healthy relationships that we think all children should be taught. Of course, children in primary school will also continue to receive the same education in the science curriculum as now, and, as I have said, the right of withdrawal will not apply to that curriculum.

    We know that parents can be supportive partners alongside schools in delivering relationships and sex education. That is why we will look to retain the elements of current guidance that encourage schools to actively involve parents when they plan their programmes. We know that in practice, very few parents exercise their right to withdraw, and close working between schools and parents to get the content right is crucial to this.

    As we have said in our policy statement to the House, the Secretary of State will consult further to clarify the age at which a young person may have the right to make their own decisions. This is because the current blanket right of parents is inconsistent with English case law, and with the ECHR and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The outcome will be set out in regulations, which will be subject to consultation and debate. I welcome further discussion with the noble Baroness on that point as we move forward, recognising that she has particular expertise in this area.

    On Amendments 12C and 12D, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Paddick, on removing consideration of religious backgrounds, I appreciate their interest in the topic of teaching that is appropriate to religious backgrounds. We believe it is right that the religious views of parents and children should be respected when teaching about these subjects. However, I reiterate that the religious background point does not allow schools to avoid teaching these subjects; it is about how they teach them. They can teach them in a way that is sensitive to religious background while being compliant with the Equality Act, which of course they must be. Even if a school or individual teacher were to suggest that, within the context of their faith, same-sex relationships or marriage are wrong, they would also be expected to explain that their views are set within a wider context—that beliefs on this subject differ, that the law of the country recognises these relationships and marriages, and that all people should be treated with equal respect. If a school or teacher conveyed their belief in a way that involved discriminating against a particular pupil or group of pupils, this would be unacceptable in any circumstances and is likely to constitute unlawful discrimination.

    I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough for his comments, and a number of noble Lords also referred to the Catholic Education Service guidance, which sets out that pupils should be taught a broad and balanced RSE programme which provides them with factual information. In secondary schools, this includes teaching about the law in relation to equalities and marriage, including same-sex marriage. It also sets out that pupils should be taught that discriminatory language is unacceptable, including homophobic language, and explains how to challenge it. We believe that it would be inappropriate to refute the rights of parents by teaching about relationships and sex without having regard to the religious background of the pupils. To do so would risk breaching parents’ rights to freedom of religion.

    However, on what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said about bullying, we have supported and funded a number of organisations to help schools drive it out. On his concerns about ensuring good practice and that materials are disseminated widely, we will of course support that endeavour. Our proposals have been welcomed by a number of organisations representing the LGBT communities, including Stonewall, which said:

    “This is a huge step forward and a fantastic opportunity to improve inclusion and acceptance in education”.

    To pick up on a point made so well by my noble friend Lord Deben, the engagement process will be important to ensure that we can agree on an approach that balances all views and interests. We have seen many examples of faith schools already teaching sex education that is both in line with their ethos and inclusive, in compliance with the Equality Act and public sector equality duty. We therefore want to talk to a wide range of stakeholders and learn from existing good practice, and reflect that in the regulations and guidance.

    In response to Amendment 12E, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on teaching content, I thank him for raising this matter. I agree that the programmes that schools shape and deliver on relationships education and RSE are key. The content of what is taught, and how it is taught, must prepare pupils for the modern world and be age-appropriate. However, I do not agree that we should define the content of the subjects in detail in legislation as, given the nature of these subjects, this would very quickly become out of date. We want schools to be able to respond quickly to changes in society. We also want to give them flexibility to design a programme that meets the particular needs of their pupils. That is why we intend to conduct a thorough and wide-ranging engagement with the subjects, which will consider subject content, school practice and quality of delivery. The aim is to determine the content of the regulations and the statutory guidance, including what level of subject content we should specify.

    As I said, that will entail significant involvement of the teaching profession. The department will also engage with, and seek evidence from, a wide range of experts in the field, many of whom I have already referred to. The guidance will provide a clear framework for schools, with core pillars of content, to allow them to design their programmes. Crucially, this approach will still allow expert organisations, such as the PSHE Association, to produce their own high-quality materials for schools to use, as they do at the moment.

    In answer to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I completely agree about the importance of training and the use of voluntary organisations, and we will consider this carefully in our considerations in the run-up to delivery.

    The noble Lord, Lord Watson, also raised an important point about Ofsted. The chief inspector will of course consider the implications for inspections that arise from the new requirements and the statutory guidance, and will reflect these in future inspections. Ofsted is also seeking to appoint an HMI lead for citizenship and PSHE. Their role will be to keep abreast of developments in this area and oversee the training of inspectors in the light of the new expectations on schools. On 10 March, HMCI announced that her first major thematic review will be on the curriculum. This will include consideration of PSHE and will inform decisions about follow-up work in this important area.

    Amendment 12F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is about including the statutory guidance in the regulations and making all regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am grateful for the points he made and want to reassure the House that it is government policy that guidance should not be used to circumvent the usual way of regulating a matter. If the policy is to create rules that must be followed, this should be achieved using regulations that are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The purpose of guidance is to aid policy implementation by supplementing legal rules. A vast range of statutory guidance is issued each year and it is important that guidance can be updated rapidly to keep pace with events.

    It is my intention to consult fully on any guidance to be issued under these arrangements. I will be very happy to provide copies of the draft guidance to both Houses at that point and to discuss matters with the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord McColl, particularly the four points raised today.

    On the parliamentary procedure used for the RSE and PSHE regulations, we absolutely recognise that it would be important for Parliament to scrutinise substantial changes to the existing legislative framework through the affirmative procedure. I therefore reassure noble Lords that our intention is to bring forward a comprehensive set of regulations that would amend existing legislation, set out the new duties and provide for any additional supporting measures. I also confirm that the regulations we will be making to establish the new regime will be subject to the affirmative procedure. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord is reassured of the role of Parliament in the next important phase.

    I conclude by saying again how much I appreciate the amendments that have been tabled and the opportunity they have provided to discuss these issues today. I am grateful for all the contributions from noble Lords in this debate. However, I hope that I have given sufficient—

  • Can my noble friend elaborate a little on what he said in reply to my noble friend Lord McColl and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss? Training teachers in a subject with which they are not comfortable is not a quick process. The Minister said that the Government would consult on this. Can he tell us what stage this process will have reached when these provisions come into effect? Sex education is not an easy subject for many people and they really should not be pushed into it until they are properly trained.

  • My noble friend raises a very good point. Of course, we have to devise the content first, and we need to get on with that so that we can get on with the training. I would be very happy to discuss this further and will write to him with more details.

    Having said all that, I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance to convince noble Lords that their amendments are unnecessary and that our proposals as they stand will go far enough in driving improvements, without being overly prescriptive, and strike the right balance. I am delighted to have presented the Commons amendments to the House today. These measures will make a genuinely important contribution to children’s safety and their personal development. I hope the House shares my enthusiasm and will support these Commons amendments.

  • My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. We do share his enthusiasm. What is more, when we on these Benches see that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, is linked to a Bill, we are always joyful because we know that we are getting a Minister who is prepared to listen, compromise and sometimes even accept.

    The quality of teaching and CPD is crucial, but it also has to be about sufficient teachers. I was taken by the comment of, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about stealing childhoods, which I thought was very important. I hope that what we have agreed today will give children and young people the armour they need. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

  • Amendment 12A withdrawn.

    Amendments 12B to 12F not moved.

    Motion agreed.

    Motion on Amendments 13 to 28

    Moved by

  • That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 13 to 28.

  • 13: After Clause 32, insert the following new Clause—

    “Other personal, social, health and economic education

    (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring personal, social, health and economic education (beyond that required by virtue of section [Education relating to relationships and sex]) to be provided—

    (a) to pupils of compulsory school age receiving primary education at schools in England;

    (b) to pupils receiving secondary education at schools in England.

    (2) The regulations may include—

    (a) provision requiring the Secretary of State to give guidance to proprietors of schools in relation to the provision of the education;

    (b) provision requiring proprietors of schools to have regard to that guidance;

    (c) provision requiring proprietors of schools to make statements of policy in relation to the education to be provided, and to make the statements available to parents or other persons;

    (d) further provision in connection with the provision of the education.

    (3) Before making the regulations, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

    (4) The regulations may amend any provision (including provision conferring powers) that is made by or under—

    (a) section 342 of the Education Act 1996;

    (b) Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Education Act 1996; (c) Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1996;

    (d) Part 6 of the Education Act 2002;

    (e) Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008; (f) the Academies Act 2010.

    (5) The provision that may be made by regulations under subsection (1) by virtue of section 70 includes, in particular, provision amending, repealing or revoking any provision made by or under any Act or any other instrument or document (whenever passed or made).

    (6) Regulations under subsection (1) which amend provision made by or under an Act are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

    (7) Other regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.

    (8) Expressions used in this section, where listed in the left-hand column of the table in section 580 of the Education Act 1996, are to be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of that Act listed in the right-hand column in relation to those expressions.

    (9) A power to make provision under this section does not limit any power to make provision of the same kind under another Act.”

    14: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—

    “Improvement standards

    (1) The Secretary of State may—

    (a) determine and publish improvement standards for social workers in England;

    (b) carry out assessments of whether people meet improvement standards under paragraph (a).

    (2) The Secretary of State may make arrangements for another person to do any or all of those things (and may make payments to that person).

    (3) The Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate before determining a standard under subsection (1)(a).

    (4) In this section “improvement standard” means a professional standard the attainment of which demonstrates particular expertise or specialisation.

    (5) Nothing in this section limits anything in section 38.”

    15: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—

    “Ensuring adequate provision of social work training

    (1) The Secretary of State may take such steps as the Secretary of State considers appropriate—

    (a) to ensure that adequate provision is made for social work training, and

    (b) to encourage individuals resident in England to undertake social work training.

    (2) The power under subsection (1) may, in particular, be used to provide financial or other assistance (subject to any conditions the Secretary of State thinks are appropriate)—

    (a) for individuals resident in England to undertake social work training;

    (b) for organisations providing social work training.

    (3) Functions of the Secretary of State under this section may be exercised by any person, or by employees of any person, authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.

    (4) For the purpose of determining—

    (a) the terms and effect of an authorisation under subsection (3), and

    (b) the effect of so much of any contract made between the Secretary of State and the authorised person as relates to the exercise of the function,

    Part 2 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 has effect as if the authorisation were given by virtue of an order under section 69 of that Act; and in subsection (3) “employee” has the same meaning as in that Part.

    (5) In this section “social work training” means education or training that is suitable for people who are or wish to become social workers in England.”

    16: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—

    “Exercise by Special Health Authority of functions under section (Ensuring adequate provision of social work training)

    (1) The Secretary of State may direct a Special Health Authority to exercise functions under section (Ensuring adequate provision of social workers)(1)(b) so far as relating to the provision of financial or other assistance.

    (2) The National Health Service Act 2006 has effect as if—

    (a) any direction under subsection (1) were a direction under section 7 of that Act, and

    (b) any functions exercisable by the Special Health Authority by virtue of a direction under subsection (1) were exercisable under that section.

    (3) Directions under subsection (1)—

    (a) must be given by an instrument in writing, and

    (b) may be varied or revoked by subsequent directions.”

    17: Clause 55, page 31, line 10, leave out “after subsection (2ZE) insert” and insert “for subsection (2ZE) substitute”

    18: Clause 55, page 31, line 17, at end insert—

    “( ) in subsection (2A)(c), for “that section” substitute “section 60”;”

    19: Clause 55, page 31, line 19, at end insert—

    “( ) In Schedule 3 (regulation of health care and associated professions)—

    (a) in paragraph 10, for the definitions of “social care work in England”, “social care workers in England” and “the social work profession in England” substitute—

    ““social care work in England” and “social care workers in England” have the meaning given by section 60.”;

    (b) in paragraph 11(2A)(b), for “members of the social work profession in England” substitute “engaging in social work in England”.”

    20: After Clause 55, insert the following new Clause—

    “Amendments to do with this Part

    Schedule (Amendments to do with Part 2) contains further minor and consequential amendments relating to this Part.”

    21: Clause 56, page 31, line 44, after “England” insert “(but see subsection (2));

    (2) A person who is a member of a profession to which section 60(2) of the Health Act 1999 applies is not to be treated as a social worker in England by reason only of carrying out work as an approved mental health professional.”

    22: Clause 62, page 33, line 12, at end insert—

    “(A1) Section (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain) and paragraphs 2, 4, 5 and 14 of Schedule (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain) extend to England and Wales and Scotland.”

    23: Clause 62, page 33, line 13, leave out subsection (1).

    24: Clause 62, page 33, line 14, at beginning insert “Except as mentioned in subsection (A1),”

    25: Clause 62, page 33, line 15, leave out “enactment” and insert “provision”

    26: Clause 62, page 33, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

    “( ) Subject to subsections (A1) and (2), Parts 1 and 2 extend to England and Wales only.

    ( ) This Part extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”

    27: Clause 63, page 33, line 19, leave out “This Part comes” and insert “The following come”

    28: Clause 63, page 33, line 19, at end insert “—

    “(a) section (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain) and Schedule (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain);

    (b) this Part.”

    Motion agreed.

    Motion on Amendment 29

    Moved by

  • That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 29.

  • 29: Clause 64, page 33, line 25, leave out subsection (2)

  • My Lords, Commons Amendment 29 simply removes the privilege amendment inserted by this House before the Bill was brought to the other place. Its removal is customary at this point.

  • Motion agreed.

    Motion on Amendments 30 to 33

    Moved by

  • That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 30 to 33.

  • 30: Before Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule— “SCHEDULE

    Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain

    Children Act 1989

    1 The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.

    2 (1) Section 25 (use of accommodation in England for restricting liberty of children looked after by English and Welsh local authorities)—

    (a) is to extend also to Scotland, and

    (b) is amended as follows.

    (2) In subsection (1)—

    (a) for “or local authority in Wales” substitute “in England or Wales”;

    (b) after “accommodation in England” insert “or Scotland”;

    (3) In subsection (2)—

    (a) in paragraphs (a)(i) and (ii) and (b), after “secure accommodation in England” insert “or Scotland”;

    (b) in paragraph (c), for “or local authorities in Wales” substitute “in England or Wales”;

    (4) After subsection (5) insert—

    “(5A) Where a local authority in England or Wales are authorised under this section to keep a child in secure accommodation in Scotland, the person in charge of the accommodation may restrict the child’s liberty to the extent that the person considers appropriate, having regard to the terms of any order made by a court under this section.”

    (5) In subsection (7)—

    (a) in paragraph (c), after “secure accommodation in England” insert “or Scotland”;

    (b) after that paragraph, insert—

    “(d) a child may only be placed in secure accommodation that is of a description specified in the regulations (and the description may in particular be framed by reference to whether the accommodation, or the person providing it, has been approved by the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers).”

    (6) After subsection (8) insert—

    “(8A) Sections 168 and 169(1) to (4) of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 1) (enforcement and absconding) apply in relation to an order under subsection (4) above as they apply in relation to the orders mentioned in section 168(3) or 169(1)(a) of that Act.”

    3 In paragraph 19(9) of Schedule 2 (restrictions on arrangements for children to live abroad), after “does not apply” insert “—

    (a) to a local authority placing a child in secure accommodation in Scotland under section 25, or

    (b) ”.

    Children (Secure Accommodation) Regulations 1991 (S.I. 1991/1505)

    4 The Children (Secure Accommodation) Regulations 1991 (S.I. 1991/1505) are amended as follows.

    5 In regulation 1—

    (a) in the heading, for “and commencement” substitute “, commencement and extent;

    (b) the existing text becomes paragraph (1); (c) after that paragraph insert—

    “(2) This Regulation and Regulations 10 to 13 extend to England and Wales and Scotland.

    (3) Except as provided by paragraph (2), these Regulations extend to England and Wales.”

    6 In regulation 2(1) (interpretation), in the definition of “children’s home”, for the words from “means” to the end, substitute “means—

    (a) a private children’s home, a community home or a voluntary home in England, or

    (b) an establishment in Scotland (whether managed by a local authority, a voluntary organisation or any other person) which provides residential accommodation for children for the purposes of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 or the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968”.

    7 For regulation 3 substitute—

    “3 Approval by Secretary of State of secure accommodation in a children’s home

    (1) Accommodation in a children’s home shall not be used as secure accommodation unless—

    (a) in the case of accommodation in England, it has been approved by the Secretary of State for that use;

    (b) in the case of accommodation in Scotland, it is provided by a service which has been approved by the Scottish Ministers under paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 12 to the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010.

    (2) Approval by the Secretary of State under paragraph (1) may be given subject to any terms and conditions that the Secretary of State thinks fit.”

    8 In regulation 17 (records), in the words before paragraph (a), after “children’s home” insert “in England”.

    Secure Accommodation (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (S.S.I. 2013 No. 205)

    9 The Secure Accommodation (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (S.S.I. 2013 No. 205) are amended as follows.

    10 In regulation 5 (maximum period in secure accommodation), after paragraph (2) insert—

    “(3) This regulation does not apply in relation to a child placed in secure accommodation in Scotland under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 (which allows accommodation in Scotland to be used for restricting the liberty of children looked after by English and Welsh local authorities).”

    11 In regulation 15 (records to be kept by managers of secure accommodation in Scotland), after paragraph (2) insert—

    “(3) The managers must provide the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers, on request, with copies of any records kept under this regulation that relate to a child placed in secure accommodation under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 (which allows local authorities in England or Wales to place children in secure accommodation in Scotland).”

    Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Consequential and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2013 (S.I. 2013 No. 1465)

    12 In Article 7 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Consequential and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2013 (S.I. 2013 No. 1465) (compulsory supervision orders and interim compulsory supervision orders), after paragraph (2) insert—

    “(3) Where—

    (a) a compulsory supervision order or interim compulsory supervision order contains a requirement of the type mentioned in section 83(2)(a) of the 2011 Act and a secure accommodation authorisation (as defined in section 85 of that Act),

    (b) the place at which the child is required to reside in accordance with the order is a place in England or Wales, and

    (c) by virtue of a decision to consent to the placement of the child in secure accommodation made under article 16, the child is to be placed in secure accommodation within that place, the order is authority for the child to be placed and kept in secure accommodation within that place.”

    Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (anaw 4)

    13 In section 124(9) of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (anaw 4) (restrictions on arrangements for children to live outside England and Wales), after “does not apply” insert “—

    (a) to a local authority placing a child in secure accommodation in Scotland under section 25 of the Children Act 1989, or

    (b) ”.

    Saving for existing powers

    14 The amendments made by this Schedule to provisions of subordinate legislation do not affect the power to make further subordinate legislation amending or revoking the amended provisions.”

    31: Schedule 3, page 39, line 26, leave out from beginning to “in” in line 27 and insert—

    “( ) Section 25 (the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social

    Care) is amended as follows.

    ( ) .”

    32: Schedule 3, page 39, line 29, at end insert—

    “( ) For subsection (3A) substitute—

    “(3A) A reference in an enactment to a body mentioned in subsection (3) is not (unless there is express provision to the contrary) to be read as including—

    (a) a reference to Social Work England, or

    (b) a reference to the Health and Care Professions Council, or a regulatory body within subsection (3)(j), so far as it has functions relating to social care workers in England.”

    ( ) In subsection (3B) for the definition of “the social work profession in England” and “social care workers in England” substitute—

    ““social care workers in England” has the meaning given in section 60 of the 1999 Act.”

    33: After Schedule 3, insert the following new Schedule—

    “Amendments to do with Part 2

    Part 1

    General amendments

    London County Council (General Powers) Act 1920

    1 In section 18(e) of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1920, after “under the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001” insert “or section 45(1) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017”.

    Medicines Act 1968

    2 In section 58 of the Medicines Act 1968, omit subsection (1ZA).

    Video Recordings Act 1984

    3 In section 3 of the Video Recordings Act 1984, omit subsection (11A).

    London Local Authorities Act 1991

    4 In section 4 of the London Local Authorities Act 1991, in paragraph (c) of the definition of “establishment for special treatment”, after “under the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001” insert “or section 45(1) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017”.

    Value Added Tax Act 1994

    5 In Part 2 of Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, in the Notes to Group 7, omit note (2ZA).

    Data Protection Act 1998

    6 In section 69(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, in paragraph (h), omit the words from “, except in so far” to the end.

    Care Standards Act 2000

    7 The Care Standards Act 2000 is amended as follows.

    8 (1) Section 55 is amended as follows.

    (2) In subsection (2) as substituted by the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, omit paragraph (a).

    (3) Until the coming into force of the substitution of subsection (2) by the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, the old version has effect as if in paragraph (a) after “social work” there were inserted “in Wales”.

    (4) In subsection (3) as substituted by the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, omit paragraph (k).

    9 (1) Section 67 is amended as follows. (2) Omit subsection (1A).

    (3) In subsection (2) as substituted by the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016—

    (a) omit paragraph (a) (including the “and” at the end), and

    (b) in paragraph (b), omit “other”.

    (4) Until the coming into force of the substitution of subsection (2) by the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, the old version has effect as if the words from “courses”, in the first place it occurs, to “social workers” were omitted.

    Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001

    10 The Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 (SI 2002/254) is amended as follows.

    11 (1) Article 3 is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph (5)(b)—

    (a) in paragraph (ii), after “registrants or” insert “other”; (b) at end of paragraph (iv) insert “and”;

    (c) omit paragraphs (vi) and (vii).

    (3) Omit paragraph (5AA).

    12 In article 6(3)(aa), omit “or social work”.

    13 In article 7(4), omit “or social work”.

    14 (1) Article 9 is amended as follows. (2) Omit paragraph (3A).

    (3) In paragraph (8), omit “or social work”.

    15 (1) Article 10 is amended as follows.

    (2) In paragraph (6), omit “or social work”.

    (3) Omit paragraph (7).

    16 In article 11A, omit paragraph (11).

    17 (1) Article 12 is amended as follows.

    (2) In paragraph (1)—

    (a) at the end of sub-paragraph (b) insert “or”;

    (b) omit sub-paragraph (d) and the “or” before it.

    (3) In paragraph (2)—

    (a) at the end of sub-paragraph (a) insert “and”;

    (b) omit sub-paragraph (c) and the “and” before it.

    18 (1) Article 13 is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph (1), omit “or (1B)”. (3) Omit paragraph (1B).

    19 For the heading of article 13A substitute “Visiting health professionals from relevant European States”.

    20 Omit article 13B.

    21 In article 19(2A)(b), omit “or social work”.

    22 In article 20, omit the words from “; but the reference” to the end.

    23 (1) Article 37 is amended as follows.

    (2) In paragraph (1)(aa), omit “or social work”. (3) Omit paragraph (1B).

    (4) In paragraph (5A)(a), omit the words from “or registered as a social worker” to the end of that sub-paragraph.

    (5) In paragraph (8), omit “(other than a hearing on an appeal relating to a social worker in England)”.

    (6) Omit paragraph (8A).

    24 (1) Article 38 is amended as follows. (2) Omit paragraph (1ZA).

    (3) In paragraph (4), omit “(subject to paragraph (5))”. (4) Omit paragraph (5).

    25 In article 39, omit paragraph (1A).

    26 In Schedule 1, in paragraph 1A(1)(b), omit paragraph (ia) (but not the “and” at the end).

    27 (1) In Schedule 3, paragraph 1 is amended as follows.

    (2) In the definition of “visiting health or social work professional from a relevant European state”, omit “or social work” in both places.

    (3) In the definition of “relevant professions”, omit “social workers in England;”.

    (4) Omit the definition of “social worker in England”.

    Adoption and Children Act 2002

    28 (1) In section 10 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, in subsection (2), omit “, one of the registers maintained under” substitute “—

    (a) the register of social workers in England maintained under section 45 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017,

    (b) any register of social care workers in England maintained under an Order in Council under section 60 of the Health Act 1999 or any register maintained under such an Order in Council so far as relating to social care workers in England, or

    (c) the register maintained under”.

    (2) Until the coming into force of the amendment made by sub-paragraph (1), section 10(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 is to have effect as if the reference to the registers mentioned there included a reference to the part of the register maintained under article 5 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 that relates to social workers in England.

    Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003

    29 In section 343(2) of the Income Tax (Earning and Pensions) Act 2003, in paragraph 1 of the Table, after sub-paragraph (r) insert—

    “(s) the register of social workers in England kept under section 45(1) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017.”

    National Health Service Act 2006

    30 In section 126 of the National Health Service Act 2006, for subsection

    (4A) substitute—

    “(4A) Subsection (4)(h) does not apply to persons in so far as they are registered as social care workers in England (within the meaning of section 60 of the Health Act 1999).”

    National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006

    31 In section 80 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, for subsection (4A) substitute—

    “(4A) Subsection (4)(h) does not apply to persons in so far as they are registered as social care workers in England (within the meaning of section 60 of the Health Act 1999).”

    Armed Forces Act 2006

    32 In section 257(3) of the Armed Forces Act 2006, for paragraph (a) substitute— “(a) Social Work England;”.

    Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006

    33 The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 is amended as follows.

    34 In section 41(7), in the table, after entry 10 insert—

    “11 The register of social workers in England kept under section 45(1) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017

    The registrar appointed under section 45(3)(a) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 or, in the absence of such an appointment, Social Work England”

    35 In Schedule 3, in paragraph 16(4), after paragraph (l) insert— “(m) Social Work England.”

    Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (asp 14)

    36 In section 30A(6) of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007—

    (a) omit “the social work profession in England or”;

    (b) for “each of those expressions having the same meaning as in” substitute “within the meaning of”.”

    Children and Young Persons Act 2008

    37 (1) In section 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008, in subsection

    (6), for paragraph (a) substitute—

    “(a) in the register maintained by Social Work England under section 45(1) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017;”.

    (2) Until the coming into force of the amendment made by sub-paragraph (1), section 2(6)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 is to have effect as if the reference to the register mentioned there were to a register maintained under article 5 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001.

    Health and Social Care Act 2012

    38 In the Health and Social Care Act 2012 omit sections 213, 215 and 216.

    Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 (anaw 2)

    39 The Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 is amended as follows.

    40 In section 111(4)(b)—

    (a) in the Welsh text, for “Cyngor y Proffesiynau Iechyd a Gofal” substitute “Gwaith Cymdeithasol Lloegr”;

    (b) in the English text, for “the Health and Care Professions Council” substitute “Social Work England”.

    41 In section 117(4)(a)—

    (a) in the Welsh text, after “Gofal” insert “neu Waith Cymdeithasol Lloegr”;

    (b) in the English text, after “Council” insert “or Social Work England”.

    42 In section 119(4)(a)(ii)—

    (a) in the Welsh text, for “y Cyngor Proffesiynau Iechyd a Gofal” substitute “Gwaith Cymdeithasol Lloegr”;

    (b) in the English text, for “the Health and Care Professions Council” substitute “Social Work England”.

    43 In section 125(5)(a)(ii)—

    (a) in the Welsh text, for “y Cyngor Proffesiynau Iechyd a Gofal” substitute “Gwaith Cymdeithasol Lloegr”;

    (b) in the English text, for “the Health and Care Professions Council” substitute “Social Work England”.

    44 In section 174(5)(a)(ii)—

    (a) in the Welsh text, for “Cyngor y Proffesiynau Iechyd a Gofal” substitute “Gwaith Cymdeithasol Lloegr”;

    (b) in the English text, for “the Health and Care Professions Council” substitute “Social Work England”.

    Part 2

    Renaming of health and social work professions order 2001

    45 For the title to the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 (SI 2002/254) substitute “Health Professions Order 2001”.

    46 In article 1(1) of that Order (citation), for “the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001” substitute “the Health Professions Order 2001”.

    47 In the following provisions, for “the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001” substitute “the Health Professions Order 2001”—

    (a) section 18(e) of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1920;

    (b) section 3(11) of the Video Recordings Act 1984; (c) 114ZA(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983;

    (d) paragraph (E) in the entry for the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1920 in Schedule 2 to the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1984;

    (e) paragraph (c) of the definition of “establishment for special treatment” in section 4 of the London Local Authorities Act 1991;

    (f) item 1(c) in Group 7, in Part 2 of Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994;

    (g) section 69(1)(h) of the Data Protection Act 1998; (h) section 60(2)(c) of the Health Act 1999;

    (i) sections 25C(8)(h) and 29(1)(j) of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002;

    (j) section 126(4)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006;

    (k) section 80(4)(a) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;

    (l) entry 10 in the table in section 41(7) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.

    48 In the definition of “registered psychologist” in each of the following provisions, for “the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001” substitute “the Health Professions Order 2001”—

    (a) section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995; (b) section 207(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;

    (c) section 21(2)(b) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003;

    (d) section 25 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”

  • I conclude by thanking all noble Lords across the House for their constructive work on this Bill and for getting it to this point. Today’s debate has, as ever, been extremely well informed.

  • Motion agreed.