Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to— (a) improve the safety and wellbeing of children;(b) improve the regulation of children’s homes, fostering agencies and other settings where looked after children are accommodated;(c) improve safety and standards and remove barriers to opportunity in schools in England and Wales;(d) make provision regarding children not in school.”
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 1 in my name seeks to clarify the purposes of the Bill. While the Government’s intentions, to improve children’s safety, well-being and education, have widespread support, I tabled this amendment because I believe there is currently an unbridgeable gap between these aims and several of the provisions within the Bill.
I must express profound concerns regarding both parts of the Bill. There is a troubling pattern throughout it of an unclear definition of the problem it seeks to solve, insufficient evidence for the proposed solutions, a lack of successful piloting to give us confidence these changes will achieve their intended outcomes, no clear implementation plan, insufficient resources to implement and important gaps in areas including children’s well-being, special educational needs and disabilities, smartphones, social media and more. So, our job across this House, as the scrutinising Chamber, is to do just that, and to ensure that the Bill leaves this House stronger and in a state where we can all feel confident that it will work in practice and not just on paper.
In recent weeks, I have spoken to a number of directors of children’s services and practitioners, who have all, unprompted, raised serious concerns about Part 1, particularly around the reforms to family help, children in need and child protection. The most alarming concerns came yesterday from Professor Eileen Munro, author of the 2011 review into child protection, who stated in a letter in the Times:
“The government's proposed reforms of children’s social care risk dismantling a system that has steadily improved, without clear evidence that the replacement will work. While the ambition to expand early help is welcome — indeed, my own review called for this — the plan lacks realism, rigour and a clear safety framework”.
She continued:
“These reforms radically restructure a complex system of professionals and safeguarding arrangements. Yet the Department for Education is altering or removing key processes without asking why they exist or how they interact with other checks and balances. What looks tidy on paper (neatly divided ‘pillars’ of reform) may create dangerous, unpredictable consequences in practice as they interact”.
These are concerns from one of the greatest experts on child protection in the country, and we should take them very seriously. Her letter closes with the hope that, as this Bill passes through your Lordships’ House,
“the government will use this opportunity to listen, pause and revise its plan”.
I hope that, when she responds, the Minister, who has great and much-respected experience in this area, will be able to offer some encouragement, in contrast to the tone of the Government’s response in the Times yesterday. As Professor Munro wrote yesterday:
“Reforms must strengthen child protection, not weaken it”.
So why are the professor and other senior leaders in the sector so worried? In simple terms, I believe it is because these early clauses have not been properly tested. Indeed, there are reports that the initial pathfinder sites are encountering significant implementation problems that need to be resolved before a wider rollout. Surely the Government should publish the evaluation first and then adapt their approach depending on what it shows. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm when that evaluation will be published.
Equally concerning is the inadequate funding to implement these extensive changes, particularly in relation to children’s social care. The £290 million allocated for one year falls dramatically short of the £2 billion-plus estimated by the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care as necessary to make early help effective. Without proper resources, we risk creating a system that cannot deliver on its promises.
More broadly, Part 1 is quietly unambitious. It fails to offer a vision of how to expand the reach of well- tested approaches, such as family group decision-making, or to present a convincing approach to grow capacity to support looked-after children in their communities and avoid unnecessary placements in children’s homes or, worse, in unregistered provision. I cannot overstate our collective responsibility, as a House, to address these issues thoroughly and carefully in the interests of those children. This is not a matter for party politics; we have a duty to get this right, or children will be harmed.
As was evident at Second Reading, there are also serious concerns about Part 2. The proposed changes to academy freedoms are both puzzling and troubling. Among the most egregious is the delay in introducing effective interventions for schools to be judged in special measures or inadequate, which was described by the Children’s Commissioner as something that will leave children
“spending longer in failing schools”.
The Bill removes trusts’ discretion to use their professional judgment regarding curriculum and teacher pay and conditions. The new power of the Secretary of State to intervene when they judge that a trust is likely to breach its funding agreement and direct the remedy. The Bill’s own impact assessment says that the limitations on pupil admission numbers will
“limit the ability of popular schools to grow”.
For decades, parents have voted with their feet when it comes to schools, and this will erode parental choice and drive down standards.
Regarding home education, the proposed register misses both ends of the spectrum. At one end, the scheme, as drafted, will not adequately protect the most vulnerable children. At the other, it is unnecessarily intrusive, requiring disproportionate detail from parents who pose minimal risk to their children. Most critically, it fails to address the needs of parents who never intended to home educate but feel they have no choice due to inadequate provision for their child with special educational needs. We will be putting forward amendments to address these shortcomings.
The Bill presents a critical opportunity to shape the next decade of school improvement in England. On these Benches, we would support an effort that builds on what has been learned from the academisation journey thus far. The first phase of academisation addressed entrenched underperformance in a small number of schools. The second phase saw some multi-academy trusts use their autonomy to innovate and raise standards. Now, we need to scale the best practice of the most effective trusts and the most effective local authority schools to deliver better outcomes for pupils, more opportunities for staff, greater choice for parents and a more resilient school system.
Surely, we need a system where the lowest performing trusts and local authorities feel the same level of oversight that is currently felt by the headteacher of an under- performing school. This means evaluating not just results but the value that responsible bodies add. Thought needs to be given where another body could improve outcomes for pupils to what the mechanisms might be that could facilitate that change so that autonomy and accountability are aligned and the interests of children are kept paramount.
There is a tremendous opportunity to bring forward measures in the Bill that will deliver for children, staff and parents. I hope the Minister will consider concerns expressed across the House, and indeed outside it, in the spirit in which they are offered and be open to amending the Bill to achieve much more. If we do not make these changes, or at least give them the chance for honest and detailed consideration, we face four unacceptable risks.
The first is we end up with a rather ineffective, overly bureaucratic regulatory regime for residential care and independent fostering agencies. The second is we get a set of rules in relation to home education that neither keep the vulnerable few safe nor respect the rights of the majority. But it is the most serious risks that need spelling out. In relation to our schools, we face at best stagnation and at worst a steady decline in standards. In relation to children’s social care, we face an increase in the number of children suffering avoidable harm. I know this is not what the Government, and particularly neither of the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench today, want to see happen—they do not want that anymore than the coalition Government wanted to create some of the problems we see today in relation to the SEN system when we passed the Children and Families Act. Introducing major structural reform, in this case in both children’s social care and schools, without proper preparation, evidence and funding is irresponsible and puts the cart before the horse at a time when we already have wholesale reform in our local authorities, integrated care boards, curriculum, inspection regime and more.
I absolutely commit to both Ministers to engage in the Bill in the most constructive spirit possible, and I hope that they feel the amendments in my name are practical and constructive. I also owe both of the Ministers my honesty in setting out the degree of concern, even though, standing here right now, warm words might feel easier to say. The stakes—the safety, well-being and the future of our children—could not be higher.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Marlow Education Trust, which is a multi-academy trust.
This amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend, is necessary to confirm and clarify the objectives of the Bill, but also to stop the Government doing anything that is outside those objectives. I recall a similar purpose amendment being moved at the beginning of the Renters’ Rights Bill by my noble friends; a similar amendment was tabled at the beginning of the then Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Fox, from the Lib Dem Benches, proposed an identical purposes amendment to the then Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. It therefore seems that such so-called purpose amendments are becoming a feature of the process of legislative scrutiny, made more necessary when the time for Second Reading, which also deals with the purpose of the Bill, was so short.
The amendment sets out the ambitions of the Bill, and the only point I want to make in a brief intervention is that these ambitions do not seem to take account of the many challenges facing the education sector. The Bill is in a sort of vacuum, detached from the real world.
The provisions of the Bill, as my noble friend just said, will impose new responsibilities on local authorities, children’s services, adult services, schools and teachers, but this is expected at a time when there are already enormous pressures on the sector, raising the question as to whether there will simply be the capacity to deliver, however much good will there may be and however well intentioned the measures.
Let us take finance. Non-protected departments such as the DfE have been told by the Treasury to model reductions of 11% in their expenditure. We do not know the outcome of that round, which is designed to keep the Government within their fiscal rules, but I would expect the department to have to make some uncomfortable decisions, and that will affect the capacity of officials to deliver reform and indeed of the department to fund reform.
These pressures are already present in many local authorities. Several local authorities, many of them education authorities, have already issued Section 114 notices. Some large county councils are being closely monitored by the MHCLG, as they are at risk of falling over this year. If that happens, they will have to cut back on existing services before they think of introducing new ones. The pressure on children’s services is already acute.
Then, as my noble friend mentioned, the Government’s recently announced proposals involve many local authorities being reorganised as we move from two-tier to unitary. There may be good reasons for this, but it will be a major distraction for local authority staff from doing their normal duties as they worry about whether they will have a job within the new structure. Expecting those officers to take on more responsibilities on safeguarding and supporting children in need, children in care, care leavers and children being home-educated is a big ask for those officials at a time of turbulence.
Schools are already confronted with unfunded pay increases for teachers, unfunded before any settlement above the Treasury estimates are arrived at. For many schools, there is an increase in employer contributions for pension funds—unfunded—and the employer NI contributions increase is also not fully funded.
Schools face numerous challenges. Many are struggling to find and retain qualified teachers, particularly in certain subjects such as physics, design and technology, and languages, with some subjects experiencing a 60% to 83% drop in postgraduate teacher recruitment. As my noble friend mentioned, there are also rising mental health issues among children, with a six-year wait for ADHD treatment, as we read in yesterday’s Times2. The SEND system is broken, with councils winning only 1% of appeals, and there has been a significant increase in pupil absenteeism since the pandemic, particularly among disadvantaged children—the subject of recent Questions.
That is the context of the amendment and the Bill. Ministers may fairly argue that some of the pressures are inherited, but many are not, and the Bill’s proposals are, in essence, those of the Government. Ministers are demanding a lot of the system. I pose the question whether there is the headroom, the capacity in the system, to deliver the reforms in the Bill. I hope the Minister will be able to allay my concerns.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the purpose clause, particularly where it describes the purpose of the Bill as being to
“improve … standards and remove barriers to opportunity in schools in England and Wales”.
I will be very brief and focus on Part 2, dealing with schools. For me, Part 2 should be first and foremost about promoting parental choice, because only parents really know what sort of education is best for their children: not the state, but parents. There should be choice—as much as possible—since children are all different, and what can be better than an education which enhances the unique talents and personalities of each child? This also chimes with Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which states in terms:
“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.
So choice should be enshrined in any Bill purporting to promote children’s well-being.
Is this the Bill’s aim? Looking at Part 2, I rather fear that the opposite is the case. To take just two examples, academies are important, since their heads have shown by their excellent records of achievement that they know how to run schools better than government. But Part 2 would impose a one-size-fits-all national curriculum on academies, with the worst probably to follow in sweeping Henry VIII powers. Then there are faith schools. What could be more important than a child being educated in an environment rooted in discipline, dignity and duty, which are the hallmarks of our faith schools, such as Haredi schools and other faith schools? But Part 2 would grant sweeping powers to local authorities to monitor, register and regulate faith-based settings. It seems to be an agenda seeking uniformity over choice and threatening our diverse landscape, so much admired across the world. As it stands, therefore, Part 2 of the Bill does not enhance children’s well-being, which is what the Title of the Bill says it is supposed to do.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, here we go in Committee and here we have had, probably, our first Second Reading speech from a colleague. I will not make a Second Reading speech; I will address this amendment, which I think is unnecessary. We have a perfectly sensible, comprehensive description of what this Bill seeks to do. We do not need another list in the Bill.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the purpose clause from my noble friend Lady Barran has given us to range far more freely than the tightly timed Second Reading allowed. I could only comment on what was in the Bill and pay scant attention to what I sensed was lacking. Part 1, and therefore the first half of the purpose clause, is where my sights are set in this Bill: improving the safety and well-being of children and improving the regulation of children’s homes, fostering agencies and other settings where looked-after children are accommodated. We heard from my noble friend about Professor Eileen Munro’s letter to the Times yesterday. She robustly supports the expansion of early help. It is in the provision of this where the Bill needs strengthening and greater specificity: for example, about the role of family hubs, which are not even mentioned.
A complex system of professionals and safeguarding arrangements is being restructured and key processes changed or removed, without it being clear what functions they are already performing or their place in the bigger picture. I was on the design group of the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care—I mentioned that at Second Reading—and my most detailed offline discussions with the review team were on this restructuring, which I can see might be perceived to be finicky and potentially unnecessary. I am hearing concerns from directors of children’s services, and now from Professor Munro, that these reforms could weaken child protection, at a time when we are trying to batten down the hatches with, for example, the single unique identifier. As I will keep saying during Committee, I am concerned, as I was during the independent care review, that we are trying to do by process what we should be doing through relationships between professionals.
Does the Minister agree with the Department for Education spokeswoman, also quoted in the Times, who said that Munro’s criticisms
“demonstrate a lack of understanding of the proposed reforms, which have been widely supported and rebalance the system away from crisis intervention and towards earlier help”?
In other words, does she think that this eminent professor has not grasped her Government’s plans? Can she name current directors of children’s services who are enthusiastic about this restructure?
Child protection is the business of everyone who is involved with families and children, hence my amendments later in the Bill for family hubs to be included in safe- guarding arrangements. Of course, not all local authorities have family hubs yet, but an audit of the family hubs network carried out for Nesta earlier this year found 973 family hub networks in 133 out of 151 upper-tier councils, so the vast majority now have family hubs.
I and other Members in this Committee, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong and Lady Longfield —whom I welcome somewhat belatedly, but no less warmly—have been urging all Governments to commit wholesale to family hub rollout across the country. Their propagation is unfinished business from both the founding of the welfare state and the full implementation of paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, as I have said many times before. Hence I support the proposed new clause from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which would require local authorities to provide family support.
Health, education, social work and other arms of the state all have to pick up the pieces when families falter. The concept of family support needs presence in a community, so that parents in danger of splitting up have somewhere to turn; ex-partners going through a separation that is beginning to look messy can get early intervention in the form of mediation, after careful triage; and parents losing control of their teenagers can get support before they get drawn into gangs. The support that families need in myriad ways is co-ordinated and accessed through family hubs and their network of buildings and organisations, through a respectful, relational approach.
Of course, there is variability, and only 75 local authorities’ hub networks are funded. They are also tightly managed by the Department for Education’s family hubs and Start for Life programme. Since 2007, I have been working with Dr Callan to implement a hallmark of the family hubs network: its responsiveness to local needs. Many local authorities have a great track record in opening successful family hubs; they have told the family hubs network that they have had to slow down the rollout of services to older children, so that they could dot the i’s and cross the t’s required by the Start for Life programme.
I am a firm believer that family support has to start in maternity, and ideally earlier. That early intervention is far more easily achieved when local family support professionals have built relationships with parents, carers and children from the earliest days. I have amendments later in the Bill that would ensure that parents know where to get that help and support in their local area, by requiring local authorities to publish a Start for Life offer. That support should continue when a mother has, tragically, had a newborn, or often older children, removed from her care. Case files from the family courts show that history repeats itself and that judges can take as many as 14 or 15 children away from the same mother. Our care for the mother should not end when a child is safe, given the likelihood that the safety of future children will also have to be secured.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard some highly respected voices this afternoon, and I want to put two or three things on the record.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly draws attention to the fact that this kind of clause is now becoming commonplace at the beginning of Committees on Bills. I understand why people might want to raise specific issues, or even flag the amendments that they want to move in Committee, but if we prolong this stage to the point where our debates lose their purpose or we go on into the night—when, frankly, it is impossible to have rational and sensible debate—we will lose the purpose of the Committee itself.
I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who I respect as a friend, said about Second Reading. I was frustrated to have only four minutes, and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was deeply frustrated because she was trying to get back to Britain and could not. But we cannot have Second Reading debates at the beginning of every Committee.
I make an appeal. I have amendments down, and I understand that we need to listen and learn. On Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister did just that, and listened to what I and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others from outside this House, were saying. There is a willingness to listen and reflect and to believe that we do not get things right the first time. There is real wisdom and experience in this House and beyond that can be brought to bear, and we can change the Bill and have a better result at the end of it. But, to pick up what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, we will do so only if we respect each other, with no calling out of people due to ill will, and if Ministers are committed to working with us. That is the role of our House. Over the 10 years I have been here, I have understood, in a very clear way, how different it is from the House of Commons. If we are able to listen to each other, take well-meant amendments and see how we can provide a better outcome for all, so much the better for this House.
The respect of this House is really important. I have never understood why, recently, those who are most committed to this kind of second Chamber go about undermining it. I did not understand when that happened on the Football Governance Bill and other Bills—this one is in danger of going the same way—where we prolonged debate rather than concentrating and focusing on improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, is quite right—I am in favour of what he is saying, and of bringing back the old local Sure Start programmes. We will be able to debate that on amendments being put down. I would like to pick up the issue of what Part 2 is about. I think it is about raising standards, opportunity and life chances for all children, not just those who can jump through particular hoops. We touched on this with the 80 people who spoke on Second Reading. Let us try to get through Committee stage and to Report. At the end of it, let us all believe, whatever part of the House we are from—there should be no “sides”—that we have done a good job in making this Bill better.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I sat through almost all the Second Reading but deliberately did not intervene in it because I was trying to ascertain how much of the Bill was to do with Wales and how much was not. In the context of her amendment, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to clarify subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause, where it says, and I select the words deliberately,
“improve … standards … in schools in … Wales”.
Education in Wales is a totally devolved subject. I know that the Welsh Government and the Senedd have asked for certain provisions to be made via the Bill for application to Wales. I am sure the Minister can confirm that. Those are specific provisions that have been asked for and not a matter of generality. As I read the proposed new clause, there is a suggestion that it applies to the generality of standards in schools in Wales. The noble Baroness spoke of autonomy and accountability. That goes to the heart of the administration and provision of education in Wales, which is a devolved matter, and we must be clear in our minds why we are choosing those words.
Clearly, the term “England and Wales” can arise quite rightly when we are talking about the jurisdiction or the legal aspects of it. But here we are talking about the administration of education. Specifically, we are talking about schools and schools in Wales, and the Senedd has the right to know to what extent amendments such as this are meant to apply to them.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I will not repeat my Second Reading speech. I draw attention to my interests on the register, particularly the fact that I am chair of a multi-academy trust.
Regarding subsection (1)(a) of this proposed new “Purpose” clause, the Long Title states that it is to make
“provision about the safeguarding and welfare of children”.
Nothing that we could do to further that endeavour could be greater than to restrict access to social media to those aged over 16. That is why I have tabled Amendment 177 to that effect. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, said, this is so central to the overriding purpose of the Bill that I will take a few moments to elaborate.
I think we all know naturally that social media is very harmful to our children, but there is now an overwhelming body of evidence to support this. I recommend that anybody who has not done so reads the excellent book The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt. We want our children to be brought up confident, able to engage in deep thought, reflective and able to concentrate, to exercise judgment, to see the other side’s point of view, to be compassionate et cetera. We also want them to get a good night’s sleep. Smartphones and social media set up exactly the opposite behaviours.
In the 2022 PISA assessment, our children were in the bottom 10 of 31 countries in areas such as curiosity, perseverance, emotional control, stress resistance or grit, empathy and co-operation. There is now a strong body of clinical evidence on the harm that excessive use of smartphones and social media is doing to our children’s brains and eyesight.
Adolescence is a period of life in which our sense of self undergoes a profound transition. As teenagers become more conscious of how others see them, they often experience increased self-consciousness and self-criticism. Social media and the algorithms attached to them serve only to amplify this.
We also know that the adolescent brain is particularly susceptible to addictive behaviour. Constant exposure to fast-paced, highly stimulating content can condition the brain to expect frequent, rapid rewards, making it harder to sustain focus and concentrate. Numerous studies have shown the causal link between screens and the use of social media and sleep and depression.
A recent UCL study corroborated the link between social media and eating disorders and found that young people with eating disorders are more likely to be shown harmful content by social media algorithms. Samaritans research has shown that young people frequently see self-harm and suicide content across all social media sites, some of which display particularly graphic and triggering content, and almost three-quarters of teenage girls think that social media creates more pressure for them to look a certain way. Nearly one in five people arrested for terrorism-related offences in the past year was a child under 18. The Metropolitan Police has attributed this rise to social media, saying:
“You have the combination of the overt social media and then closed messaging apps”.
Social media has significantly expanded the reach of criminal drug networks, particularly among teenagers and young adults. Numerous studies in the UK have shown that gangs view social media platforms as essential tools for drug trafficking and gang recruitment. Parentkind tells us that more than 90% of parents think that social media is harmful to children and that more than 80% of parents feel that the age limit of 13 for signing up is too low. Australia has raised the limit to 16, Ireland is considering doing so and the EU is now considering similar measures. Bill Gates has described what Australia is doing as “a smart thing”, and we know that many people who work in the tech industry severely restrict their children’s use of social media and smartphones and often send their children to very screen-light schools.
Teaching unions have strongly pointed out the dangers of social media. The president of ASCL has said:
“It leaves a trail of harm—safeguarding concerns, fractured friendships, bullying, anxiety, and the spread of extremist ideologies. And increasingly, it is being weaponised against schools and teachers, with disgruntled parents using it as a platform to target staff”.
The general secretary of the NEU has said:
“We have to view the online world, social media and mobile phones in the same prism as we view the tobacco companies. These are harmful to our young people and they need regulating”.
The general secretary of NASUWT has described mobile phones as “lethal weapons”. Why should we let the consequences of this fall on our hard-working teachers, who have enough to do as it is?
The movement in support of the thinking behind my amendment is growing rapidly. We now have Health Professionals for Safer Screens, Smartphone Free Childhood, the Safe Screens campaign, the Unplugged Coalition and many other organisations.
Speaking to subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause and turning to improving
“the regulation of children’s homes, fostering agencies and other settings”,
I will sound just one note of caution. I am totally in favour of cutting out the cowboys, but the Government should exercise their powers to restrict profits and impose unlimited financial penalties with caution. Residential settings for children and other groups are very out of favour in the private equity space, and further restrictions on their financial flexibility can only reduce capacity. The public sector has no money, as we all know, so in order to increase capacity, private sector professional operators must be encouraged.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
This is a Second Reading speech, but it is very interesting. Does the noble Lord accept that the charitable sector and social enterprises probably have quite an important role to play in the delivery of residential care for children and that flexibility will help with the finances of that because they are not in the business of making excess profits?
Lord Nash (Con)
There are many in the charity sector that are professional, but there are many others. I do not think we disagree about this.
Turning to other settings, I am an adviser to the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation, which works with more than 200 independent and state boarding schools across the country to support care-experienced and vulnerable children into often fully funded school bursary places. A significant proportion of the almost 300 children supported since 2021 are either with foster carers or in kinship care arrangements. Those in kinship care arrangements have achieved a 100% stability rate, which means that they have not needed to change carers, and those in foster care a 98% stability rate. Independent research by the University of Nottingham shows that they are four times more likely to achieve good GCSEs when compared with a matched control group, and 75% of them are going to university versus just 13% of care-experienced young people nationally. RNCSF is working hard to expand this provision, and I would be grateful if the Government could consider meeting its representatives to discuss how they can help it to do this further. Perhaps the Minister could indicate that she or one of her colleagues is prepared to meet them. They are good people.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, whom I respect and enjoy debating with, but does he accept that if all 80 of us who made Second Reading speeches—and I enjoyed his four minutes—speak for nine minutes, as he has done, ranging across the whole of the Bill, it will make a nonsense of the work of this House?
Lord Nash (Con)
I have a great deal of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I do not think all of us are going to make a nine or 10-minute speech, but I will wrap up now and hope that keeps him happy.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I was unable to speak at Second Reading and I will resist the temptation to make a Second Reading speech now. Rather, I wish to concentrate on Amendment 1.
Any consideration of a proposed purpose clause should take us all back to the Renton report, in which it was said that sometimes such clauses can be useful and sometimes they can be unnecessary, and that they should be used selectively and with caution. On one view, the scope and effects of this Bill are clear enough and there does not appear to me, at least, to be any complexity for which a purpose clause would help interpretation.
However, there is perhaps some value in this amendment, which uses the word “improve” three times, emphasising the intention of the Bill—and the Bill as amended in due course—to achieve improvement in the areas specifically mentioned, and not to maintain or simply tweak the status quo. For that limited reason, I would support Amendment 1.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, in responding I hope the Minister will be able to point out that the purpose of the Bill has a golden spine running through it, and that is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The different clauses should be able to read across to the convention, and wherever the child is and whatever group they are in—and we have lots of groups in this Bill—fate can be extremely cruel, and we know that every day around 127 children lose a parent.
Bereavement is a major issue and hits different groups in different places at different times and affects their outcomes. I hope that we will have a statement from the Minister in responding to this which is about the principle of what we are really trying to do for children across the whole nation, everywhere.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech, but I am probably fairly unique in this House in that I was brought up in a children’s home. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who is not in his place, and I have a joke that he got to prison and I ended up in a children’s home but we both somehow ended up here.
What I find lacking in the Bill is that I have never felt that it is dealing with children; it is dealing with administration, with very worthy things. I do not feel that, when I was in a children’s home, I would have benefited from the feelings in the Bill. It just does not seem to take me anywhere. One of the problems we have to face is the attitude of society to children.
I am not going to tell a long sob story, but I was extremely badly treated by my parents. A lot of people tried to help—teachers, social workers, neighbours—but there was an air of embarrassed indifference. People wanted to help but did not feel they could; they did not know how to. One of the things we have to get away from is the idea that it is someone else’s job. For about five years I was chair of an outfit called the association of Labour social workers. That was when I was in the Labour Party, incidentally, I say to friends on this side. One thing that struck me was how difficult their job is. One false move and you are condemned. You often look at a child as a social worker and think, “This child should be in care. I should be going to a magistrate”. But as you work your way up the food chain, caution comes in. It is not cruelty; it is caution. People say “Are you sure? We don’t want to be all over the Daily Mail. We have to be careful. We have to respect the rights of the parents”. This is legitimate, but I do not think we should imagine that there is some golden, secret, easy way of dealing with this. I have said in this House before that you cannot privatise compassion. Whatever you do and however much you say, “Let the private sector deal with this”, you cannot deal with the human and emotional cost.
I will mention the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. He was leader of Sheffield City Council, of course, some time after I was in its care. If anyone wanted to see a local government machine which worked, it was the county borough of Sheffield. I was extraordinarily well looked after. They probably put me in the Labour Party for about 30 years, before I found my natural home.
Sheffield, under the formidable presence of Alderman Grace Tebbutt—I think only the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, will remember that name—ran the children’s homes in an extremely compassionate and direct way because she knew what was going on there. She knew quite a lot of the children. The lesson I took from that was that you have to respect the children. I was not an easy child by any means—any more than I am easy now.
One thing I will give a man called John Freeman and his assistant Mary Armitage, the director and deputy director of children’s services in Sheffield, was that they listened. They were prepared to listen to a 13 year-old child. That helped enormously, because I felt suddenly that I was valued. Someone wanted not only to hear what I wanted but to explain why it could not happen, to help it happen or, often, to half help it happen, because I had not understood the situation and they had. They also understood the need to listen in order to shape the outcome to the need. That is why intervening on this amendment is relevant—because that does not come through in the Bill, and I am not sure I have the expertise to bring it through, but I am willing to work with anyone who thinks they have.
The old children’s department network was a success. When I began my official career as the research officer for the Committee on One Parent Families, Baroness Lucy Faithfull, who was a Member of this House and knew an enormous amount about children, and Barbara Kahan—who never joined this House but was the children’s director for Oxford and a member of the Finer committee—helped inform us of what it felt like to be a child. That was missing. We had a lot of seminars with very well-meaning people—often men, I have to say—who told us what children wanted, but, until Lucy Faithfull came along, we had very little contact with children who were actually in care, to try to shape things for them.
So I say to the Minister—this is not a criticism but is meant as a help—that we must try, if we can, to reshape the Bill just slightly so that it brings the child to the fore, rather than the administration, because it is the children who, at the end, will be affected by the Bill. It is they who will, in years to come, either bless or curse us for what is in it. There will not be much from the officials—we will all have long passed away—but it is the children, some of whom are not yet born, who will be the recipients of the policies we end up with.
We are all people of good will here—including the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, behind me, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, whom I knew by repute when he was leader of Sheffield, although I had long left—and we try to do our best. We must now extend that to the Bill, so that we have done our best.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
The noble Lord has made an important and timely intervention about the focus of the Bill, which is indeed on children. It is the first Bill of its kind that has the phrase “well-being” in its Title. He reminded us why we are here.
In the context of the debate we have been having across the House about the nature of this debate, and about Second Reading interventions that would more appropriately be presented as amendments, I say to the noble Lord that there is a series of amendments that we could get on to quite quickly and which would give us the opportunity to discuss the child at the very heart of improved systems of engagement and communication about the future of children, in the context of childcare services and the family. The next two groups of amendments give opportunities for the whole family, in a new way, to be engaged in determining the future of the child in the extended family, rather than in institutions or by way of administration.
These are very important debates. They require and invite a long and a proper discussion in the Committee, and many people would want to contribute. It would be welcome if we could now hear the Minister wind up in response to this general debate and could get on to these amendments, where the noble Lord’s concerns would be properly displayed.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I could make a small contribution. This is about a purpose clause. It is a broad amendment, and noble Lords are speaking to the amendment, whether that be proposed new paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d). It is on the Marshalled List and has been checked with the Clerk of Procedural Practice. If it were not right and appropriate, it would not be on the list today. So all contributions from all noble Lords are welcome, whatever their contribution might be. There are noble Lords in your Lordships’ Committee who still wish to make a contribution, which they will keep as brief as they can. The amendment is on the Marshalled List.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I, too, would like to speak to Amendment 1. I realise that it is a broad amendment, so I shall concentrate on proposed new Clause 1(1)(a), and the
“safety and wellbeing of children”.
Last week, I asked why His Majesty’s Government had not followed France in banning mobile phones in schools, a policy introduced seven years ago and linked to better academic results and reduced bullying. The Minister rightly pointed out that France has a more directive education system, something my party would surely not want to replicate. She is quite right: we oppose excessive central control, especially when it threatens school autonomy or family life. But this is about the well-being, safety and health of children, just as school meals and physical activity are.
As my noble friend Lord Nash pointed out, phones disrupt learning, harm mental health and hinder social development, especially for young children. This brings constant pressure on schools to manage distraction, cyberbullying and the emotional toll of social media. Schools that ban phones see calmer classrooms, better behaviour and stronger results. This advantages particularly children who are disadvantaged pupils.
In primary schools, the case is even stronger. Young children do not need phones during the day, as nearly 80% of parents agree. France, Spain, Italy and Greece have all acted, and the Department for Education now encourages schools to limit phones throughout the day. The guidance is welcome, but it is not enough.
As proposed new Clause 1 calls for, we need more clarity about those specific points. Similarly, healthy food in schools is also vital. A balanced diet supports learning, concentration and behaviour. Italy and France offer a powerful contrast; pupils sit down for a proper meal, with vegetables, protein, cheese, yoghurt and fruit. Meals are unhurried and part of the school day, free from sugary snacks and drinks. The results speak for themselves: childhood obesity in France is significantly lower. In England, more than one in five children is overweight or obese by the time they start primary school; by the time they leave, it is nearly one in three. These are not statistics: they are our children, growing up at risk of preventable diseases and poor mental health.
In France, food education is part of the curriculum. From a young age, children learn about nutrition in science and civil lessons. Some schools offer classes on meal planning and basic cooking. Most importantly, children learn by example—by having structured, healthy meals. In England, food education is fragmented and school meals are often rushed, unbalanced and of poor quality.
With regard to the proposed new clause, I ask, while we are talking about the well-being and safety of children, why the Government want to centralise and concentrate decisions on some areas that affect family life but not on areas that are really about the core well-being of children—nutrition, mobile phones and cyberattacks? This proposed new clause is necessary, because it is needed to clarify quite a few things.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I was not going to speak, but I sat through the Second Reading and it was long. We have had some of the same speeches again—not put in the same way, but the phraseology is going in that direction.
The mover of proposed new Clause 1 was actually very good at making sure that she was using active verbs. I do not like passive ones—I go for the active ones. What are they? “Improve”, “improve”, “improve” and “make provision”. If you are dealing with children, the legislation needs to tell us that there are some things that we want to do—and of course, with them, not alone. For that reason, I want to support the Bill.
I say to my dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that I love his way of speaking and he is very persuasive, but I do not understand why he thinks that paragraph (c) applies simply to Wales. The improvement will be in England and Wales, because the legislation will apply to England and Wales. Of course, there will be questions in the Parliament there and they will be talking about it, but the Bill as it stands is for schools in England and Wales.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I will soon sit down, so the noble Lord need not worry; I will tell him when I am about to sit down so that he can speak before I stop.
I love the new clause and I support it, but the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, gave us a warning, and I hope we heard his experience, not only in Sheffield but when he was Secretary of State for Education. There are things we could do throughout the Bill without laboriously going through 200 pages of amendments. This amendment paper is as big as the Bill itself. On the football Bill, I nearly lost the will to live because there were so many amendments. The guy or woman who is actually going to do the work at my little club, York, has my sympathy. I used to support Manchester United, but I told noble Lords at Second Reading why I no longer do so. Friends, could we not do better than laboriously go through every amendment that is proposed?
Some of the amendments are good. I definitely support those of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, because there are things in them that I can take away, but I am not so sure where some of the others are going. I am about to sit down, so the noble Lord can have his say.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am very grateful. The point I was making was about the application of this legislation to a subject that is devolved. We need clarity in the Senedd in Cardiff, which nominally has responsibility—and factually has had responsibility up to now—for education in schools in Wales. If an introductory clause like this brings in the whole gamut of being governed from Westminster, there is a lack of clarity which must undermine devolution. All I am looking for is clarity, and I think the noble and right reverend Lord will understand that.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I do—I do not doubt it at all. Certainly, bits are devolved, but just looking at education in Wales and education here, we have to say that there are improvements already happening in England, and areas where Wales wants to catch up. People will have to be very careful. I am absolutely in favour of devolution, so do not misunderstand me, but looking at what is happening to England, you would not want it to happen in Wales, although the matter is devolved. It simply talks about improving. Would you not want to learn? Would you not want to know? The good thing is, as Donne said,
“No man is an island,
Entire of itself;”
Nor is Wales, entire of itself.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, proposed new paragraph (c) in this amendment touches on the Bill’s purpose of removing barriers to opportunity. It raises my concern about the Bill in general that, as my noble friend Lord Young said in his excellent remarks, we are being encouraged to consider this legislation somewhat blind and flying in the dark. That is because we have not yet had either the full final report of the Becky Francis review into curriculum and qualifications or the Government’s response to it. This is essential for a fair and full consideration of this legislation. This review is not just another consultation or call for evidence but the Government’s flagship review of curriculum and qualifications which is examining exactly this matter of how we remove barriers to opportunity in our system.
We already know, however, that the relentless narrowing of options at age 16 is clearly not helping learners in this transition to level 3 study. Some 5% of 16 to 17 year-olds are NEET, up from 3.9% in 2015. This is an exceptionally worrying trend, and the Department for Education’s relentless quest to further narrow options through the defunding of applied general qualifications such as BTECs will not help matters at all. T-levels, while well intentioned, are not proving suitable for most learners. Just 2% of the cohort are enrolled on T-levels, compared to almost 20% pursuing applied general qualifications such as BTECs. By pressing ahead with the further defunding of those remaining BTECs after 2027, the Government will increase the number of young people who feel that there is no place for them in our system.
For us to do our job properly, this Bill and the curriculum review running alongside it must be seen together. We need to ensure that they work in concert so that all young people, not just the most academic, have an ambitious and achievable path forward at 16.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, as we have discussed at length, this is a multifaceted Bill, so I would welcome our achieving greater clarity of purpose. Without purpose, there is no focus, and we can get very lost in complexity. As we progress through Committee, I ask noble Lords to consider the opportunities offered in this Bill to improve well-being through healthier young lives. Let us not lose sight of health, because without good, healthy young people there is no opportunity for learning or well-being. I am talking about both physical and mental health.
When I was president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health between 2012 and 2015, we had slipped over the preceding 15 years to being one of the worst-performing countries in Europe for infant and child mortality. Mortality, in particular infant mortality, is used globally as a sensitive indicator of the health of a nation. It is the canary in the coal mine for how we are looking after children and young people; it signals alarm if that is not going well. Since then, we have seen infant mortality rise among infants born to poor families while it continues to fall among the wealthy. We are looking at a variety of public health issues that should give us pause for thought, including poorer vaccine uptake and worsening health inequalities more generally, in particular obesity. Between 2014 and 2019, teenage mortality edged up rather than down, and noble Lords are well aware that teen mental health is deteriorating.
In relation to the Bill, it is important that we think carefully about how we are using the public health workforce, such as school nurses and others, and give careful consideration to the multiple pulls on their time and how different parts of the Bill differentially pull on those resources. Equally, we must consider how significant system change is going to impact designated doctors and nurses, whose carefully worked out roles are, at best, stretched, so that those do not become further stretched by the changes in the systems.
During the passage of the Bill, we should consider carefully exactly what is going to happen to that precious workforce, which we should use to maximal effect. I hope the Minister can give us her thoughts on how care will be given to that aspect.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I support this amendment, and I hope to illustrate to the Government that this proposed purpose clause will help them and will be of benefit to the debate in reaching an effective and clear Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I do not have a Second Reading speech; I am focusing only on this amendment.
The noble Baroness on the Government Back Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for whom I have the greatest respect, and other noble Lords seemed to be saying, “We don’t need no education Bill purpose clause”. I suggest that many Bills, including this one, would benefit from a purpose clause. It provides clarity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, said, and the ability to check each clause against it to ensure that they would indeed meet the purpose of the Bill. It also provides needed clarity to the debate.
The principle can be seen in any organisation that is trying to think through a change in direction and how to implement it. It starts with the strategy, which is the purpose. Having decided the strategy, it moves on to the tactics—the other clauses are the tactics that fulfil the purpose. Otherwise, you are not quite sure why a whole range of clauses are there. You cannot fit them into the overall plan; there is no strategy, there are only tactics, with the ability for people to cram all sorts of things into a Bill that do not actually meet whatever that strategy was.
The purpose clause, as written, is not controversial. If a further clause in the Bill does not meet purposes (a), (b), (c) and (d), then it can be more swiftly disposed of or amended so as to meet whatever the Bill’s purpose is—which is of course for the Government to decide and accept. However, a purpose clause goes beyond that. Such a clause on the front of the Bill will, for that regrettably small part of the electorate who will read this Bill, provide clarity as to what on earth those hundreds of pages are up to. As we all know, any Bill is quite difficult to read. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, just pointed out, the Bill becomes much clearer with a purpose clause. For those tasked with the unfortunate duty of implementing the Bill, to know what they are trying to accomplish will reduce the horrors of compliance.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, spoke about outcomes and having active verbs in the purpose clause. Active verbs lead to outcomes, and my noble friend Lord Balfe pleaded for outcomes, not process, to be the Bill’s purpose. In this House, we very often seem to focus on process—how something is going to be done—rather than outcomes: what on earth we are trying to achieve.
I meant to say when I was addressing the good remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that he should be comforted by the fact that around half the amendments that he complained were taking up so much time in the football Bill came from his side of the House. Therefore, as to his reprehending the length of time—which I also had to sit wearily through—when one points a finger forward, there are three fingers pointing backwards.
My noble friend Lord Balfe, in pleading for outcomes, put his finger on what is wrong with a Bill without a purpose clause. Whatever outcomes the Government wish to achieve, let us know what they are, let us be able to test the Bill against those proposed outcomes, and let us have this purpose clause, as my noble friend Lady Barran has advocated.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of the purpose clause, in particular, subsection (1)(a) and (c), improving
“the safety and wellbeing of children”,
and improving
“standards”,
to
“remove barriers to opportunity”.
I also refer to my interests in the register.
As the Minister will have gathered from some 188 pages of amendments, there are serious concerns with the Bill. I am sure she will dismiss many of these as distractions, but I want to assure her that having spent nearly 15 years trying to improve the education of young people, mostly from areas of deprivation, and therefore the opportunities for them, that is not my purpose.
I first give credit to the Government for tackling the issue of kinship care. The educational outcomes for children in care are shockingly bad. If there is any cohort of children in our society that has been dealt a cruel hand, it is those children. Kinship care is often an obvious and decent solution; however, many of these children have been traumatised by several years in severely dysfunctional families, and the task facing the new carer is formidable.
That is why I have always been such a strong advocate for offering boarding school places for those children. Not only does this provide a safe and stable environment but it has shown a dramatic improvement in their outcomes when the data has been analysed. In December 2017, when I was the Minister responsible for this, we launched the boarding school partnerships service. The aim was to link local authorities with the relevant children’s charities and boarding schools themselves.
I will not repeat the data cited by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, on the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard’s Care-Experienced and Vulnerable Children programme, or indeed the comments from the Nottingham University report. However, there is one statistic that he did not mention. Not only are the outcomes for children in boarding care compared to those for a similar cohort extraordinarily higher but the costs are of a magnitude lower. In the sample that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, talked about, the cost for the cohort going into boarding schools was £3.6 million versus £8 million when they were retained in foster or residential care. The additional and perhaps even more important advantage is that it takes pressure off the kinship carers, as the intensity of their role is reduced. Common sense would suggest that this route would make it a much less daunting task. Indeed, how many times in politics do we get a chance to use an innovative measure that is both much cheaper and far more effective than the opportunities being pursued at the moment?
The national curriculum seems to be a wholly unnecessary imposition on a sector that has spent more than 10 years developing curricula that work for their schools and the communities that they serve. It is extremely important to clarify to everyone in this Chamber that every school in England has an obligation to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum; it is not a free-for-all. This is a fundamental tenet of any Ofsted inspection in all phases of education.
Having experienced at first-hand almost dozens of inspections over the years, I know that, in every instance, Ofsted requires to see the materials used and asks teachers to give them feedback on the effectiveness of them from a teaching point of view. In the case of the academy trust that I founded, we have painstakingly built an all-through curriculum for all phases. It has been colossally expensive and time-consuming, but it is working. Children arriving from feeder primary schools into our secondaries make demonstrably faster progress, as they are on a familiar path. In our maths curriculum, we have developed a 70-block building stack which goes from year 2 up to A-level.
Here is a summary of what an Ofsted report said about the curriculum in a recent inspection of one of our schools:
“The school’s curriculum is ambitious. The knowledge pupils need to know to succeed in the future is set out clearly and in a logical order. As pupils, including those with special educational needs … progress through the curriculum they use what they have already learned to understand new information”.
However, it also pointed out weaknesses. That is why, although the school got an overall “Good” with an “Outstanding” for personal development, it did not get an “Outstanding” judgment across the board, and we have addressed those perfectly fair criticisms.
Last year, that school had one of the biggest improvements in its Progress 8 score in the country. When we took it over, it was in such a mess that a campus capable of educating over 1,800 children was down to educating 400, such was its abandonment by the local community. As I speak today, the confidence has returned to the extent that a whole new school building is under construction, and I thank the Minister and her department for that.
My point is: why tear that up? A far more sensible approach would be to require any school failing an Ofsted inspection on its curriculum to then be required to follow the curriculum imposed by the DfE—deal with the 20% at the bottom of the system and do not drag the good ones down pointlessly.
I turn to admissions with the local authorities. I completely accept that there needs to be proper joined-up thinking between local authorities and schools, which should of course include academies. However, it must be for the right reasons and not for the administrative convenience of the local authorities. By that, I mean forcing outstanding schools to reduce their pupil admission numbers just so a failing local authority school does not have to bite the bullet in addressing its own failures.
That happened recently in one of my trust schools in Norwich. Norwich is a zombie zone for primary education. Some 19 of its 24 primary schools last year failed to achieve the national standards at key stage 2. We run two of the five that did. One of them is an outstanding school, but we were asked to halve the pupil admission numbers. The only way a school can do that is by merging year groups with a commensurate drop in standards, as teachers try to teach across an excessively wide age range. We were able to decline that request, but under this new legislation it will be a different story. That was one more act of self-immolation in the battle to raise standards.
Turning to qualified teachers, I believe that this terminology is a complete misnomer. Apparently, someone with a subject-specific degree in, say, maths or science is less qualified than someone with a degree in a different subject than the one they are teaching—but that is fine, because they completed a nine-month course which it is almost impossible to fail. In 2023, only 8% of applicants failed to gain qualified teacher status, and mostly because they dropped out. How can that make any sense? We keep hearing from the Minister how she trusts “great headteachers” and “brilliant schools”; if that is the case, why can she not trust them to hire the people they consider will have the best chances of success for their children?
That is before we get into the reality on the ground, which is that it is becoming increasingly harder to recruit teachers. The rates of exodus from the profession seems to be accelerating, particularly among younger teachers. The Government have even admitted that, in the past few weeks, their much-vaunted additional 6,500 teachers, paid for from the tax on private schools, is proving virtually impossible to achieve. This is just another example of what sounds like a convenient political slogan bearing no relation to what is going on in the real world.
I will end on this point. We continually hear from the Government about all the wonderful things they will do, but their words are in complete contrast to what they are actually doing. It is the cruellest of ironies, which I simply cannot reconcile in my own mind, because the people who will suffer are the children in the poorest communities, where it is extraordinarily difficult to hire good teachers. I thought that a Labour Government sought to represent these communities, but I see nothing in this cheap political manoeuvre that will in any way help those disadvantaged children.
I understand that Ministers are surprised by the level and range of pushback on the Bill, but they should not be. It was rammed through the Commons over Christmas—without a Green Paper or a White Paper and without any consultation—in a Chamber with literally hundreds of new and inexperienced MPs who were not equipped to give it proper scrutiny. That scrutiny now falls to us. The Government should not play fast and loose with the futures of millions of children, who get but one chance for their education. I urge Ministers to show some humility over the next few weeks in the passage of the Bill and adopt, as government amendments, many of the practical and useful suggestions that have been tabled. If we are to be ignored, rest assured that the avalanche of amendments will continue, as I, for one, will not go down without a fight.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, as a non-contributor to the Bill so far, it seems to me that the amendment is not being spoken to. I wonder whether I could support those who have enjoined contributors, on this day 1 of Committee, to speak to the amendment and to limit the length of their speeches. I also ask the Government Front Bench whether they would monitor this.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, I speak to the intended purpose of the Bill, which includes improving the well-being of children, as given in subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause, and removing barriers to opportunity, as given in subsection (2)(c) of the proposed new clause. I declare my interests as governor of Shoreditch Park Academy, former chair of the national plan for music education and co-founder and chair of the London Music Fund.
We are debating the future of our schools and children, and the well-being of our children. What could be more important than that? This Government were elected on a mandate of change, but on so many issues Ministers cannot explain the reason, in this Bill particularly, for the change. What is the problem the Government are trying to solve? On this Bill, the bewilderment about the reason for change is now greater than ever.
As my noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone said, we will be voting on a Bill that includes a curriculum that all schools will be obliged to follow—a curriculum about whose content neither we nor, it seems, the Government have any idea. This is absurd. This is not change to benefit children and improve their well-being but simply ideological change to satisfy trade union leaders and their followers. If they get their way, children’s education will certainly be damaged, not just for the sake of change.
At Second Reading, I focused on the importance of academy trust independence. Today, I narrow my focus to follow the procedure to one subject which I believe is missing from the Bill that could have a hugely positive effect on the well-being and academic outcomes of every child. That subject is music. Do noble Lords recall that, on the day of the magnificent VE celebration concert in Westminster Hall, the composer and conductor Keith Burstein said of music that it unites, consoles and galvanises?
The evidence is there: music helps listening, concentration, reading and memory. Music boosts self- esteem and helps young people understand the benefits of discipline. You cannot learn a musical instrument without self-discipline. That, in turn, helps to develop self-reliance, determination and grit—the very word the Government invoked last week. Music is not just about learning notes and techniques; it helps emotional and social development and brings young people together, enriching their lives.
The Prime Minister recently warned of the danger of Britian becoming a nation of strangers. Music, as he has acknowledged in the past, unites people. It unites children. Children of all backgrounds would benefit from the common enjoyment of music in their schools. An RPO survey showed that 85% of children wanted to learn a musical instrument. Music makes children happy and particularly benefits children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Every school should have a flourishing music department.
Music can transform an unhappy, failing school. In Bradford, at Feversham Primary Academy, in one of the most disadvantaged areas of the city, an intensive music programme for every pupil has transformed the school from failing to outstanding. I have visited a great many schools with wonderful music, choir ensembles and orchestras. Most are academy trusts, such as United Learning, Ark Academy and the City of London Academies Trust, whose schools, including Shoreditch Park, where I am governor, have the ethos and music of their hugely successful independent schools: the City of London School for boys and City of London School for Girls.
As co-founder and chair of a music charity, the London Music Fund, I have seen how music has changed lives. Our four-year scholarships for children from disadvantaged backgrounds are transformative. Many of our students from the first cohorts are now university and some are at the Conservatoire.
Among hundreds of examples, I think of one girl living in a high-rise on a bleak west London sink estate. Her mother seldom left the flat. The 10 year-old girl had only once visited central London. She had shown an aptitude for music, so we awarded her a four-year scholarship, gave her a clarinet, paid for her music lessons, gave her a mentor and helped her join an orchestra. Alongside music, she excelled at maths. Thanks in part to the London Music Fund, she is now studying maths at Imperial College. Talk about opportunity.
Even for children who are not musically talented, the benefits of the programme are wide ranging, improving self-confidence and well-being. Research from countless countries—Finland, Hungary, Turkey, China and so on—shows the value of music education and the positive impact it has on young people. Why is it that, after all these years of evidence, politicians still seem to have a blind spot about music? What do they not understand about the benefits of music education? I live in hope that, with the Prime Minister’s early enthusiasm for the flute and the imminent curriculum review from Dr Becky Francis, there will be a significant change of heart.
But—I stress the “but”—more teachers are needed to teach music. Schools must have the freedom to hire the best music teachers, not just the ones who have qualified teacher status. Taking away that freedom is change for change’s sake, simply pandering to the unions, not benefiting the children. A serious, long-term funding commitment to music that puts music at the heart of every school would improve the well-being and the academic outcomes of the next generation.
Support for these disadvantaged children, whose well-being and academic outcomes would undoubtedly be improved if music became a central part of their school lives, is so important. I would add: put the child to the fore in this Bill.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, as your Lordships will know from my register of interests, I am currently the leader of the London Borough of Bexley. That means I have an involvement with both the Local Government Association and London Councils. What my entry does not say that I am now the longest-serving leader of the London Borough of Bexley and that, before I was leader, I was the first cabinet member for children’s services in our borough.
Your Lordships might ask why that is important. Over that period, during which we were the first authority in London and only the second to Leeds in the country—as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, will attest—to achieve two outstanding ILACS Ofsted inspections. We also have a very good reputation for our local schools, which include four grammar schools, and we take in many young people from neighbouring Labour boroughs whose parents aspire to a better education for their young people. In this contribution, I will focus my comments on the children’s social care aspects of the proposed Bill.
Over the years, I have had the absolute pleasure to work with some fantastic local authority officers, including some superb directors of children’s services, or deputy directors who have gone on to become directors. I will not name them, to save their blushes, but they will know who they are. These are the people we all trust to make the right decisions, on a daily basis, to keep our young people safe and keep families together, if possible—but, if that is not possible, to ensure that the children who come into our care are prepared for the future. They are statutorily responsible and, if anything goes wrong, they are often held to account for the decisions taken.
Over the last few weeks, I have had exchanges with a number of senior practitioners whom I respect, and they are really concerned about the consequences of some aspects of the Bill. I know my noble friend Lady Barran has had similar conversations. So, my contribution to this debate will probably be very different from many others, as I have first-hand experience of seeing for myself the passion these professionals have for our children in our borough, to keep them safe, as well as having aspirations that they become successful, independent young people. They also have to forecast and take ownership of budgets, often with little control of implications. I am sure that some Members will be interested to know that you can have a young person move into the borough for whom you need to find care that can cost as much as a room in the Savoy for a week.
The conversations we have had suggest that there are some good aspects to the Bill, some of which will reinforce the good practice already taking place in some areas, or plug some of the gaps in current legislation, but fundamentally support the principle of meeting children’s and families’ needs, as they emerge, at the earliest possible time. But there are some major concerns about other aspects of these proposals. I know that we will get to the detail when we get further into the amendments, but some of the main concerns are that some of the proposals are unfunded.
The Josh MacAlister review said that £2 billion was required to implement the reforms in his care review. There is currently £290 million, and that has been agreed for only one year. This shows just how far away we are from what is required and what has been given to local authorities. Most of this will have to be funded from already tight local authority budgets that have become even tighter as a result of the Government’s national insurance contribution increase. Mandating that all child protection functions be held within multiagency teams marks a major shift from the current practice. While the intent is to foster stronger collaboration and clearer accountability, professional bodies and academics have warned of a number of potential unintended consequences if the model is implemented without careful safeguards. One of those consequences is budgets and, of course, in addition to actually determining future funding for social care for both adults and children should be, there is real concern about cost shunting, especially given that there are already suggestions of cuts to safeguarding budgets by local police and health communities.
There have been 10 pathfinders, but, as has been said, the key findings from those pilots have not been published and, as you would expect, the word on the street is that there have been issues with those pathfinders. Surely the sensible thing is to share that information and consider the findings before agreeing this Bill.
The intention might be to have clearer decision-making, improved information sharing, and unified threshold application, but the unintended consequences could be: a dilution of professional expertise; confusion over legal accountability; weakened local authority leadership; loss of focus on early help and prevention; operational bottlenecks and inflexibility; undermining universal services’ safeguarding role; implementation disruption; inconsistent models; and legal and human rights risks.
I know I come at this from a different perspective from many—but not all—in this Chamber, but I know that none of us would want to see young people being put at risk from ill-thought-out legislation.
I am sure that many noble Lords—this has been referred to—saw the letter in the Times yesterday from Eileen Munro, a very respected person in the field. When such people say that they are concerned about some aspects of the Bill, they deserve to be listened to, and we need to respect what they have to say. I hope the Minister will do so.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the proposed new clause and to support, in particular, subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c). As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, it contains the key word “improve”. One of the purposes of a purpose clause is to set out very clearly for the courts how legislation should be applied and to what end it is achieved. It will be a matter of debate—I am sure the debate already happened at Second Reading—whether measures in here will improve things: that is a matter for debate. But if we have this, I hope that my noble friend Lady Barran will put it to a vote on Report, so that all the House in its conscience, when it is determining what parts of the legislation we retain, change or drop entirely, comes back to the central purpose: what is this doing to improve the outcomes for children?
I say to my noble friend Lord Balfe that the Title of the Bill should really be “Some Children’s Wellbeing”, because clearly it does address well-being for some children. I suppose I am sharing my frustration—not that I am challenging the guidance of the clerks, although we can have a debate about it—that the scope of the Bill is actually pretty narrow in considering how to improve the well-being of children. I would hope that proposed new subsection (1)(a) would allow us to consider further matters which are not addressed in this Bill about the well-being of all children, which we are here to consider.
I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech—far from it—but there are undoubtedly omissions in the Bill about things such as child maintenance, which would certainly contribute to powers that have already been passed by Parliament but have not yet been commenced by Governments. I say “Governments” deliberately because I am conscious that applies not just to this Government. Those powers could be commenced by adding a clause to this Bill, but it is not within its scope at the moment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Balfe made a very good case for a purpose clause that puts children at the front of the Bill. I will make a rather more restricted case to use a purpose clause to support the home education clauses in the Bill.
The first virtue of a purpose clause, when it comes to home education, is that we are trying to give local authorities guidance on how they conduct themselves towards the home education community. To have something clear at the beginning of the Bill would make that much easier for them. Secondly, we are dealing with a diverse community in home educators; for them clearly to see the effect on them, in a complicated Bill, and the Government’s underlying purpose would be a great help in moderating and steering their interaction with the Bill after it is introduced. So I strongly urge the Government to consider a purpose clause when it comes to home education. It does not need to be much longer than “to support children not in school, and their parents”. Something like that would make a substantial difference to the way the Bill is read.
I will pick up on some difficulties that I have with the Bill and the way it is drafted, and in understanding its purposes. In English law, parents are responsible for their children’s education. In the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, said, the Government make substantial moves towards transferring that responsibility to the state. New Section 434A(6)(b)(i), in Clause 30, strikes at the heart of the relationship between parents and the Government. It will have enormous ramifications for the whole of the education system if we go down this track.
The way that personal data collection and use systems in the Bill are expressed, and the control of education providers, leaves me at a loss as to the Government’s intended purpose for the relationship between home-educating parents and the state. Understanding that better—having it clearly set out—would inform our whole consideration of the Bill.
What is the Government’s purpose in seeking to be—as I read the Bill—so intrusive and punitive towards elective home education? The state should be respectful and humble in its dealings with parents who educate their own children: respectful because it is a huge commitment that lifts a great burden from the state, and humble because of all the children we fail in the state system. Yes, we have some reasonable and long-established requirements that education should be satisfactory and that children should be safe and emerge as fully functioning members of society, but the best way to achieve that is to be supportive. In that way, the state gets to see the children and to help them and their parents. All that is left are the few cases where things are going wrong, on which the local authority can focus its efforts.
Home educators are a complex and diverse community. Partly, they are people with a different philosophy of education, and the time and dedication to make it work. If they are doing well, why should the state not applaud that? Partly, they are people who the state has failed and who benefit the state hugely by removing difficult cases from underperforming schools. Do they not deserve our wholehearted support?
Sometimes, parents bite off more than they can chew; local authorities such as Coventry, which reacts supportively, can crowd in the support of successful home educators to turn them around. Sometimes, parents are ill-intentioned or neglectful and their children need rescuing; a local authority such as Coventry finds that much easier because its time is not taken up with persecuting the well-intentioned. Some local authorities, as I am sure the Minister knows, are at the other end of the scale; their treatment of elective home educators is truly maniacal and damaging. A purpose clause would really help to set the intentions at the beginning of the Bill so that it became obvious to local authorities and home educators what the Government’s intentions were towards looking after their children.
One case that needs careful examination is Haredi education, which is a particular aspect of home education because so much of it is religiously based. The community needs the Government to be clear and open in declaring their purpose towards it. Minister Morgan says that educational settings which operate full time—and, as a result, can be expected to bear a very great responsibility for children’s educational well-being—should be regulated to ensure that children in those settings are safe and receive a suitable education. That is being read as a direct threat to Haredi education.
Ministers know, I am sure, what Haredi education is: an intense education in the Torah, plus home education. They know, I am sure, that that educational system has good outcomes: fully functioning people, albeit very much in their own tradition. Do the Government agree that these families are not neglecting their children’s learning but providing learning in keeping with their own long-established ethnic background, with secular subjects taught during evenings and weekends? Do the Government agree that yeshivas are not schools and should not be assessed as such? The schooling of these children takes place outside the yeshivas and should be assessed as home education.
What is the Government’s purpose, in the Bill, towards this community? At the moment, it is obscure. Something at the beginning of Bill that makes it clear how the Government respect the different traditions and religions of this country, and the way that they wish to bring up their children, would be a really helpful addition.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I too speak in support of the purpose clause tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran. I declare my interests as a member of Beckfoot multi-academy trust and of the Leeds Diocesan Learning Trust.
It surprises me greatly that adoption does not form part of the Bill. Despite improvements in the adoption system, evidence highlights significant gaps in support. Last year’s Adoption Barometer showed that the proportion of adoptive families facing severe challenges increased from 30% in 2022 to 38% in 2023, which is the highest over the six years of reporting. Also, the number of prospective adopters has declined.
There are particular issues with support for contact between adoptees and members of their birth family, and with transition to adulthood. Some 4,000 children per annum are adopted—of those, 80% have suffered abuse, neglect or violence, and 11% come from dysfunctional families. Many spend up to 15 months in care with several foster families before being adopted. Adopted children are more than twice as likely as other children to have special educational needs.
The virtual school has different remits for different cohorts. Adoption UK evidence shows that where virtual schools go above their statutory duty, which is limited to previously looked-after children, there are positive results. The Bill potentially produces an inequality in the wording around the remit of virtual schools for different cohorts of looked-after children.
One in 10 adopters home-educated their children in 2023. In the majority of cases, that is because the school system is not set up to support their child’s needs. Adopted children have lower attainment, higher rates of SEND and higher evidence of autism and ADHD. The Bill presents the opportunity to consider the barriers that lead parents to home-educate in the first place, and to review the support that local authorities offer to adopters.
Parents of adopted children are not the only group who feel that state education is inadequate for their children. The Bill demonstrates a shift of power from families to the state. As my noble friend Lady Fraser said at Second Reading:
“The powers in Clause 30 … override the rights of parents and families to decide what is best for their children”.—[Official Report, 1/5/25; col. 1408.]
On improving safety and standards in the education system, which is included in my noble friend Lady Barran’s proposed new purpose clause, I welcome the efforts of my noble friends to ban the use of smartphones in schools. Policy Exchange has done incredible research on the impact that smartphones have on children in school. It is striking that where smartphone bans exist, students in those schools are achieving GCSE results one to two grades higher than those in schools with a more laissez-faire policy. I hope the Government will accept the amendments tabled by my noble friends that seek to implement a universal ban on smartphones in schools.
My noble friend’s proposed new purpose clause is key to defining the objectives of the Bill. It is the duty of us all to bring about positive changes to the Bill if there is to be any possibility of improving the well-being of children.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly and will save most of what I want to say for the specific amendments. I listened to the entire Second Reading debate below the Bar, but at that point I was not able to speak in this House.
I support my noble friend Lady Barran, who has rightly drawn attention to the need to have express purposes linking through to the improvement of provision for children. I support all four proposed new paragraphs and I share some of the concerns that have been expressed, especially by my noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, for example, about conceiving this from the starting point of children and thinking about their experience in the round.
When I read the Bill I was struck that the Long Title does not mention the word “well-being”, despite the title, and I could find no thread through to explain what it meant. For me, it is the likely outcome of loving a child, caring for them, looking after their health, educating them and making sure they have peers, good relations with the adults around them and the opportunities to discover where their strengths lie. Many such things contribute ultimately to well-being.
We need this test around improvement because there are—I will not go into this now—a number of clauses where it seems to me that there is clear, direct and sometimes quite recent experience to make us believe that it is more likely that the clauses will do harm than good. I want to make sure that in debating the amendments there is enough space for us properly to consider the true likely impact and that that will be recognised and taken into account by the Minister.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly in support of the proposed new purpose clause from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. This is an enormous Bill on children’s well-being and schools. It could be two enormous Bills. What we have seen in this House with many other Bills is that, when we have an enormous Bill, all sorts of people and organisations want to hang things on it like Christmas tree baubles and it becomes unworkable, so I welcome this proposed new purpose clause to give us some sort of sustainable and impactful legislation, hopefully, at the end.
Nobody has mentioned children with special educational needs, which, as the noble Baroness knows, is my special interest in this. I support the proposed new purpose clause because it brings us back to the interests of all children, including those with profound needs and disabilities, who are very difficult to accommodate in the usual school system. We are not alone in that. I can point to studies from Sweden, Denmark and all across the world about the difficulty of grappling with this challenge.
Profound disability remains strongly associated with poor educational outcomes. We know from experience—although sadly not from data, because we do not collect it—that these children achieve lower overall grades than children without profound disabilities. This cannot be put down just to people having a learning disability. For example, only one in two children with CP has a learning disability. I know that there are children with high-functioning cognitive abilities who have been accommodated in mainstream schools throughout their entire lives, but when it comes to choosing GCSE subjects they are offered only a very restricted choice. Why is that deemed acceptable?
Studies have shown that parents of children with profound disabilities lack confidence in their local authority’s ability to make suitable arrangements for their children. The two sides look at it from very different perspectives. Parents view the system as being obstructive, inconsistent and unaccountable. Provision often tends to reflect what local authorities are able to provide. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, mentioned, it is vital that health and education professionals come together in this space and form expertise around what the child concerned requires to have the best possible life chances. As families wait for EHCPs to be agreed and as children develop and needs change, this is a fluctuating and ever-changing system.
If the Bill can do one thing to remove those barriers, which often are not understood by educational providers, it will improve the safety and well-being of children. But we need to remember, which is why I support this proposed new purpose clause, that the Bill covers all children with all abilities, whether or not they are in school and whether or not local authorities can provide the services they need.
Lord Storey (LD)
Nobody has spoken from these Benches because we did not expect to be talking in generalities. We welcome this very important Bill. As I listened to some important contributions, I found that those people who spoke about a particular issue, were short in their comments and stuck to the point made an incredibly valuable contribution. The more I listened, the more I thought that maybe there is a case for having a purpose clause where you set out where you are going. This is a large Bill, and the amendment paper is bigger than the Bill itself. That does not happen often.
The last Bill was the famous Schools Bill from the previous Conservative Government. Had they had a purpose clause in that Schools Bill, maybe it would not have been abandoned in the way it was. Maybe they would have thought that they were going to be hijacked by the academy lobby, with the few minor changes that were suggested in that Bill, and the purpose would have been thought through. Had it not been abandoned, we would have already sorted and carried through many of the issues that we have grappled with over the past couple of years, such as unregistered schools, hundreds of thousands of children missing, home education et cetera.
I was particularly taken by the comments about music from the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet. I remind her that we have to thank a Conservative Government and Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who introduced the national curriculum, because before the national curriculum, schools could do whatever they liked. The only subject they had to teach was religious education. By having a national curriculum, we said nationally that we wanted our children to learn these subjects. My view now is that we should have a national curriculum, but that the national curriculum must leave space to do other things as well, and I think that is a common view. Going back to the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, in which she talked about music, it is about not only the national curriculum but the dreaded EBacc, which has seen the number of people studying music in schools plummet as a result of its attack on creative education.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, on her speech. It was spot on, and it made me think quite clearly. I think that Part 1 is going to make a huge difference to children and families. Some of the amendments to Part 1, whether on kinship carers or whatever, will be life-changing if they are agreed.
On Part 2, we are clearly going to be divided. I have nothing particularly against academies. I am involved with an academy. I think we want to take the best of what academies do and make it available for all schools, perhaps in a reformed way, but I also want to do away with the excesses that academies seek. Academies should not be deciding—I am doing what I should not be doing. I am doing a general debate. Stop it. I want to look at particular issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, started quite rightly. Governments of all political persuasions, when there is a problem that they do not know how to solve, often get an expert. They drag an expert in and say, “We want you to look at this problem”. Nine times out of 10, they do not follow through on the recommendations, or they just take part of the recommendations. With safeguarding, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is absolutely right that Eileen Munro, an expert in her field, put forward some important recommendations, and they were quite rightly being piloted. We should learn from that piloting whether that is the way we should go. The Government must show what the evaluations of those pilots have shown. That is not a shameful thing. It is a sensible thing to do. If the evaluations show that, yes, this is great, let us do it. If they show that there are problems, perhaps we need to modify what we are doing. I hope the Government will think along those lines.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, that I remember being very proud of serving on the Children and Families Act 2014 Committee. I think everyone on that committee felt that we had done a good job. It was one of those Bills that you actually enjoyed being involved with. At the end, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, organised a sort of celebration where we all got certificates and awards for various contributions we had made to the Bill.
However, on reflection, I wish we had piloted some of the key recommendations. Education, health and care plans are, quite frankly, in an appalling mess. Maybe we should have piloted those proposals to see whether they worked and got an evaluation. We would have then known the correct way to go. We should never have got rid of school action and school action plus. We should have kept general special needs in schools. That has gone, at the expense of education, health and care plans.
I end by assuring the Government that we will be constructive in everything we do, and we will support amendments, wherever they come across the Chamber, if we think they will actually enhance opportunities for families and young people.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords, not only those who have contributed today but those who have already contributed to the discussions on this important Bill at Second Reading. In fact, people enjoyed Second Reading so much that they decided they would have another go today.
The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, accused me of wanting to dismiss any amendments. That is wholly wrong; I want to get on to discuss the detail of those amendments in this Committee, as is the function of this stage. On this occasion, I fear that Amendment 1 not only is unnecessary but has been tabled to delay our detailed consideration of the significant legislation before us.
First, from a legal perspective, the proposed new clause would not have meaningful, practical effect. Secondly, on the point that many noble Lords have referred to about being clear about the purpose, intent and the outcome of this Bill, Ministers in the other place and at the Bill’s Second Reading in this place have been clear about the purpose of this critical legislation. I will use this as an opportunity to remind the Committee of what the Bill will achieve. This is a landmark Bill that will reform both children’s social care and education to ensure that, for all our children, background does not mean destiny and that at every stage of life, young people are supported to achieve and thrive.
As is already outlined in the Bill’s policy summary notes, the Bill has seven key ambitions. Its Explanatory Notes set out what each measure in the Bill aims to achieve and how it will do so. There will rightly be ample time in Committee to discuss these in the detail they deserve, and to listen to concerns and issues that have been raised by noble Lords and others. I hope to provide assurance on those or, where necessary, change them.
An ambition running through the whole Bill is to make up for lost time—14 years in fact—when action could have been taken to strengthen child safeguarding, to ensure that no young person slips out of sight of the agencies designed to advance their education and opportunities, and to set a minimum, a floor but no ceiling, on the standards we expect in every school across our country to enable every child to achieve and thrive.
In Part 1, the Government aim to keep families together and children safe, to support children with care experience to achieve and thrive, and to fix and support the care placement market. Importantly, the Bill will help more families to thrive together, while keeping children safe from harm and supporting them to succeed. Through the introduction of a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting—which I hope we will come on to discuss shortly—we are prioritising helping families and tackling problems before they become crises. This model builds on what we know works well.
Keeping children safe is a key purpose of the Bill. That is why, after years of inaction under the previous Government, we are legislating to stop children falling through the cracks and to ensure they are not out of sight of those who can keep them safe. As we will come on to discuss today and later in Committee, this is why we are legislating to introduce a single unique identifier, registers of children not in school, and new duties around information sharing. The Bill will also allow for more effective intervention when children are at the greatest risk of harm.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this amendment. It feels curious that the Minister started her remarks by questioning my integrity in tabling the amendment, suggesting that it is a delaying tactic. I think I raised extremely serious concerns that are being put forward. She does not need to believe me, but I respectfully suggest that she should listen to those with the greatest expertise in this area. I said, and I commit to this again, that I will approach this Bill in absolute good faith and, particularly regarding Part 1, there should be nothing political in it. I hope we can build a bridge to make positive change in the Bill.
I would also just like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that we did not in any sense intend to overturn any of the powers held by the Senedd. I am sure, if the purpose clause had intended to remove the devolution of education powers in Wales, that would have deserved at least one bullet point in the amendment.
This debate was also a reminder of the expertise in this House. I would like to mention a few of the points that were made and invite the Government to think about drafting their own purpose clause if they do not like my drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, made a very important point about the need to focus on outcomes. If we do not know where we are going, we definitely will not get there. I know the Minister set out the aims, but very valid concerns were raised.
My noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham, echoed my concerns about the capacity to implement these changes at a time of significant other restructuring across local authorities—health and others. There were practical solutions with a real call for focus from the noble Lady, Baroness Cass, and she spoke of the important inclusion of public health in children’s well-being. There were also calls on where not to focus, including from my noble friend Lord Agnew. My noble friend Lord Lucas and others made the point about the helpfulness of some sort of public-facing language at the beginning of the Bill.
I say again that there are experts on both parts of the Bill who are flagging serious concerns. I do not question for one second the Government’s good intentions in this Bill; I question the ability to achieve that without some reflection. I was interested to learn that the evaluation of the pathfinders is due to be published in spring 2025. I guess we are on special government time, as we are in May.
As I close my remarks, I hope that the Government will adopt the constructive tone they have suggested they will as we get into individual amendments, and perhaps they will look again at Hansard to see some of the very valid points that would help us all achieve the goals of this Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Baroness Barran
“(1) When a local authority starts formal child protection proceedings in relation to a child, the authority must offer a family group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the offer of a family group decision making meeting when formal child protection proceedings are initiated and / or when the child protection plan is failing to protect the child instead of before the local authority makes an application for a care and supervision order as the trigger for offering the meeting.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 2, 15, and 16, which concern the mandatory implementation of family group decision-making processes. While I broadly support the intention behind these provisions, there are several important issues which need to be considered carefully if we are to achieve the best outcomes for vulnerable children.
First, I will place this proposal in context. As the Minister knows, most local authorities already implement some form of family group conferencing—in old language—or “decision-making” processes in the Bill. That is set out in the statutory guidance to the Children Act 1989, which says that, where there are court orders and in pre-proceedings, children’s services should consider making a referral for a family group conference
“if they believe there is a possibility the child may not be able to remain with their parents … unless this would be a risk to the child”.
I want to understand why the Government think this needs to be mandatory, perhaps rather than other approaches. Is there a specific problem that the Government want to solve by doing that?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I should advise your Lordships that, if Amendment 2 is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendment 3 for reasons of pre-emption.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. As we have just heard, it has a simple purpose: to allow families access to a family group decision-making meeting at the earliest possible opportunity in the child protection process. As I am sure noble Lords have seen, the Family Rights Group briefing, for instance, noted that, when a local authority issues parents with a pre-proceedings letter, concerns around a child’s welfare will already be serious and could mean that an intervention at this stage through a family group decision-making meeting is, unfortunately, already too late. The British Association of Social Workers and Coram have expressed similar worries that waiting could mean that opportunities to bring families together are lost, with difficulties having escalated too far to be addressed.
I believe that research on the ground shows that family group conferences can be effective whenever the time is right for the family—in most cases, that may well be the sooner the better. Indeed, some local authorities are already successfully offering family group conferences earlier on in the child protection process. As my noble friend outlined in her opening remarks, having a family group decision meeting earlier on would allow the wider family to more fully understand the local authority’s initial concerns, and it could— I am not saying it would—allow them to demonstrate that they were able to protect the child concerned.
I hope the Minister will look favourably on this proposal, which aims simply to ensure that families have the best possible chance of staying together if— I stress “if”—issues around a child’s welfare can be properly addressed at the earliest opportunity, or at the very least to ensure that the measures put into the Bill do not force this option to be totally closed off.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I was a family judge for about 35 years, and I tried mostly care cases. I very much support this amendment and will make three points. First, I entirely agree with the previous speakers: hold the meeting as soon as possible, because it is unlikely that the decision to make a make an application for a care order or an interim care order comes at a very early stage. One hopes that the social workers would have been working with the family before this becomes inevitable. Consequently, the sooner the discussions can be had—and the other members of the family identified where possible—the better it will be, and it may not be necessary to have the care application before the magistrates’ court in any case.
Secondly, not only is it important to have the meeting early but there must be a degree of ability for the local authority to deal with members of the family—because, not in every case but in some cases, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has said, there will be very unhappy divorce proceedings pending, whereby the parties will use the children as the arena for their attacks on each other. That is the typical sort of unhappy divorce case—fortunately not frequent, but one that occurs in care proceedings. Consequently, you may find that one or both of the parents should not at some stage be at the meeting. It is crucial that local authorities are warned, if they do not know already, and given at least, under statutory guidance, some help on how to deal with that issue—not in this Bill, of course, but in statutory guidance.
The third absolutely crucial point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, made is not to let a particular parent or someone with parental responsibility have the opportunity to use the meeting to delay the proceedings that are necessary. Again, it is absolutely crucial that, if a member of the family is trying to delay the proceedings, the local authority can go ahead without having the meeting. That is the one point that worries me about saying that they must have the meeting, although I think that probably, under the later part of Clause 1, it is possible not to have it. Again, in the statutory guidance it is crucial that local authorities are warned that the family meeting must not take place if, in fact, the delays are there for that particular reason.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I, too, have laboured long in the family courts. I think that we are all basically aiming in the same direction, but the detail is important. Family group conferences or meetings, as described in this Bill and in the amendments, are a valuable process, often best used as the pre-proceeding stage rather than after a formal application has been issued. I cannot help wondering whether there is not some lack of clarity in the drafting, at least of the amendment. The Bill as I read it is clear enough; it says that the local authority must include the offer of such a meeting in a letter before proceedings. That is entirely desirable in my view, whereas the amendment says:
“When a local authority starts formal child protection proceedings”,
which to my mind reads as if it means “Once it has actually issued the formal application”. In some cases, that may be too late. I think that there is a mistake, possibly unintended, in the drafting of the amendment.
The general thrust of what the noble Baroness said—that the meetings should be initiated as soon as possible—is clearly right. These meetings are valuable for three main reasons. First, they enable family members to be informed of what has happened and why the local authority has intervened, as well as to learn what is planned or may be planned for the child or children concerned. Quite often one finds in practice that the parents have not told the wider family what is happening, sometimes out of shame or pride, so that the first the wider family learns of the proceedings comes from the social worker—and that can come as a surprise or, indeed, a shock. Even if the family knows what is happening, a formal meeting enables it to get an accurate first-hand account that is not filtered by the parents.
Secondly, conferences enable the social worker and guardian, if one has by then been appointed, to form an initial assessment of the strengths, weaknesses and attitudes of the wider family and the possible realistic options for the support of the parents and any alternative arrangements for the children, either in the short term or in the long term. In the long term, if in reality adoption is going to be the outcome, the court will ultimately have to consider the relatives’ ability to provide a secure environment under the statute that governs adoption decisions.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I speak in support of this amendment and wish the Government to explore whether it is possible at an earlier stage for these meetings to be considered.
My noble friend referred to the delay, with parents saying that there was going to be a meeting and not turning up to it. As I read the amendment, it includes
“parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child”,
who must be offered the meeting. There may be circumstances in which the court has previously made a special guardianship order that leaves the parents with only aspects of parental responsibility, which are to be told of a name change or to be told that the child will be leaving the jurisdiction. That is a very limited amount of parental responsibility. If for whatever reason—often due to illness of the special guardian—the risks rematerialise and you are back into care proceedings, is it envisaged that such parents, who may not have heard anything for a number of years because the child has not left the jurisdiction and not had their name changed, will be included in the mandatory duty to be offered to be part of this decision-making process? If that is the case, if the logic is correct, you are stacking the cards for the situation that my noble friend has mentioned where parents are suddenly back involved and then delay the meeting. How would this provision sit with an existing special guardianship order that has that effect on parental responsibility?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Good. I mean that it is good that we are now into the detail of what it is that we are here to consider. I am very pleased at the support and welcome for the process of family group decision-making, which I know is behind all the amendments and contributions that have been made today.
This measure places a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents, or any other person with parental responsibility for the child, before an application for a care or supervision order is made. This Government want to help more families to stay together by mandating the offer of a family group decision-making meeting for every family at the point before it is necessary to initiate care proceedings for a child. I very much appreciate the intentions of the amendments that have been tabled, which tally with the Government’s aim to maximise the impact of family group decision-making. But I hope, therefore, that I can reassure noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary to achieve that.
I know that the amendments seek to balance the provision of family group decision-making with the need to avoid delay to child arrangements proceedings or permanent arrangements. I think we have been supported in this consideration today by the considerable expertise of noble, and noble and learned, Lords, but we believe that this balance is already provided by the existing statutory frameworks and guidance.
I agree very much with the noble Baroness that all family networks should have the chance to benefit from the transformative family group decision-making process at multiple points in their journeys with children’s services. I think the argument being used is that if this is as effective as it is, should families not have the opportunity to benefit at different stages? The Government wholeheartedly agree with that. Indeed, in relation to Amendment 2, the Working Together statutory safeguarding guidance makes this clear and sets out the activities that a local authority and its partners should undertake where there are child protection concerns under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. This includes the use of family group decision-making as part of child protection planning.
I understand the points made by noble Lords that using this as early as possible in the child’s journey and repeating it as necessary is important: that is in fact what local authorities are encouraged to do. Again, on the point about the evidence, the £45 million Families First for Children pathfinder and the Family Network pilot aim to make greater use of family networks, involving them in decision-making at an earlier stage and providing practical and financial support via family network support packages to help keep children safe at home. There is, as noble Lords have mentioned, robust evidence from research which shows that children can be diverted from care when family group decision-making is offered at the pre-proceedings stage.
I come to the reason that the legislation focuses the duty at the point it does. The new duty for family group decision-making to be made at the pre-proceedings stage ensures that every parent is given the offer at this critical stage before care proceedings are initiated. This voluntary process enables a family network to come together and make a family-led plan in response to concerns around a child’s safety and well-being. We are confident that the new duty, alongside the existing framework for child protection, is sufficient to support children to stay at home safely where this is possible.
The noble and learned Lord identified that there is a very clear message set by making the statutory duty in this legislation that there is an expectation at the point of the use of a family group decision-making process, but that is in order to emphasise at the point at which we believe, from the evidence, that it will certainly be able to prevent more children going through the process of being taken into care. That is not to say that it is not beneficial at other stages. I hope and believe that, both through the statutory guidance and through guidance that already exists, we be able to make that very clear to local authorities. There is robust evidence from research which shows that children can be diverted from care when family group decision-making is offered at the pre-proceedings stage.
Amendment 15 seeks to ensure that, in providing for family group decision-making, there is a child-centric approach that accounts for the best interests of children under two. I wholly understand the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the need to ensure the best interests of the child, particularly at such a young age. Of course, local authorities already have a duty to act in the best interests of the child, and that includes consideration of their age. Equally, if it is not in the child’s best interest for family group decision-making to take place, the offer should not be made to the family. This is an important point. We need to be clear that the offer is in the child’s best interests for it to be effective. Local authorities may also withdraw the offer of a meeting if it is no longer in the best interests of the child for the meeting to take place. I hope that that partially responds to the points made about delay and about others not being able to use the meeting process as a way of delaying or bringing other pressures to bear on the family environment.
On Amendment 16, the Government are committed to reducing unnecessary delay in the family courts and securing timely outcomes for children. However, as I have already identified, Clause 1 relates to a specific point before court proceedings are initiated, where robust evidence shows that strengthening the offer of family group decision-making will reduce family court applications and prevent children entering the care system. On some of the particular questions about delays, I can assure noble Lords, as was suggested, that these points about delay will be covered in statutory guidance. I think I have already made it clear that a local authority will be able to withdraw the offer of the meeting or the process if it believes that it is being used for delay, which would clearly not be in the best interests of the child. On the point about whether it will delay interim and emergency orders, I am pretty confident that it will not, but I am prepared, because it is an important point, to come back to noble Lords in writing.
We are therefore confident that no provisions in Clause 1 would result in an extension to the 26-week limit for care proceedings, which starts, of course, when an application for a care order is made—in other words, after the point at which the family group decision-making process is used. I hope that I have managed to reassure noble Lords about what would happen if other things were to cause delay in the proceedings and reassure them that we believe in, and have evidence for, the efficacy of this process. That is why, although this is a statutory duty at one point in the process, we are very clear and will continue to encourage and develop, through the Families First programme, the use of family group decision-making at all stages of the process, because of its effectiveness. I hope that has reassured all noble Lords and that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I would be grateful if she would outline the response—maybe she needs to write to me—on the specific situation that I raised in relation to special guardianship orders. I recognise that there is a best-interest test, but, as the main clause of the Bill reads at the moment, parents with that limited parental responsibility are covered by the duty and it would be good to have some clarification.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I cannot answer that today, but I certainly undertake to write to noble Lords on that important point and that juxtaposition in relationship.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. It is a privilege to have the experience of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others around the House on this. In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on our drafting, I feel I need to make a general plea for noble Lords to listen to the intent of what we are trying to do rather than focus on the specific wording. We were not intending to change the spirit of the Bill on pre- proceedings.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to extend the right to Family Group Conferencing to children aged 16 and 17 so they are able to agree their own care plan.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in my name, which is cosigned by my noble friend Lord Effingham. The Bill states that
“the authority must offer a family group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child”.
In moving this amendment, I seek to extend the right to family group conferences to children, young people and young adults so that, most importantly, they can contribute to and ultimately agree their own care plan. The purpose is as simple as that. Why should they not be able to do this?
I thank all the organisations that work tirelessly to support families, children and young people every day, including for their briefings on this important subject. I am only sorry that I cannot refer to them all. Research commissioned by County Councils stated that there would be nearly 100,000 children in care, representing a 36% rise in a decade. By including 16 and 17 year-olds in the family group conferencing, we may be able to reduce the number going into care —where it is safe to do so—and staying, with the support of their family or those with parental responsibility, reducing the trauma they may face and ensuring that their futures are not impaired. That is a laudable aim that I hope all noble Lords will support.
I am grateful to the Family Rights Group for its briefing on the Bill, in particular on this issue. It said:
“The Bill gives the local authority the discretion to decide if the child is invited to be involved in the FGDM process or not. This is unsatisfactory and does not make for a child-centred process. This approach differs to elsewhere in the child welfare system, for example looked-after children reviews, where there is a presumption in favour of the child taking part. The Bill should ensure children are invited to take part in their family-group decision-making meeting, if safe and consistent with their welfare to do so”.
The British Association of Social Workers welcomes and supports the proposal to extend family group conferencing to include the voices of 16 and 17 year-olds. It says:
“This approach is rooted in social work values of participation, empowerment, and ensuring that young people are not passive subjects of decisions, but active partners in shaping their own futures. It also aligns with our support for the Keep Caring until 18 campaign, recognising that young people need to be heard, supported and cared for consistently as they transition into adulthood”.
I could not have put it better myself.
I received this from Action for Children:
“The Children’s Charities Coalition believe that real, positive changes to the lives of young people cannot be achieved without listening to their wishes and feelings when making decisions that affect them … We urge Parliamentarians to ensure the Bill strengthens requirements on local authorities to ascertain the wishes and feelings of children and give their views due weight in decisions that affect them”.
This amendment seeks to strengthen this request by extending the right to family group conferencing to children aged 16 and 17, so that they can agree their own care plan. I cannot help but reflect on my noble friend Lord Balfe’s contribution and how he wished that somebody had listened to him. For 32 years, I have been involved with young people. They are an admirable bunch. They have different characteristics and get into different kinds of trouble, but they succeed on many occasions.
Let me tell the Committee about one young lad. All he wanted to do was work in a television shop. He wanted to repair them, and we found him a job. He was excellent at the work and the employer loved him, but one day the employer called me and said: “You’ve got to get him out. You’ve got to come and withdraw him”. I went along ready to do the deed. I said to the employer, “What’s wrong with him?”, and he said, “His personal hygiene is disastrous”. I sat the lad down with the employer and asked him, “How’s things at home? How’s it all going? What challenges have you got?” He said, “My mum’s died and my dad does the washing by chucking it in the bath. I don’t even think the hot tap comes on”. While the employer heard that, it obviously touched his heart, and the long and the short of it was that the boy moved in with him and his wife, had his washing done and had a terrific career.
This is all we want for young people. My amendment simply says that we must listen and take their views into account. I beg to move.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I have five amendments in this group, all of which come from my knowledge and understanding of evidence-based work. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Foundations What Works Centre for Children and Families.
I have been involved in this even longer than the noble Baroness opposite. My first job in this country was in 1970 in Newcastle, at what was then the first of the children’s departments after the Seebohm report. I had just qualified as a social worker specialising in family casework. You do not get anything like that these days.
I was keenly aware that this country, in its legislation on children, responds to tragedies, and I have seen this all my working life. We do not start by asking what we need to give children the very best. We start from: “This child died in dire circumstances and we must make sure that it never happens again”. Of course, we have to do that, but we need legislation that starts by asking: what are the best ways to support families to enable their children to have the very best in life? We get things the wrong way round, so I am pleased that the Government are trying to start by asking what we mean by the well-being and best interests of children, and how we can start there, rather than just asking how we protect children. Protection is very important, but if we think about well-being first, many of them will not need a level of protection.
My amendments all come from the work that Foundations has done on family group conferencing. I am delighted that the Government talk about family group decision-making in the Bill, but I want them to be brave and go to the next stage: the family group conference, which is now a well-established and researched evidence-based model. In 2023, Foundations completed a randomised control trial of family group conferences—the first in the UK and the largest in the world—which involved over 2,500 children and their families across 21 local authorities in England. The evaluation found that the children whose families were referred for an FGC at pre-proceeding stage were less likely to go into care. It also found that 12 months after the pre-proceedings letter was issued, 36% of children whose families were referred were taken into care, compared with nearly half, or 45%, of children who were not. Children who had been part of this process were less likely to go to court for the decisions about their care: only three in five—59% of children—who were referred to FGCs had care proceedings issued, compared with 72% of children who were not referred. They also spent less time in care: six months after the pre-proceeding letter, children whose families had been referred to FGCs spent an average of 87 days in care, compared with 115 days for those who had not been through the process.
Foundations estimated that 2,293 fewer children would go into care within a 12-month period if FGCs were rolled out nationally. This in turn could save taxpayers over £150 million within two years, from a reduction in both court proceedings and the number of children entering the care system. From my perspective, when I was dealing with this in government and was responsible for social exclusion, it was so clear that when you used evidence-based programmes, although you did stop a bit of, “Let every flower bloom”, which we love in this country, you got much better outcomes for children; for example, by introducing parenting classes in Sure Start—I could say a lot more about that now, but I am not going to. We need to look at evidence-based programmes and use them. We do not have time to let these kids suffer while we think, “Oh, that might be a good idea. Why don’t we try that instead?” Until we have based something on evidence, we should be giving them the strength of what we know works.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as one of the many qualified teachers in your Lordships’ House, I will speak to Amendment 14 in the names of my noble friend Lady Tyler—who cannot be with us today—me and others. Before I do so, I warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, to this Committee. I know that as the Children’s Commissioner she was so very committed to all these issues, and I know she is supporting the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, today.
I was involved with the legislation that set up the UK Children’s Commissioner in the first place and was involved in making sure that the commissioner “must” have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, not “may”, as was in the original version. That is relevant to what I will say about Amendment 14.
The intention of Amendment 14 is very simple: to ensure that those making decisions affecting children and young people seek and take into account their wishes and feelings, if they wish to give them, and to support them to do so. I welcome the Government’s ambition to be a child-centred Government and support the important steps taken in the Bill to strengthen the systems intended to keep children safe, yet there is more that the Bill could do to be truly child-centred. Specifically, it currently fails to embed meaningful consideration of the child’s wishes and feelings. I would like to strengthen it, hence this amendment.
As noble Lords will be aware, more than 30 years ago, in 1991, the UK ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In doing so, we recognised that children have a distinct set of rights that uniquely value all that it means to be a child. Article 12 of that convention sets out the right of every child to express their views freely and to have those views given due weight in all matters affecting them, including the family conferences we are talking about. They must be afforded that chance to express their views, wishes and feelings. The word “should” in Amendment 13 is not quite good enough in that respect.
In short, it recognises that children are experts in their own lives. I believe that children under 16 are perfectly capable of this, so I do not support the bit of Amendment 12 that limits this to over-16s. As long as they have appropriate support and understanding, many young children can be very articulate about what they think.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the systems designed to protect and support children and those who work with them are founded on the basis that we can hope to truly understand what is in a child’s best interests only by hearing and giving heed to their experiences and unique perspectives—the voice of the child, as we often call it.
As we know, in cases of abuse and neglect, giving children the opportunity to express their views is a critical factor in building trust and keeping children safe. Children themselves tell us that they are not routinely heard when decisions are made that affect them. Indeed, research undertaken with children and young people for the Children’s Charities Coalition’s 2024 Children at the Table campaign found that 62% of UK children think that politicians do not understand the issues that affect them, and almost three-quarters feel that children are not listened to by politicians. Let us listen and hear them today.
That is why I consider Amendment 14 to be so important. It would ensure that local authorities, in offering family group decision-making, are required to ascertain children’s wishes and feelings and give them due weight when making decisions related to that decision-making. It would also provide for a clear entitlement for the child to be supported to participate in the family group decision-making meeting. Where this is not in the child’s best interests, it would provide for the local authority to ensure that the child’s wishes and feelings are appropriately represented, for example by an independent advocate. Some effort will have to be made by somebody who really understands these things to ascertain those wishes.
The Bill currently requires local authorities to seek the child’s views. I welcome the Government’s recognition of the importance of listening to children in the context of family group decision-making, including by the Minister in response to a similar amendment in the other place. But this duty falls short of the gold standard of the Children Act to seek and—importantly—give due weight to the wishes and feelings of the child in different contexts, including children in need assessments, child protection and any decisions relating to a child in care, or possibly going into care. We know from serious case reviews and inquiries that where children are not listened to, it can have devasting consequences.
Wishes and feelings are broader than views. Amending the Bill in this way would mean that those children who choose not to express their views—perhaps they are younger or shyer, are non-verbal or lack capacity—will still have their feelings taken into account when decisions are being made about their safety and where they might live. Passing Amendment 14 would do all that.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 18 in my name and to Amendments 7 and 14, which have just been ably spoken to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong and Lady Walmsley. Amendment 7 is also supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Longfield and Lady Drake, and Amendment 14 by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Tyler of Enfield, who is not in her place.
This group is primarily about family group decision-making, so I will speak to Amendments 7 and 14 first. The Government have avoided referring to family group conferencing per se, presumably because they want to allow for evolution of good practice of the family group decision-making model. But as I said at Second Reading, the evidence base on which they are relying for this legislation assumes faithful implementation of what we know makes a difference.
One key aspect of family group decision-making is that it is not a one-off meeting. If it were, this could become a token effort to bring together all those with family or other close relationships to the child. Currently, however, the Bill makes provision only for the offer of a family group decision-making meeting.
Rather, family group decision-making involves a process with careful preparation that typically goes way beyond a single meeting, as Amendment 7 would require. When the child is supported to be involved in an initial meeting, as Amendment 14 specifies, they might flag that key people are missing, or their input might throw up previously unforeseen issues that need attending to before important decisions are made concerning their future.
Support is required because many children will be daunted by being involved in a family group decision-making meeting. They might even say that they do not want to be there but regret not being involved later on. When there have been long-standing difficulties in a family, they might be concerned about revealing secrets, getting into trouble or making things worse.
Safety planning—a key aspect of any process involved in rehoming a child—can also be delicate and difficult and should certainly not be rushed. The pressures on local authorities are unlikely to ease anytime soon, and the legislation should not be written in such a way that short cuts are taken and the family’s involvement is marginalised to speed things up. That cuts across the spirit of the whole approach, which is the coming together —and, we hope, the strengthening and developing— of a relational network for the good of the child at the centre.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Armstrong. I appreciate having this opportunity to discuss in more detail family group decision-making. I welcome the measures in the Bill that seek to offer families the chance to build solutions together that can secure their children’s welfare and give them agency.
I am pleased that we are seeing support across the House for family group decision-making; that is a very positive start. My interest in supporting these amendments is about ensuring that the process is strong enough to drive and deliver the outcomes that we all want to see, so that children have better outcomes and more can safely stay with families. We have heard about that at length because of the evidence surrounding it.
I declare an interest as the executive chair of the Centre for Young Lives; I also share an office building with foundations of which my noble friend Lady Armstrong is a trustee. My experience with this, and my relationship with those organisations, goes back decades. Over that time, I have been convinced of the benefits of family group conferencing, having spoken to and worked with professionals, families and children who have gone through that process. When I first found out about it, I did not approach it as a professional who knew about that area of practice. Instead, I spoke to family members who found themselves in a situation that was spiralling out of control; they did not feel that they had any agency to provide support for family members. They had come across family group conferencing as something that their local authority had already been testing, and through it they found themselves at the centre of shaping an outcome that was much more favourable to them and their siblings.
With the amendments, we are looking at moving from a decision-making meeting that might fall foul of box-ticking tendencies, to a process that has strength and an understanding of the need for experienced leadership, trained co-ordinators and a wider network beyond the family. Some people might think that that is strange, but we all define our support networks very differently, and our wider networks can have a very strong impact on our life. As has been said, these amendments have a child-centric approach that has, as a default, the need to include children in the process.
My experience with families that have been through this, and indeed with others in the family, is that it has been transformational at a time when families often find themselves without any agency in a process that they feel is going only one way. If you have this as part of the recognised local authority system, it can be understood by families and by professionals. It is not just a whim of the director of children’s services at the time; it can be baked into the wider process of family support. It is of course so important to link this very closely with early intervention.
There are two things I wanted to say in addition. First, this will really strengthen that protection for children. This speaks to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, talked about: most families whose children end up in care are actually in a position of adversity. The Leeds Relational Practice Centre estimates that 90% of children are in care because of family adversity. This speaks to supporting those families, and it is right to do so. Secondly, it is not a soft option. This is challenging work for everyone involved, and the bars are high.
Finally, I too have been speaking to directors of children’s services. Most are very enthusiastic about family group conferencing and completely enthusiastic about the ambitions and intent of the Bill. I have a list of those directors of children’s services, and of the 82% of local authorities who now have family group conferencing as part of what they do. Sometimes, that is done in a small way that can be built upon, but there is a long list of authorities with a huge track record of making this work and the evidence to show that it brings better outcomes for children and families.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 14, already very ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. I want to widen the political breadth of support for the family group decision-making process by strongly offering the Green Party’s support.
Amendment 14 differs from the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which refers just to 16 and 17 year-olds. It is more expansive than the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, in that it stresses the need to make every effort to ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings and give due consideration to them.
However, it is worth noting that all the amendments in this group and the associated amendments reflect, as others have said, briefings from the Children’s Charities Coalition and the Family Rights Group, which are saying, as other noble Lords have said, that the Government are going in the right direction but the Bill needs to be strengthened and made clearer, which is what this amendment and others seek to do.
In backing this amendment, I am reflecting statements I have been making in your Lordships’ House and amendments I have been tabling and signing, going back a considerable distance to the Health and Social Care Act and the Mental Health Bill. They are about listening to children and ensuring they have agency.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to the survey showing that almost three-quarters of children—some 73%—feel that they are not listened to by politicians. We know there is a mental health crisis, particularly among our young people. Psychologists tell us that, as is clear to us from a common-sense perspective, not having a sense of agency or feeling as if you have control or are being listened to is damaging to your mental health.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s report from 2023 raised concerns about the significant barriers to the meaningful engagement of children in decision-making in the UK, particularly the seldom heard and marginalised group of children we are speaking about here, who are likely to be involved in family group decision-making processes. We have to ensure that people are listened to and feel that they have agency. This amendment takes us in the right direction in a constructive way, and I hope we will hear from the Minister that we will at least be taking steps in this direction.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and to have the former Children’s Commissioner in this House. This is a good Bill but, like all Bills, it could be better. I support Amendments 3, 13, 14 and 18.
In 1988, I wrote a report, having been chairman of the Cleveland child abuse inquiry. In my report, I said that children should be listened to. I also said that children were people and not objects of concern. I remember talking as recently as last year to a young person whom nobody had told what was happening to him. He had no idea until he was moved. This is very serious. It is not just that nobody took any notice of what I said; the fact is, everybody else has been saying it. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to the voice of the child. The voice of the child is crucial at all stages of what happens to children.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief indeed. I just remind noble Lords that in considering the first amendment, which went on rather a long time, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is not in her place, talked about children’s rights being the “golden spine running through” the Bill, but that is not explicit in the Bill. Amendment 14, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is a very good example of how we could be promoting children’s rights much more explicitly in the Bill.
I very much support the amendments. I will be introducing amendments myself at the very end—if anyone is still standing at that point. I had hoped to do it at the beginning. The more we can come back to this thread of children’s rights throughout the Bill, the better. I hope noble Lords will realise the importance of the amendments on children’s rights, which will be introduced at the end of the Bill.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 8, to which I have added my name. In this, I declare that I am one of the school of qualified teachers in this Chamber. I am also a kinship carer of twin 13-year-olds.
This is a very small but important amendment. As we have heard, the Bill attaches great importance to family decision-making. I recently had a cup of tea with my noble friend Lord Laming to ask his advice about the Bill. Sadly, he is unable to take part, but if there is one person in the House who is an absolute expert in this field, it is he. His concern—which I share, having been in decision meetings that have gone wrong—is that a badly handled meeting can do more harm than good. The wrong timing of a meeting, the participants not realising the aims or bad chairing can lead to a breakdown of trust and irreparable harm being done to a child’s future. This amendment goes a long way to making sure that the importance of an FGDM meeting is acknowledged, with the fact that it can be facilitated only by an independent, suitably trained person, and I urge the Government to accept it.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which I have co-signed.
Family group conferencing was born out of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 in New Zealand, whereby families became key participants in a process of decision-making. Family group conferences are now used in approximately 30 countries worldwide and in at least 22 countries in Europe. Indeed, research has shown that children whose families were referred to a family group conferencing at the pre-proceedings stage were significantly less likely to be in care 12 months later than those whose families were not so referred. This should not be a surprise to your Lordships, as such preparation and discussions offer a compelling opportunity for families to come together and unite around important decisions for their child, which has the benefit of making that child feel loved and wanted, as well as the ability to address with professionals any glaring gaps in the child’s well-being.
Amendment 3 is a simple amendment that seeks to extend the right to family group decision-making meetings to children aged 16 and 17. It is surely important that we allow children who are on the brink of adulthood to take part in decisions that could materially affect their lives. That would appear to be eminently sensible. At the age of 16, a child can agree to their own care plan, so by that very same logic it is fair and reasonable that they are involved in the family group decision-making process. This is a family-led process and is absolutely essential in keeping children with their families where possible. We should be avoiding at all costs children going into care; that should be the absolute last resort. So, allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to share their voice and their opinions would ensure that this process is as child-focused and effective as it can be. It is essential that family group decision-making is done right, and ensuring that older children are able to contribute would be an extremely positive step in that direction.
I am very pleased to see that I believe this sentiment is shared by the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong, Lady Longfield and Lady Drake, with the amendment tabled in their names. Proposed new subsection (7A)(c) in their Amendment 12 seeks to achieve what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and I are aiming for, and we very much hope there will be cross-party support from other noble Lords on this important foundation stone.
Amendments 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, seek to set out key principles when implementing the family group decision-making process. Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that there is a process that accompanies these meetings. It is important that they are not isolated events but that instead the process is child-led and includes the family throughout.
Amendment 8 is similar in spirit to Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which will be debated later, so I shall only briefly touch on the issues, but we absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, that a trained co-ordinator would prove an excellent addition to the family group decision-making team.
Amendment 9 rightly notes that an essential part of a proposal regarding concerns about a child’s welfare is the implementation of the proposal so that the best outcomes for that child can be put in place.
Amendments 10 and 11 seek to ensure that the parents or those with parental responsibility for the child, rather than the local authority, agree as to who may attend the family group decision-making meeting. It is important that those who know the child ensure that the relevant voices are heard.
Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, with its proposed new clause after Clause 1, aims to ensure that there is proper oversight of the child protection plan if a child under the age of five is subject to care proceedings. It is of critical importance that the matter of the child having been significantly harmed or being at risk of the same is kept in view given the general length of proceedings and the risk of harm during them. Many local authorities discharge the child protection plan and associated formal processes when the proceedings are issued; the child’s care also often moves to the court social work team. Many of these children are living with the parents where the harm, or risk of it, is happening, and this is why they must be protected during proceedings, which run on average for 52 weeks. Their protection and arrangements for formal monitoring must be maintained at all costs. Indeed, the risk to the child might actually be raised during proceedings given the pressure on their parent or parents.
We acknowledge that this amendment has a potentially arbitrary cut-off, but it does cover preschool-age children, who all too often have been the subject of serious case incidents, when the tragedy of a child losing their life or being seriously harmed has occurred. This amendment aims to be the grit in the system that ensures that a senior, fresh pair of eyes looks at such cases to ensure that a child protection plan is not ceased without their approval.
Regarding specific amendments concerning child attendance at these meetings, set out in Amendments 13 and 14, we regret that we do not support proposals that would permit children to attend these meetings. Of course, as we have heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, the voice of the child is crucially important, but we are concerned that the attendance by the child could potentially be traumatising, create a sense of rejection and constrain necessary conversation. This must be child-centric and the child must be heard, but possibly not in these meetings.
Amendment 18 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer seeks to ensure that the changing needs of the child are considered throughout childhood. It is important to recognise the changing family landscape and, as such, this amendment is a sensible one as the “family network” may be able to support the child. If that is possible, the local authority should take action so that the child can benefit from such support as and when it becomes possible.
In conclusion, family group decision-making has tremendous potential to transform outcomes for vulnerable children, but only if we achieve the scope and implementation correctly. We urge careful consideration of these amendments to ensure that this promising approach will deliver on its full potential.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I might say how both interesting and informative I found the contributions on this group of amendments. It is something to be in this House and be able to hear the experiences of those, like my noble friend Lady Armstrong, who has experience as a social worker and a long history of campaigning and policy-making in this area, my noble friend Lady Longfield, who, of course, was an important and impactful Children’s Commissioner, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who just gave us a small exposition of the enormous experience that she has in this area—and many others, as well, who have made important points.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I very much welcome my noble friend’s recognition of the importance of the voice of the child, but the point was made from around the Committee that the principle derives from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. She did not mention children’s rights in the UN convention, so it would be reassuring if she put on the record that she acknowledges that this is an important thread that runs through many of the provisions in the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We recognise that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is an important thread, but that does not necessarily mean that it can be used as a trump card on every future occasion, which I am sure my noble friend would not choose to do. I think I clearly said that the rights and voice of the child have to be absolutely at the heart not only of the Bill but of the way in which it is implemented throughout children’s social care.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I just wonder whether the Minister was referring to my Amendment 17, rather than my Amendment 19, in her response. She talked about not making an assumption that a child would need a child protection plan if they were going into kinship care, which is linked more to Amendment 17. Amendment 19 is about the plan not being dropped for a child under five who is already on a child protection plan and goes into care proceedings. I am very happy for her to pick that up in another group, if we are allowed, but I wonder whether there has been some confusion.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It may be that in part of my response I pre-empted the point that the noble Baroness is making in Amendment 17, but I did recognise the point about Amendment 19, which I think the noble Baroness made, about the process in place to discharge that particular child protection plan. On that, I outlined that we are confident that the current system and the strengthened focus on multiagency child protection are robust and that there is sufficient accountability around discharging child protection plans. If I have not sufficiently reassured the noble Baroness about that, I am willing to write to clarify the points I was trying to make on that amendment.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply, which was very encouraging, as especially was the spirit in which the debate happened. Things seem to have calmed somewhat.
I did not quite get what I wanted, so I will reserve the right to think about it for Report, but I hope we can keep the dialogue going. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.