Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Report (2nd Day)

Scottish legislative consent granted, Welsh legislative consent sought. Relevant documents: 21st and 44th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee.

16:43

Clause 7: Provision of advice and other support

Amendment 34 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 35

Moved by

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

35: Clause 7, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(vi) financial support and financial literacy.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds financial support and financial literacy as services relevant children must be provided access to, as part of “staying close support”.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 35 in my name, and I thank my noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Mohammed and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for adding their names to it. It seeks to extend the remit of Staying Close to include support in helping care-experienced young people to access services that provide financial support and literacy. I want to say immediately that I was delighted to see the Government’s amendments introduced on Report that will amend the information that local authorities must include within their care leavers’ local offer to cover financial support and services that provide financial literacy. This builds very much on our discussions in Committee, and I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward those government amendments. This change will provide greater transparency and will help young people to understand their rights and entitlements better, as well as encouraging local authorities to think about the support they provide to equip care leavers to manage their finances effectively.

In our previous discussions on this topic, we highlighted how young people leaving care are much more likely to be living independently from a young age than other young people with greater financial responsibilities and often without a safety net—the bank of mum and dad that so many parents provide certainly is not there for them to fall back on. These factors, combined with young care leavers often feeling unequipped, unprepared and unsupported to manage the financial responsibilities that come with living independently from a young age, can put care-experienced young people at risk of facing unnecessary financial hardship and insecurity, falling often into rent arrears or debt, all of which can have a long-term impact on their well-being and security.

By seeking to expand the remit of Staying Close, my Amendment 35 would have plugged this gap even further, ensuring that young people who are leaving care are supported. I feel that this change would have real benefit, but the fact that the Government have brought forward these two amendments is an example of how constructive the debate was in Committee on this legislation. I thank the Government for that and for being open to amendments such as my Amendment 35, which would do a lot to improve the lives of care-experienced young people. Perhaps when the Minister responds, to provide absolute clarity, she will be able to confirm that government Amendments 39 and 40 will have the same effect as my Amendment 35, which, obviously, now I will not be pushing to a vote.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am very grateful that these amendments have been proposed. They may not go as far as my Private Member’s Bill did a few months ago in terms of seeking a better financial deal for care leavers, but Amendment 40 takes us some considerable way towards that. At least it will make local authorities be honest about what they are and are not doing. My only regret is that it will not completely get rid of the postcode lottery that besets so many young care leavers, particularly if they move from one authority to another. But I am grateful for the amendments the Government have tabled, and I hope that they will be swiftly passed.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Tyler for all the work she has done on this important topic. It shows the real power and strength of this House that, by talking to each other, listening and supporting, we can bring about real change, so I thank the Government for putting down these amendments. As my noble friend rightly said, there are so many young people living independently by themselves, and the most important thing is that they have an understanding of how finances work. I do not like the term “financial literacy”, but it is important. The national curriculum is going to bring that in for every young person, but for these young people it is even more important. So, I thank the Minister for getting to a place where we can all support and get behind this important issue.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, I welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled to Clause 8. I think they will meet the aims of our Amendment 35, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the additional support that the Government will offer to care leavers.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and Baronesses for their positive comments today; they are a measure of the fact that all of us in this Chamber want to put the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society at the centre of the Bill. I think the Government have clearly put across that we are strongly committed to improving support for care leavers, both through the measures in the Bill on Staying Close, local offer and corporate parenting and through our other programmes of work, such as the care leaver covenant and the care leavers interministerial board, all of which seek to ensure that young people leaving care have stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong loving relationships and are engaged in education, employment and training.

We want to support those in care and preparing to leave care before they reach adulthood, and to ensure that they have the same support as all young people. They will of course benefit from the wider changes that we are making for all young people in this space; we have had some fantastic discussions about the need for financial literacy for all young people in different places over the last few months.

I emphasise that in November the independent curriculum assessment review published its report, along with the Government’s response. As part of the review, we are taking forward recommendations that will help to deliver a high-quality curriculum for every young person. One key recommendation is to embed applied knowledge throughout the curriculum, including financial literacy. We have given a clear commitment in our response to the review to strengthen financial education through both the maths and the citizenship curriculum so that all young people and children have the skills they will need in adulthood. These commitments will benefit those children in care and preparing leave care.

Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, seeks to ensure that Staying Close support includes support to access services relating to financial support and literacy. Having said what I did about the review in general, I acknowledge that care leavers have particular and additional needs in this area. I fully endorse the noble Baroness’s intent with this amendment, recognising the importance of care leavers being properly informed of the financial support available to them as they transition to independence.

We have listened to concerns from both Houses about ensuring that care leavers receive the support they need from local authorities, particularly with financial management, and helping care leavers to develop the skills and knowledge that they require in this area. That is why we have tabled two government amendments to Clause 8. Amendment 39, in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, adds services relating to financial literacy to the list of services in Section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, meaning that local authorities will have to publish information about those services as part of their local offer for care leavers. Amendment 40, also in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, amends Clause 8 to require each local authority to include information about the arrangements that it has in place for providing financial support to care leavers in its local offer. In bringing forward these amendments, I acknowledge the continued advocacy for care leavers to receive assistance with financial literacy and financial support that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, has provided in this area, and I thank her for that.

Most care leavers already receive a pathway plan before leaving care that should cover their financial capability, money management skills and strategies to develop these abilities. Adding these government amendments will ensure that care leavers are better aware of the services available to them, and it will increase local authorities’ accountability in supporting care leavers to receive the support they need. That further underscores how the Government have listened to the voices of children and young people because, as we have heard and as everyone engaged in this area acknowledges, when we listen to care leavers’ requests for support, the message that comes across loud and clear is that they want more support in understanding their finances. For that reason, we consider Clause 8 the most effective place for the amendment, ensuring a robust and consistent level of support for every care leaver, not only those accessing Staying Close.

Importantly, including the amendments in Clause 8 does not remove or dilute the support for care leavers receiving Staying Close. Financial literacy remains a key factor in helping young people to find and, importantly, keep accommodation and will continue to be considered as part of the overall assessment of their ability to maintain a tenancy. This will be reflected in the initial programme guidance we will be sharing with local authorities before April this year as the national rollout of the programme begins. This has been developed in collaboration with local authorities, stakeholders and people with care experience and will be updated after evaluation of local authority practice and ahead of the publication of final statutory guidance. I hope that this answers the questions that the noble Baroness asked in moving her amendment, that noble Lords are reassured, and that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and comprehensive response. The fact that the government amendments will go into Clause 8 and my amendment was to Clause 7 does not matter to me. What matters is that those government amendments will be there and that the care-experienced young people will now have access to the financial support and financial literacy that they need. I thank the Government again for their extremely constructive and helpful response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.

Amendment 36 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 37

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

37: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of staying put funding(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of the level of funding provided for staying put arrangements (within the meaning of section 23CZA of the Children Act 1989) to local authorities and independent fostering agencies to determine its adequacy to meet its aims.(2) The review must produce recommendations regarding any steps necessary to increase the funds available per young person.(3) The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State undertakes a review into the level of funding allocated to local authorities for “staying put” arrangements to determine if it is sufficient to allow all eligible young people to benefit and meets its aims as set out in Staying Put Guidance.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am introducing this group as Amendments 37 and 38 are in my name and I have added my name to Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I will not steal the thunder of the noble Baroness on Amendment 59 so will merely say that the arguments I advanced when a very similar amendment was discussed in Committee seven months ago still apply. I stressed then that, in the long term, there will be a significant cost benefit to the Treasury of young people being allowed to extend Staying Put from 21 to 25.

Four years ago, the MacAlister report quoted figures from 2020 which showed that the average cost of supporting a child in foster care was just 35% of that of a residential care placement. Mr MacAlister is, of course, now the Children’s Minister so he will know that it really is not in the Government’s financial interest to deny support to those between 21 and 25 who want to remain with their foster families. I acknowledge the point made by my noble friend when she replied to my amendment in June that the Government wanted to prioritise filling the gaps in current support, in particular for young people transitioning to independent living. That is admirable but it is exactly what the support of a foster family provides.

Amendment 37 seeks a review of Staying Put funding. That would involve the Government conducting a full and comprehensive review into the level of funding allocated to local authorities for Staying Put arrangements to determine whether it is sufficient to allow all eligible young people to benefit and whether it meets the aims as set out in the Staying Put guidance. A review of funding for Staying Put is certainly overdue, given that the arrangement was introduced as long ago as 2014. The case for such a review is bound up with the arguments in support of Amendment 38, which aims to introduce a national minimum allowance for foster carers offering Staying Put arrangements, which does not currently exist, and to ensure that it matches the amount currently paid for 16 and 17 year-olds.

Recent surveys have highlighted the need for the extension of Staying Put support beyond the age of 17. In fact, a Department for Education report published two months ago—after Committee had concluded—found that in 2024-25, 62% of 18 year-old care leavers continued living with their former foster carers, but that figure halved for those aged 19 and 20. This illustrates that Staying Put is not being provided for as many young people as it could really help as they transition to adulthood and independent living.

17:00

A 2024 survey of 3,000 foster carers by the leading charity the Fostering Network revealed that three-quarters were financially worse off in a post-18 foster care arrangement. The effect is that many foster carers who want to offer Staying Put support to young people in their care reluctantly have to decide that they are unable to do so. To cover the cost of caring for children aged up to 17, foster carers receive a payment set by the national minimum allowance and a fee to cover their skills and expertise. However, there is no such allowance for post-18 Staying Put arrangements, and the survey that I mentioned found that the average foster care allowance decreased by around one-third when children turn 18. The issue is further complicated by the fact that local authorities offer different support, financially and otherwise, which, in effect, makes support for young people all too often a postcode lottery.

When a young person turns 18, they are often expected to contribute towards their foster carer’s allowance through their wages or benefits in order to make up the shortfall. Of course, young people are required to remain in full-time or part-time education until they turn 18, which impacts on their ability to work and contribute financially. The cost of living pressures associated with financial constraints explains why so many young people continue living with their birth parents well into their 20s. In many cases, care leavers do not have that choice, unless their foster parents are prepared to continue to provide them with a home, without adequate support from the state, to enable the young person to transition to adulthood.

Many young people in care are neither emotionally nor psychologically prepared for independent living at 18. It is surely right that, if at all possible, they should have a safe family home to stay in or fall back on, just as their non-care-experienced peers have. I ask my noble friend the Minister to accept the need for a national minimum allowance for foster carers caring for young people who are over 18 through Staying Put arrangements at the same allowance rate as currently exist for 16 and 17 year-olds. This would ensure that no young person has to claim benefits or pay their foster carers to remain living with them beyond the age of 18. It would prevent the postcode lottery to which I referred and would allow more young people to stay with their foster families until the age of 21.

Equally, I ask my noble friend to have her officials undertake the review of Staying Put funding set out in Amendment 37, so as to determine its adequacy to meet the aims of such an important arrangement. That would not affect the Bill per se, so why not undertake such a review?

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important group of amendments and I am extremely sympathetic to the case that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has just put forward for his amendments.

Amendment 59, in my name, seeks to enable care-experienced young people to remain living with their former foster carers under what are called the Staying Put arrangements to the age of 25. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for adding their names. Staying Put arrangements currently provide an important opportunity for young people to remain with their former foster carers until the age of 21, if they wish to and their foster carer agrees. Evaluation of the programme demonstrates that continuing to live with foster carers beyond the age of 18 can benefit care-experienced young people in a range of ways, including providing a more positive and planned transition from care to independence, a stronger support network and relationships, increased stability, stronger health and well-being, and a reduced risk of homelessness, as well as greater likelihood of remaining in full-time education.

While it is welcome that the introduction of the Staying Close support, through Clause 7, will apply to young people whose final placement was in foster care, this does not enable them to continue living with their former foster families. Many young people and foster carers across the country would like the children they are fostering to stay with them past the age of 21, but cannot at the moment because there is currently no provision in law for this or funding to support it.

Extending Staying Put arrangements to the age of 25, which is what my amendment is about, would provide more continuity for young people leaving foster care in their transition to independent living at a time that is right for them. We all know that strict age points do not work for everyone—everyone is different. It would provide a more stable home, family environment and support network for them as they start adulthood after what has been a difficult start in life. It would align Staying Put with other care leaver entitlements, such as Staying Close, which runs to age 25. I urge the Government to support this amendment.

I have also added my name to Amendment 95, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a document called the national care offer, which would set out minimum standards of information that local authorities must publish in relation to Section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. I am going to leave the right reverend Prelate to set out the case—I do not want to steal his thunder. I simply want to say that this is a great opportunity, in my view, for the national and the local care offers to be strengthened. I very much hope that that opportunity will be taken.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group. We are continuing, as the Bill makes progress, to strengthen the offer that is made to care leavers. In the previous group, we discussed matters that, assuming they are voted on in a little while, will improve conditions and improve what local authorities have to publish.

My Amendment 95, which I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for signing, would simply extend that to make sure that care leavers have a clear understanding of what their local authority is willing to offer and what it is not, particularly given that so many care leavers at age 18 or 19 end up leaving. Some, I am delighted to say, go to university and end up in a different town in perhaps a different part of the country entirely; others, for whatever reason, may decide it is appropriate to move and perhaps go back to be closer to friends from former times.

It is therefore not just the people who are already in a particular local authority who need to really know what the care leaver offer is; it is young people who might be considering moving to that area. As became clear in discussion of my own Bill a few months ago, that is often where people fall through the gap: they move for good and solid reason from one part of the country to another, and in that new part of the country they find that the services they expected are not there because that local authority either chooses not to provide them to anybody or, as is sometimes the case, chooses to provide them only to young people who have been in its care through the previous years.

I hope that we can get some support for Amendment 95. Understanding procedure—I am slowly learning this place, after about six years in—I know we probably will not get to a vote on this tonight, so maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and I can agree between now and Wednesday whether this matter should be put to a Division or not.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. Having signed his amendment in Committee, I did not manage to catch up on Report, and I encourage him to think about putting it to a vote if necessary when it gets to that stage.

I support all the amendments in this group, but will speak to Amendment 59, which is about continuing the Staying Put arrangements to the age of 25. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, I have signed this amendment, along with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who is not currently in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson. You could say that that is the broadest possible range of political support imaginable for this amendment.

I spoke extensively on a similar amendment in Committee, so I will not go into it at great length here. I cross-reference the horrific tale I told in Committee about Duncan, who was dragged with no notice at all out of his fostering arrangements and dumped into wildly unsuitable accommodation. That is the kind of thing that is happening to young people now. If we are to think of the state as a statutory parent, as it is to children in care, surely we should expect the same kinds of things from it that we expect from other parents, such as the societal expectation that parents will often have their children at home until age 25 or later. That is a reality that the state should be making provision for.

To pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, even this amendment would not finally cover the financial issues here. The Fostering Network notes that three-quarters of foster carers who continue caring after 18 end up financially worse off. The idea that housing benefit or wages—we know how low wages are for young people—might be able to top that up does not reflect the reality of our society.

I was discussing this morning the intrusion of private equity into the fostering system. A quarter of all places in fostering are now provided by private equity-based companies, which are making massive profits. There is a commodification of fostering. We would really like to think about how we can address that issue more broadly and whether there are ways to ensure that massive profits are not being made from this important additional provision that the state should be providing.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply on this group of amendments. There are 80,000 children in care—12,000 more than a decade ago—all of whom have different needs and requirements, mature at different ages and experience different feelings. I do not think you can put an arbitrary date on when somebody has to leave. Nationally, young people increasingly stay with their family into their 30s and get all the support that a family gives them. A friend of mine and his wife, the Kellys, foster regularly. They had two foster boys; one came to the age to move on and just said, “I am not going—I am staying”. Malcolm, being the sort of person he is, said “Okay”. That child needed that. He needed that support from the family. I hope the Government will consider this carefully.

On the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, I do not understand what the problem is. Why can this information not be available? It seems to me good, solid practice for society generally and for people in care and care leavers. I do not understand why we cannot say yes. Will it cost more money? Do we think local authorities do not have the expertise to do this? I would be interested to know why the Minister thinks it cannot be agreed.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, we have had a good debate on this group. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and would be interested to know whether the Minister knows what the cost of this funding would be if it were extended in the way that the noble Lord’s review suggests. One could absolutely imagine a situation where proper funding for foster carers of young people in receipt of Staying Put support might relieve pressures elsewhere in the system.

I also look forward to the Minister’s response on Amendment 59, which, as we heard, would extend Staying Put support up to the age of 25. We agree with the principle underlying Amendment 95 that local areas should constantly be learning from one another about the best support for care leavers, but we are not convinced that it would be achieved by this approach.

I turn briefly to my modest Amendments 41 and 42. I reread the Minister’s argument in Committee that these amendments were not really necessary—a familiar term—as every care leaver should have a pathway plan that would cover accommodation, health and several other important aspects of their life. As she said, the pathway plan covers accommodation, yet the Government have chosen to put the publication of the local offer in relation to accommodation in the Bill, if I have understood correctly, so I am not quite clear about the resistance to minimum commitments in relation to healthcare. To be absolutely clear, my Amendment 41 would create a statutory duty for the health service to set out arrangements for those leaving care so they can be given additional considerations that they deserve as they enter adulthood. The Minister knows very well that children in care tend, through no fault of their own, to have much more complex health needs than those not in care. A lot of the specialist care available to children stops at 18. Taking the time to make sure they understand what support is available to them as adults is surely the minimum we might ask for.

That links to Amendment 42, which would make it explicit that care leavers under 25 need additional support from their GP. The noble Baroness will remember from Committee that the suggestion is that there should be an extended initial appointment offered to those young people as they transition from specialist support to universal systems. They do not have parents to support them through that and, as we all know, their needs are extended. It seems a tiny request that might make a great difference.

17:15

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interest in this area. As he opened the group, I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Watson for his sincere interest, as we heard in Committee, when we had a good exploration of the issues.

I will first discuss three amendments together: Amendments 37, 38 and 59. Amendments 37 and 38, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, seek a review of current Staying Put funding and the introduction of a national minimal allowance for Staying Put arrangements. Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, proposes extending current Staying Put duties to the age of 25. We know that the existing Staying Put duties, which continue until a young person reaches 21, enable local authorities to support young people to remain longer in the stable and secure foster homes they know. This continuity helps them to step into adulthood with the same opportunities and life chances as their peers. We recognise that additional stability at a crucial age.

We remain firmly committed to supporting young people in Staying Put arrangements. The provisional local government finance settlement includes continued funding of £100 million through the first multiyear settlement in a decade for local authorities supporting these arrangements. I am sure that all Members who have had local authority experience will recognise that multiyear settlement as crucial in bringing stability back into local government finance. As I said, this will provide greater certainty and enable effective sufficiency planning for Staying Put arrangements.

However—and I emphasise this again—we must also ensure that we prioritise addressing the gaps in current provision with the available resources that we have. That is particularly the case for those moving into independent living at 18 who have not been able to remain with their former foster carers and for those with the most complex needs. This is precisely why we are introducing statutory Staying Close duties. Under these duties, all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those who have a Staying Put arrangement, will receive Staying Close support where their welfare requires it. This will help them find and keep suitable accommodation, and access the wraparound services they need to thrive.

As we introduce a number of new duties for care leavers through the Bill, it is essential that we allow these changes to embed and begin to deliver the outcomes we expect before we review Staying Put and look to amend or include further requirements within the duty. I hope that this gives some comfort to my noble friend Lord Watson. We are not seeking to ignore his comments; we are looking at this in a pragmatic way that will bring things forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked about the initial cost estimates, which amount to several hundred million pounds. Further proper assessment is therefore needed, and we will not shy away from that. Further assessment of the impact of local authority funding will be needed, in this changing picture, for both residential and foster care. As has been set out, we must prioritise those gaps. I know that this is a difficult message to get across, but we need to make sure that, through Staying Close, we reach as many young people as possible.

Amendments 41 and 42 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendment 41 seeks to require local authorities to publish information in their local offer about transition arrangements for care leavers in relation to health and primary care. While fully supporting the aim of the amendment, we believe that it is not required, as there is already an expectation that local authorities will include details of services that may assist care leavers in relation to health and well-being in their local offer.

Similarly, the Government support the intention behind Amendment 42, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which would require that general practice contracts have due regard to the additional health needs of care leavers under the age of 25 when negotiating general practice contracts in the future. However, again, it is not required, as there are already clear expectations in statutory guidance for local authorities, integrated care boards and NHS England to have effective plans in place for looked-after children to make a smooth transition to adulthood, including continuation of access to the health advice and services they need. Additionally, the corporate parenting responsibilities that will be introduced through the Bill, which we will go on to discuss, will require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and NHS England, as relevant authorities, to be alert to matters that might adversely affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers in the exercise of their functions, including negotiating GP services.

Amendment 95, tabled by right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to consult on and publish a national offer for care leavers. Throughout the Bill, the Government are taking significant steps to ensure that young people leaving care are not left to navigate adulthood alone. Our aim is clear: to ensure that every care leaver has a stable home, access to necessary health services, support to build lasting relationships, and the opportunity to thrive in education, employment and training. These are the foundations that every young person deserves, and care leavers should be no exception.

Care leavers’ legal entitlements are already set out in the Children Act 1989, supported by regulations and statutory guidance. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 strengthened this by requiring local authorities to consult on and publish a local offer for care leavers. Statutory guidance makes it clear that this local offer must include information on both the support that care leavers are legally entitled to and any additional help a local authority chooses to provide. Clause 8 of the Bill further strengthens those expectations. Here I am addressing in particular the argument on local as against national that the right reverend Prelate made.

Most importantly, it is local authorities that are best placed to understand the needs of their young people. Crucially, this support should be shaped in consultation and by understanding the needs of care leavers themselves. Therefore, the amendment risks unintentionally creating a one-size-fits-all approach that leaves care leavers in different areas and with different requirements not getting the support that best meets their needs.

With regard to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I suggest that her comments about the cost of foster caring are possibly more relevant to the next group, under Amendment 110C.

I recognise that we are putting in place measures that will take some time to embed and move forward, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that we are absolutely committed to improving the life chances of all young people and, in this case, particularly of young people in care. With those comments, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for those remarks. I will just start on the point that she finished on: that the Government are totally committed to ensuring that all young people have the support that they need. I do not question that. It is unfortunate that there seems to be a cohort of young people who are in foster care, and when they reach the age of 17, they may be able to continue with their foster parents, if they want to and the foster parents are happy to keep them, but there will not be the national minimum allowance, which applies to 16 and 17 year-olds. So, it is incumbent on the foster carers themselves to make up that shortfall. In many cases, with the best will in the world, that simply is not financially possible.

It then opens up the situation where some young people, having just turned 18, have to find alternative arrangements. I take the point that my noble friend the Minister made about wraparound care, the local authority’s offer and the Staying Close arrangements. All those are valuable, and most young people in that situation will make use of them and take advantage of them. But there are some who will not be able to do so. I stress the fact that, in seeking for the national minimum allowance to be extended beyond 17, it would apply only to those situations where the foster family felt able to keep the child and the child wanted to keep the family, as it were. It would not apply to every child of that age.

I am not quite sure about the answer my noble friend gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on her question about cost. In my Amendment 37 on a review, there is no cost implicit. My noble friend the Minister gave a ballpark figure of several hundred million. I do not know whether that would be the case or not: it would depend on the outcome of the review. I had hoped that she might say—although obviously it was never my intention that this should go in the Bill—that the Government would undertake that review. I cannot see any harm in undertaking a review of the Staying Put arrangements that have been in place now for 12 years, since 2014.

I cannot avoid saying that I am disappointed in the response. There are many options for young people. The place I am coming from is: how would any noble Lord who had a child who turned 18 feel if they were obliged to leave home—I am not talking about going to university or college—and find other arrangements at that important and psychologically difficult time in their life? It is no accident that children in care are far less likely to go to university than their peers who live with their birth parents and are far less likely to take up training and apprenticeships. I just make that point to my noble friend. I am not saying that she is being unsympathetic, but I hoped we could at least have a review, which might have pointed the way forward to advancing the number of young people who turn 18 and are able to stay with their foster parents. Foster parents do such a fantastic job. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

Amendment 38 not moved.

17:30

Clause 8: Local offer for care leavers

Amendments 39 and 40

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

39: Clause 8, page 13, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) In subsection (2), after paragraph (f) insert—“(g) financial literacy.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add services relating to financial literacy to the list of services in section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 which may assist care leavers in, or in preparing for, adulthood and independent living, and about which a local authority in England must publish information.

40: Clause 8, page 13, line 23, at end insert—
“(ca) providing financial support for care leavers;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add arrangements made by local authorities for providing financial support to care leavers to the information that the authority must publish as part of its local offer to care leavers under section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 as amended by clause 8.

Amendments 39 and 40 agreed.

Amendment 41 not moved.

Amendment 42 not moved.

Amendment 43

Moved by

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

43: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Promoting relationships for looked after childrenIn section 22(3A) of the Children Act 1989 (duty of local authority in relation to looked-after children), at end insert “and a duty to promote the child’s family and social relationships in ways which are consistent with the child’s welfare.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds promotion of a child’s family and social relationships to the safeguarding duties of a local authority.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important group of amendments regarding family relationships and the appropriate placement of children in care. I have four amendments in my name in this group and will move through them as quickly as I can.

Amendments 43 and 49 are linked. They are about promoting children in care’s family relationships and particularly improving sibling contact, an issue that we discussed at some length in Committee. We know and previously debated that children in care are too often separated from siblings when in the care system. Unfortunately, we have also heard that, for too many children in care, they are not supported to have either consistent, appropriate or high-quality contact with their siblings when they are separated so that they can maintain these most vital relationships and stay connected.

The evidence shows that there is real variability in the type and frequency of contact between siblings. It can be affected by things such as workforce issues, instability and geographical factors—including where children are moved to. As we discussed in Committee, there is a real disconnect between policy and practice here. Amendment 43 seeks, in general terms, to strengthen the duties on local authorities to promote children’s family and social relationships, including with siblings. This would make a real difference to overall family relationships and to a sense of identity for these children.

Amendment 49 seeks to close a specific loophole in the current regulations. Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1 of the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 includes provision for arrangements to promote contact between siblings who are in care but who are not placed together to be set out in children’s care plans. The key point and the purpose of this amendment, however, is that this does not cover the promotion of contact between a child who is in care and a sibling who is not in care. While there is currently limited data about how many children in care have siblings outside of the care system, the charity Become has reported examples from children and young people who have felt unsupported to adequately maintain relationships with siblings who are not in care, particularly when they are living miles away.

This amendment seeks to close this loophole by requiring a child’s care plan to include arrangements for promoting contact with all their siblings, whether they are in care or not, as far as that is consistent with the child’s welfare. For children in care, their relationship with siblings can be the most important relationships that they have, with lifelong consequences. Too often, these relationships are being strained or damaged by a system that just does not support these relationships effectively. This needs to change. These amendments seek to strengthen the policy framework, close a loophole and influence practice to better protect these fundamental relationships.

Amendment 61 seeks to amend the sufficiency duty to prevent children in care being moved far from home when that is not in their best interest. This amendment seeks to amend the sufficiency duty in a number of ways. First, it would place a stronger requirement on local authorities to take “all reasonable steps” to provide children with appropriate local accommodation. It would place a more explicit requirement on local authorities to plan, deliver or commission on a range of accommodation to meet children’s needs locally. It would also require local authorities to plan to keep children near to the local authority if they are unable to be kept within their own local area.

In recent years, local authorities have faced real challenges in delivering sufficient places close to home and in ensuring that they have enough of the right type of homes and carers in the right places at the right time to meet children’s needs and keep them close to the relationships, places and support networks that matter so much to them. Increasingly, for too many children this has meant being moved far away from the people and the places that they love. Last year, 22% of all children in care in England were living more than 20 miles away from their home communities and support networks. This number has increased by over 40% over the last decade. There are also too many children living hundreds of miles away from home. Become’s “Gone Too Far” campaign has highlighted the devastating long-term impact that living far from home can have on children’s relationships and well-being.

Relationships, which is what these two amendments are all about—where children in care live and who with—are pivotal to children’s outcomes and experiences. There needs to be greater accountability and oversight about the extent to which this sufficiency is being delivered to drive real system change, starting with a stronger sufficiency duty, and to keep more children living close to home. I very much hope that the Government will look sympathetically on this amendment.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Hampton, for adding their names to my Amendment 62, which is essentially about the mental health needs of children in care. They often experience dramatically higher levels of mental ill-health than their peers, yet their mental health needs are often underidentified and poorly supported. While current regulations require health assessments to include mental health, they do not require the involvement of health practitioners with mental health expertise. As a result, assessments are often inconsistent and frequently fail to identify need early enough to offer the sort of evidence-based professional responses to address mental health needs and prevent deterioration of a child’s mental health.

My amendment addresses this gap by seeking to ensure that mental health is assessed by a qualified mental health practitioner as a core part of the initial and ongoing health assessment for children in care. This builds on the work of the Education Committee, which has done very important work in this area in its inquiry. It reported that specific considerations around mental health were frequently absent or treated very superficially in health assessments. It is a limited change but an important change. It is asking that mental health is not simply included in the initial health assessment, but that mental health expertise is involved in carrying it out. Because of the importance of mental health to children in care, because of the high prevalence that they have and because of the difficulties that they have in accessing the right sort of mental health support and treatment, I very much hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at this amendment.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 51 seeks to highlight the need to include health agencies in the RCC arrangement.

As I mentioned in my speech in Committee back in June, integrated care boards now have a pivotal role to play in the NHS. The main argument advanced when they were proposed that they should replace the clinical care commissioning groups was that they could unite health, social care and all the voluntary partners that are involved. A lot of discussion took place about health inequalities, delivering holistic care and co-ordinating GP services. The regional care co-operatives are at the heart of the MacAlister proposals and have received widespread welcome and endorsement. Indeed, across parties, the view is that they are a pragmatic initiative and absolutely deserve all-party support.

I will not repeat the arguments that I made in Committee—we have been urged not to go over ground that has been trodden on already—and I certainly will not talk for very long, but I feel that it would be unusual and, indeed, illogical for the new RCCs not to be built on a strong and proactive relationship with the existing integrated care boards. This would indeed be the professional outcome that most people would desire. I say to the Minister: why rely on good will when what I am suggesting could be put in the Bill?

In her response to my amendment in Committee, the Minister fully agreed that it was vital that the sort of co-operation and collaboration I am talking about, between the two bodies, does indeed take place. However, she said that

“Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 specifies that local authorities must make arrangements to promote co-operation with relevant partners, including local integrated care boards, to improve the well-being of children”.—[Official Report, 17/6/25; col. 1925.]

in care. She went on to say that the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, provides the necessary clarity. In other words, the Minister said that my amendment was not necessary and was surplus to requirements.

However, I would argue that this is a flagship Bill. Indeed, throughout the entire Bill, there is a lot of talk about consolidation, clarification and updating existing legislation, so why not accept that rationale here? I obviously accept that my amendment has an element of “safety first” to it. But surely, we should not be relying on good will among professionals both in local authorities and in the local NHS.

I want to make one final point on the feedback that has come through from the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, which has commented on this particular clause. I will quote very briefly:

“Children in care are our collective responsibility. As a society, we cannot continue to fail those most in need of our support and protection. … Those who are not able to be cared for by their birth family and do not settle into fostering families or children’s homes often have multiple placements and experience nowhere that they feel accepted and cherished. Many end up in crisis in our acute hospitals, not meeting the criteria for child and adolescent mental health services and not having a home to be discharged back to”.


It goes on to say that the RCCs will now be

“a cornerstone of the governments children’s social care reforms, and a golden opportunity to address the failures of our care system”.

It also points out that

“Two pathfinders are currently testing the models to address the significant difficulties with finding the right homes, with the right care for our most vulnerable children with complex lives”.

It goes on to say that not having, on the face of the Bill, the need for co-operation and integration between these two bodies

“is a strategic omission of significant importance, and runs counter to the inclusion of health as a statutory, and strategic, issue in safeguarding partnerships”.

Finally, it says that the Bill therefore needs to name integrated care boards as partners in the RCCs to

“enable health to take greater direct responsibility for the health outcomes and the life chances of this most vulnerable group of children and young people.”

That is not me; that is the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals.

I just say to the Minister that this is quite a simple amendment, but it is an important one. If the Government do not accept it, I suggest to the Minister that we are missing a very important opportunity, because if we do not put it in the Bill, we will be relying on the good will of hard-pressed professionals up and down the country.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support of Amendments 43 and 49 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, to which I have added my name.

In Committee, the Minister clearly understood the basic principle of this group was to ensure that young people leave care with supportive and, hopefully, lifelong loving relationships. She assured the Committee that the Government

“are funding a number of family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes. These help looked-after children and care leavers to identify and connect with important people in their lives and create safe, stable, loving relationships”,

which last. She said:

“The family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme is being evaluated, and this will help to inform decisions about the future of the programme”.—[Official Report, 12/6/25; col. 1607.]


However, I understand funding runs out in March this year for these family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes, and there is no decision yet on continuation. I am concerned that the good work to date will be wasted, but perhaps she has encouraging news on funding and the results of the evaluation. I particularly want to flag again lifelong links and how this picks up the vital relationships identified by family group conferencing, which is in the Bill.

17:45

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 49, specifically relating to sibling contact, to which I have added my name. In doing so, I do not want to repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, other than to stress, as she did, the importance of maintaining and developing sibling contact.

Where a child has to be separated from his or her parents, temporarily or permanently, the most important viable relationship remaining is often with that child’s siblings or half-siblings. Typically, siblings have shared experience of the parenting they have received, and they have, of course, a relationship which can long outlive the relationship that they have or have had with their parents.

The Children Act created a presumption that children should be placed together, but that is not always possible to arrange or to achieve. Contact between separated siblings, particularly if no longer in the same school or placed at some distance apart, can require commitment not only by their respective carers but by the responsible local authorities. Properly arranged sibling contact typically requires a concrete plan by the local authority and an underlying framework of support. It may, it has to be said, sometimes influence what happens at the next stage after the care proceedings and determine what happens if the children are to be placed for adoption.

Amendment 49 would help, because it would not require or assume that both or all of the children will be in the care of the local authority, and it would thereby sensibly extend the scope of local authority duties towards siblings.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in support of Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler.

The case for this is, really, fairly straightforward. Children in care often have quite strong mental health needs and are not in the best of mental health. Care leavers comprise about 1% to 3% of the general youth population, but that translates into them being responsible for one quarter of the homeless population. That group are twice as likely to die prematurely than the general population, and in many cases suicide is the largest reason for that high death rate. That is a fairly strong causal link between children in the care system, or those going into the care system, having fragile mental health, and that not being picked up as early as it should be. This amendment simply asks that we please ensure that, when children have an assessment of the quality of their mental health, the practitioners who are doing that are qualified in mental health. Only in that way can we be sure that we catch those vulnerable young people at that early stage and that they do not become one of the depressing statistics that I have just mentioned.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and to which I have added my name. I declare, as ever, that I am a teacher and I thank the National Children’s Bureau for its help on this.

Children do not come into care because they have won the lottery of life; trauma is unlikely to be far from their lives. Yet our assessment processes still rely on professionals who may have little or no training in mental health or trauma-informed practice. Care-experienced young people told the Education Select Committee, as part of its inquiry into children’s social care, that local authorities are not always fulfilling their obligations to include emotional and mental health in their health assessments of children in care. One young person told the committee:

“I feel a lot could be explained if they understood the experience of trauma. It will take time. It will not go away at night, and sometimes before it gets better it could get worse. No one talks about that. You will not be okay if you are going into care; there is a reason why you are there, and so it is important that the minute you go into care every child should have a mandatory assessment, physical and mental, and there should be that on-call support for them”.


Bringing qualified mental health practitioners into the mandatory health assessment of children in care is simple, practical and overdue. I hope that the Government will use this amendment as an opportunity to do more for children in care and to make their lives and, as importantly, their futures better.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I feel a strong need to speak on Amendment 61, this wonderful amendment, on

“Amending the sufficiency duty to prevent children being moved far away from home”.


Especially where a child has been put under a deprivation of liberty order, if you then move them a long way away, it means that parents or even foster carers have quite a difficulty in keeping in touch with the child. So the sufficiency duty on local authorities should be amended from requiring them to take

“steps that secure, so far as reasonably practicable”

to requiring them to take

“all reasonable steps to secure”,

which is a far better phrase that gives some assurance.

As somebody who fostered children and was in touch with other foster carers, I know that children were put a long way away when, under the expression of the Children Act 1989, steps had been taken that were “reasonably practicable”. But, actually, you could scratch under the surface and see the pressure in an area such as Tulse Hill near Brixton, where I was a vicar and where a lot of children were placed in care. The council had a big job to do, and your Lordships and I know that it was extremely busy. It is easy to say, “Yes, I’ve taken reasonable steps and done what is practicable”, whereas “all reasonable steps” should be taken, and you need to catalogue them in case somebody asks questions.

I suggest to the Committee that Amendment 61 would remove a lot of anxiety from parents whose children find themselves deprived of their liberty. Moving them a long way away is almost suggesting that parents will, or maybe will not, find a way of going to where these children have been placed. In the place where I ministered for 13 years, they were always living in a time of financial crisis. Buses were needed, taking a long time, to get to where these children had been put, which was such a huge burden.

I hope the Minister will see that this amendment would actually help our children. They are not someone else’s children; they are our children. As that wonderful African proverb says, it takes a whole village to raise and educate a child. They are ours; would we be happy if they were placed such a long way from home? That would be quite a burden, and I congratulate the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I will speak on Amendment 71 in my name. I am grateful to the Minister for her movement on this issue. In her letter to me of 7 October 2025, which was some time ago, she said:

“When used effectively, non-school alternative provision offers tailored support that meets individual needs and helps re-engage children in education, supporting future regular attendance in school. However, in some areas, inadequate oversight is putting already vulnerable children’s safety and the quality of their education at risk. Too often, children whose needs could be met in school are instead placed in unsafe, low-quality settings with no clear plan for returning to mainstream education”.


I do not understand why anything in our society is unregistered—whether a school, a care home or alternative provision. We should not allow that to happen, because we put the lives of people at risk.

Let us understand what alternative provision means. It means that a child or young person who has been permanently expelled or removed from school becomes the responsibility of the local authority. The local authority has to make provision for them. However, in many cases, schools have their own units on site, which is the best model by far. Where that provision is not available, local authorities have to find providers.

Remember that these children and young people are the most vulnerable. They often have special educational needs, are from difficult circumstances or suffer trauma or mental health problems. The Minister realises the issue and has come forward with some suggestions of how we might develop this. I am genuinely grateful for that. I hope that this will be another way that we can deal with this issue.

I will raise a number of issues with the Minister on which I hope she might be prepared either to write to me or to respond in her reply. Unregistered provision cannot be inspected by Ofsted, but we use the same criteria for registered provision that we use with maintained schools, academies and independent schools. This is a very different situation. These pupils require flexible timetables, smaller groups, therapeutic approaches, outreach work, incremental attendance and a curriculum that prioritises core skills, well-being and preparation. Often, inspections of alternative provision already highlight that applying mainstream criteria to alternative providers creates inconsistent judgments, perverse incentives and misunderstandings about what meaningful progress looks like for these pupils. Without adaptation, the strengthened regulatory framework in the Bill may unintentionally constrain innovation, reduce placement availability, push provision back into semi-regulated spaces or penalise alternative providers for not behaving like mainstream schools.

I am sure that the Government and the Minister want to get to grips with this issue, and I hope that their proposals actually deliver what we all want.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments focuses again on children in the care system. As we have heard expertly and eloquently expressed across the House, the focus on relationships is so important for those children, as is allowing them to sustain relationships with siblings and families where it is safe to do so, and not being moved too far from their home and network wherever possible. Obviously, this is most sensitive where siblings do not live together, either because they are not all in care or because they are in different care placements.

18:00

On Amendment 51, I agree with my noble friend Lord Bellingham that it is essential that regional commissioning arrangements include health funding, and that the ICBs are a named partner in the regional care co-operatives. It would be helpful if the Government set out the long-term funding model for regional care co-operatives. Several years on, there is still concern about the lack of sufficient funding for regional adoption agencies. The Government will want to avoid the same happening to regional care co-operatives. Without giving a clear statutory duty for the involvement of ICBs and health to align with their new corporate parenting duties, there is a concern that there will be a lack of funding and the specialist health expertise that is so critical for these children. So, I hope that the Government might, even at this late stage, reconsider their position.

Certainly, the evaluation of the pathfinder sites, published in November last year, although at a very early stage, highlights the encouraging progress, but the vital involvement of health comes through loud and strong. Given that pathfinders have prioritised the involvement of health and highlighted the problems where that has not been secured, the Government need to move and make it clear that this is not voluntary but essential.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, on Amendments 43 and 49, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, everybody who has contributed to the debate today, and certainly the Government, are fully committed to every care-experienced child having loving, life-long relationships with those they care about—particularly with siblings, as several noble Lords have focused on. We recognise that relationships are fundamental to identity, well-being and long-term outcomes.

Although I absolutely support their intent, neither of these amendments is necessary and would duplicate existing legislation. As stated in Committee and referenced today, there is already a legal duty on local authorities, in paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, to “endeavour to promote contact” between looked-after children and their relatives, friends and other connected people,

“unless it is not reasonably practicable or consistent with”

the child’s welfare.

Additionally, Amendment 49 would not serve to strengthen the duty placed on local authorities to make contact arrangements between siblings; it requires only that where contact arrangements are made, they are recorded in the care plan—a duty that already exists in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the regulations. Existing statutory guidance, such as the Children’s Social Care National Framework, which sets the outcomes that local authorities should achieve for children, young people and families, already emphasises the importance of family networks. This, alongside other guidance, builds on the legislative duty to emphasise the importance of family networks and listening to children’s voices about who and what is important to them.

It is absolutely right that the care system and professionals involved in the care of looked-after children should help them to maintain relationships, including staying connected to siblings, family, carers and wider community networks. That is why the Government have been taking practical action to unlock any barriers to this and have already made clear commitments in this area. For example, as discussed last week, we are mandating the offer of family group decision-making at pre-proceedings where that is in the child’s best interests, which could of course include considerations about contact arrangements with family members.

The family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, helps children in care and care leavers to identify and connect with the important people in their lives. We are currently funding 46 programmes across 43 local authorities, with 21 local authorities delivering lifelong links. The evaluation mentioned by the noble Lord is ongoing, but the interim evaluation report, published in September 2025, shows a statistically significant increase in reported relationships after children and young people have participated in the programme.

The noble Lord asked about the funding of the programme. We are determined to continue learning from the effectiveness of programmes such as this that support children and young people in care to build and strengthen relationships. Plans for the continuation of this programme beyond this financial year are currently subject to business planning and will of course also be subject to the continued evaluation that we are committed to.

Having said that, our view, and the view of stakeholders with whom we have consulted, is that issues in promoting contact, particularly between siblings, tend to be more practical and logistical than legislative or caused by a lack in legislation. My officials have met the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who I know takes a very close interest in this, to discuss this important topic and have taken her very useful insights on board, which is why we will commit to identifying and sharing best practice on facilitating sibling relationships to ensure that local authorities support all children in care to have loving relationships with family members. We think that that is the right way to focus on ensuring that this is achieved in practice.

Amendment 61, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, aims to prevent looked-after children being placed far from home through amending the sufficiency duty on local authorities. The Government are clear that ensuring children can remain close to their home, community and connections with loved ones is crucial to improving the outcomes of care-experienced children, as several noble Lords have emphasised. That is why, to support local authorities in meeting their sufficiency duty, over £130 million is being invested in fostering hubs, kinship care and children’s homes.

Additionally, the Bill introduces legislation that will enable the Secretary of State to direct local authorities to establish regional co-operation arrangements to improve the commissioning of children’s social care placements and meet their sufficiency duty. However, the proposed amendment would not strengthen the existing sufficiency duty; in fact, we believe that it would weaken it. It would allow local authorities to provide and rely on more accommodation “near to” their area rather than “within” it, risking increased out-of-area placements and more children being placed far from home, not fewer. We also do not consider that changing the wording in the way proposed would have the effect on the effort required by local authorities that the noble Baroness wants it to have. It would not, in effect, have any meaningful impact on local authorities’ decision-making.

Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to add a requirement for a registered mental health practitioner to undertake an assessment of every child’s state of health when they become looked after, and for a registered mental health practitioner to be added as a professional who may undertake health reviews of looked-after children. As many noble Lords have identified during this debate, the significant trauma that many children who become looked after have experienced, and the lasting impact this trauma can have, means that providing effective mental health support is absolutely crucial.

Unless a child who is of sufficient age and understanding to consent, refuses to do so, all children must have an assessment of their health when they become looked after. Existing regulations require that this must be completed by a registered medical practitioner. It must include an assessment of emotional and mental health and it must be kept under review. The statutory guidance states that the health practitioner carrying out the assessment has a duty of clinical care to the child. This includes making the necessary referrals for investigation and treatment of conditions identified. So there is already a clear expectation for the necessary referral to be made where a child is assessed as needing investigation or treatment from a mental health practitioner. This means that it is not necessary to add the specific requirement for a registered mental health practitioner to the legislation. However, I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns. This will inform changes to statutory guidance to further strengthen implementation and ensure that children in care receive the services and support they need for their mental health and well-being. It is a strengthening of the position that we took in Committee.

Alongside that, we have also made progress since then. In December, the Health Secretary and the Minister for Children and Families announced that, in a boost for mental health support, the Government will trial a three-year pilot to make sure that children in care have access sooner to the support they need. This will build on existing work across the country, bringing together social workers and NHS health professionals to work together to provide direct mental health support to children and families when they need it most.

In relation to points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Russell, the DfE is committed to understanding and addressing the shockingly high number of early deaths among care-experienced young people. As the department progresses this work, we will carefully consider how to improve the support that care leavers receive across a range of aspects of their lives, including their mental and physical health. We know, however, that there will be more to do to ensure that this focus on mental health is implemented as consistently and effectively as possible. We would welcome a meeting with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, which I know has made this a priority, to discuss this important matter and what more we can do. I thank the noble Baroness for raising this important point and for pushing it in the way that she has.

I turn to Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. This amendment is on registration and local authority oversight of accommodation for looked-after children and education provided in alternative settings. This Government are absolutely clear that placing children in illegal, unregistered homes is unacceptable. Looked-after children should only ever be placed in accommodation that is run by a registered provider. For children’s homes and supported accommodation, providers must be registered with Ofsted, the single national regulator that is able to ensure that safeguarding and quality standards are being met. Creating a second registration system run by local authorities, as proposed in this amendment, risks creating confusion and duplication. For this reason, we do not believe that this amendment is the right approach to reduce the use of unregistered accommodation placements.

In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, focused on non-school, unregistered alternative provision. I welcome the noble Lord’s support for the proposals that we announced last year to strengthen protections for children in these settings, including for those in care. As I set out in the letter to which the noble Lord referred, these reforms comprise creating a new local regulatory framework and national standards. They are substantial and require careful engagement with the sector. Introducing these measures now, in the Bill, would bypass full parliamentary scrutiny. But we recognise the significance of what the noble Lord was saying and, instead, they will form part of our wider SEND and alternative provision reforms in the forthcoming schools White Paper, ensuring that they deliver for children.

18:15

I turn to Amendment 52, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. As policy thinking develops, we want to ensure that legislation develops with it. Both regional care co-operative pathfinders have learned as they have expanded their functions. For example, both areas made the decision to take on residential workforce development as a means of ensuring the long-term stability in their provision. We are keen to allow the same flexibility to other areas as they develop their own regional co-operation arrangements.

This amendment seems to be concerned with the strategic functions that could be added. The Secretary of State can add to the strategic accommodation functions only through an affirmative procedure, in consultation with local authorities and other appropriate persons. This will ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose and will help to future-proof regional arrangements as they develop. As stated in Committee, the scope of the regulations is limited to those relating to local authorities’ functions covered by specific sections of the Children Act 1989. Section 22A concerns the duty to accommodate looked-after children. Section 22C concerns how looked-after children should be accommodated by the local authority, and Section 22G covers the duty to ensure sufficient accommodation for looked-after children.

I turn to Amendments 51 and 252 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. I want to reassure the noble Lord and other noble Lords on the duty to work with local integrated care boards raised in Amendment 51. The Government understand the importance and need to include health partners in regional co-operation arrangements to improve looked-after children’s outcomes. There is already an existing legal requirement under Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 which specifies that local authorities must make arrangements to promote co-operation with relevant partners, including local integrated care boards, to improve the well-being of children within their area, so far as is reasonably practicable. The requirement will still apply to local authorities when it is part of regional co-operation arrangements. It is therefore not necessary to specify that separately in the legislation. I hope it will reassure the noble Lord that both regional care co-operative pathfinders, in the south-east and in Greater Manchester, have already engaged in a meaningful way with the ICBs in their area, and we will continue to promote this through published guidance.

Turning to Amendment 252, I would like to reassure the noble Lord also that the Government understand the importance of evaluating the regional care co-operative pathfinders. A five-year evaluation of their impact and effectiveness is already under way. The first report was published in November, with further reports to be published annually. The department has utilised feedback from these reports and from both pathfinders to inform policy development, one example being to ensure that areas spend time building a strong foundation through data sharing and market analysis before moving to delivery. Furthermore, as stated in Committee and in accordance with Clause 67(5), the Bill will come into force on the day appointed by the Secretary of State, made by regulations. Clause 66(6) of the Bill allows for different commencement dates for different areas for different purposes. We will continue to use evaluation and pathfinders to ensure that that happens at the appropriate time and in a way that is most likely to achieve success.

This has been a wide-ranging debate and I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance to enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive and helpful response to a large number of amendments. I listened very carefully indeed to what she had to say on family relationships and sibling contact, an issue that is very dear to my heart. I welcome that she talked about sharing best practice on sibling contact, which will certainly be helpful, but I must admit I was disappointed that she was not able to go further, particularly on my Amendment 49. I give notice that, when it is reached, I am minded to seek the opinion of the House. Finally, I thank her for her response on Amendment 62, in particular her commitment to make changes to statutory guidance on mental health and to consult with the APPG for Children. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 43.

Amendment 43 withdrawn.

Amendments 44 and 45 not moved.

Amendment 46

Moved by

[Lord Storey]

46: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Adoption and special guardianship support fund review(1) Within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the level of funding available per child from the adoption and special guardianship support fund.(2) The review must produce recommendations regarding any steps necessary to increase the funds available per child.(3) The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the adoption and special guardianship support fund was established in 2015 to provide therapeutic support to families caring for children through adoption and guardianship. Since its inception, the fund has supported over 4,000 families and played a transformative role in so many families’ lives, offering interventions that have helped children manage emotions, process early trauma and build trusting relationships, while equipping parents and guardians with the tools they need to care effectively. In fact, over the past 12 months, the Home for Good charity talked to a large number of families who had used the fund: 67% accessed therapy, such as counselling, play therapy and family therapy; 34% accessed therapeutic parenting support or training; and 33% accessed specialist assessments.

I am grateful to Minister MacAlister for his letter following a meeting with a number of us, in which he said:

“Many children who become adopted or are in kinship care have faced difficulties in early life that mean that they cannot live with their birth parents. These experiences place them at greater risk of mental health challenges, often made more complex by increased SEND prevalence compared to their peers. I am clear that government has a responsibility to these children which I am determined to meet it both now and in the future”.


He also said:

“The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund has helped children and their families access a wide range of interventions, including play therapy and therapeutic parenting courses”.


Imagine the dismay among those parents that this element of the fund has been reduced.

In Committee, I gave the example of a family living close to me that had adopted two children at a very young age who were absolutely traumatised. Counselling, paid for by the support fund, has created a huge change in those children. Because the fund has been cut, they are not able to continue with that provision.

Interestingly, that has been mirrored by a number of comments from other families talking about the support, who have said: “The support we had so far dramatically helped. Any loss of it would be devastating”; “My child is sick. She needed the help so she grows up feeling accepted and cared for and not angry and let down”; “Both our boys have additional needs. It scares us that we might lose the help they desperately need”; “The recent reduction of the adoption support fund has been a shock and has led to huge stress for the families who rely on it’; “The new financial limits imposed are a major concern. We are already stretched to our limits financially”; and, from a professional, “It is hard, when told by professionals that your child needs more support, and then you realise you cannot access what they recommend”.

My amendment is simple: that element of the fund should be restored, so that parents who adopted and fostered children can get that resource, which those children so desperately need. I beg to move.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in speaking to these amendments, I declare that I am a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Adoption and Permanence, alongside Rachael Maskell, the MP for York. In 2019, the APPG carried out an inquiry into the fund. I will simply read its recommendation 6, which is headed “Continuity”:

“The department should ensure a continuity of therapeutic support by removing the current annual application requirement, enabling agencies and authorities to apply for support that orients around the needs of children and their families”—


not necessarily the budgeting needs of the department in question.

I know, from carrying out that inquiry and subsequent work that I have been involved in—I am a governor of Coram, the children’s charity, which has a large say in adoption—that the experience of families that have been fortunate enough to access the support given by the fund is that it is literally transformative, albeit in many cases, when the therapeutic support is accessed, there is already a situation within the family where adoption breakdown is potentially a reality. Unfortunately, over the past couple of years, there has been an increase in the level of adoption breakdown. If one looks at the amount of effort, time and emotional expense involved in going through an adoption, one will find it difficult to imagine having, in the end, to admit that it has not worked but has failed—which is devastating both for the adoptive family and for the child or the children. This fund genuinely does make a difference. One of the achievements of His Majesty’s occasionally loyal Opposition when they were in government was getting it on to the statute book.

One of the problems with it is that continuity of support is fundamental; this is not the sort of support that responds well to being stop-start. Unfortunately, because the flow of funding has not been consistent and because, for whatever reason—perhaps through negotiations with the Treasury—the department has been unable to be assured enough of the funding, that makes it extraordinarily difficult for the department to say to the families that are currently getting or wish to get support that it will be available.

It makes the livelihoods of those practitioners providing this therapeutic support very difficult. This support is highly specialised because, in many cases, these children have been, and are, subject to really quite severe trauma. To be able to give the level of care required at the rate required, those professionals need consistency of funding from the Government, to enable them to stay in business and to be able to engage with a family on the basis that they will be able to provide sufficient support, over whatever time required for it to be effective, and to really make a difference. For those reasons, I hope that the Government will look at this carefully.

18:30

This year, 2026, is the centenary of the Adoption of Children Act 1926, which I am proud to say was brought on to the statute book when one of my maternal great-grandfathers was Prime Minister. Having checked, I found he did not actually have anything to do with that directly, but he obviously said to the Cabinet, “This is good; go forth and multiply”, and it went on to the statute book. In fact, immediately after this group, I shall be going downstairs to the Cholmondeley Room where Coram is celebrating the centenary of adoption going on to the statute book, which was a great achievement.

For all these reasons, I hope that the Minister will look at this very carefully and, above all, think about the families who really need this consistency of support and of the children whose lives within an adopted family may be at risk.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell. As he said, he has played a major role within Coram, the organisation which, as we sit here now, is celebrating the centenary of the Adoption of Children Act 1926. For noble Lords who do not know about this, the celebration is on the Terrace between now and 8 pm. If you get the opportunity, please go along and meet the many people who make such a large contribution to adoption within the UK. It is appropriate to mark the centenary appropriately.

That landmark legislation introduced, for the first time in England and Wales, a legal process by which the rights and responsibilities for a child could be transferred from birth parents to adoptive parents. Because of that, I find it unfortunate to say the least that on the centenary of that Act, the Bill we are discussing this evening features the word “adoption” only four times in 137 pages. I do not understand that. Three of those mentions are just mentions of adoption in other Acts of Parliament. Why that should be the case, I simply do not understand. A Bill with children’s well-being in its title surely should not ignore the key role played by adoptive parents in their children’s well-being. I made this point in Committee and I am not going to repeat what I said then, but those working with adoptive families who have suffered the cut in the adoption support fund to which the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Russell, have referred feel undervalued, despite the important job they do in keeping children out of care and residential homes.

We need to think again about how we approach adoption and give it the respect and resources it deserves. If any noble Lords choose to go down to the Terrace this evening, they will meet people who are very active and hardworking in that sector, who will tell you that they feel undervalued and under-supported. I hope that before long, that will change.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 46 and 47 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. In Committee and again this evening, we covered in detail the distress caused to parents and children by the very late timing of the announcement in relation to the support fund and by the cut in the size of the grant. In particular, Amendment 46 gives the Government an opportunity to review how best to use this funding ahead of the grant period in March 2027. I am not aware of any compelling evidence that supports the earlier decision to cut the grant size and to reduce the funding for specialist assessments, but if that exists perhaps the Minister can share it today. Of course, we on these Benches are open to improving the way funds are distributed, but we are genuinely concerned by the lack of visibility on what will happen next year. I hope very much that the Government will address this tonight.

I have also retabled my Amendment 100, which would give foster carers clear delegated authority for the children in their care on practical day-to-day matters. Foster carers have been clear that they would value this and, crucially, it is one of the reasons why we see too many leaving the profession. I hope the Minister can be more encouraging today than she was in Committee on this important point.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I reply to this group of amendments, I assure noble Lords that I will try not to drench anybody during the course of my response—although I have now decided to set myself an ambition of juggling three bottles of water by the time we get to the end of Report.

Important issues are covered in this group. Amendments 46 and 47 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concern funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund and provide a further opportunity to debate these important issues. Around 3,000 children are adopted each year and more than 3,800 enter special guardianship. I salute all those who welcome these vulnerable, often traumatised children into their homes and hope that the centenary celebrations noble Lords have alluded to, taking place here this evening, enable a celebration of that contribution and, rightly, as we have heard in this debate, a challenge about how we can do our best to support those who undertake adoption and special guardianship in future.

Almost 57,000 children have received adoption and special guardianship support since 2015, and many of them more than once. Since April 2025, we have approved applications for nearly 16,000 children. However, it is important to remember that this is not the only source of funding. The Families First Partnership programme will total £2.4 billion over the next three years. That funding is available to both adoptive and kinship families and to the services that support them. We have already confirmed that adoption and special guardianship funding will be continued for 2026-27. Further details will be shared in due course through the usual funding announcements.

As several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Watson, have made clear, we need to think longer term about the future of adoption support, as we promised to Parliament in September that we would—and perhaps even more so as we celebrate the centenary of adoption. We will shortly set out plans to engage widely on this with the aim of understanding how best to support children and young people to thrive in their new families and get the support they need in the most effective way.

I turn to Amendment 100, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and thank her for raising this important issue again. I would have to look back at the record, but I have a considerable amount of sympathy on this, which I hope I shared in Committee. Foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most. They therefore need to have the ability and the responsibility to make the decisions that they think are suitable for children.

The Government are prioritising fostering. Through the fostering recruitment and retention programme, we have been supporting over 60% of local authorities across England in 10 regional clusters to recruit and support foster carers. We know that we need to build on this to further accelerate foster-care recruitment and retention and we will soon publish a comprehensive set of measures to achieve this with regional care co-operatives and fostering hubs at the heart of these plans.

In relation to the issue specifically covered by this amendment, which seeks to ensure that foster carers have, by default, delegated authority on day-to-day issues, except where an alternative decision-maker is listed on the child’s placement plan, our guidance already sets out that foster carers should be able to make day-to-day decisions about the children in their care. I accept that too often we hear that this does not happen in practice, meaning that children in care miss out on normal childhood experiences and feel as if they are treated differently from their peers. I agree with the spirit of this amendment, but it is not necessary to include this in this Bill. Local authorities should already delegate all day-to-day decisions, and we have clear guidance that sets this out. We will nevertheless be taking further action on this issue as the noble Baroness pushes us to do.

Our upcoming fostering publications will set out our plans for ensuring that foster carers can feel confident in making day-to-day decisions for the children in their care. Our publications will also set out plans to reform the fostering national minimum standards. These will also reflect our position on day-to-day decision-making and how fostering services can support carers to make these decisions. Any changes to the national minimum standards, including those concerning decision-making for foster carers, would benefit from a period of consultation with relevant stakeholders. I accept the noble Baroness’s point that it is important that we make progress in this area.

Given that commitment and our plans on the longer-term provision of adoption support, I hope that I have addressed the concerns of noble Lords and that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful that the Minister agrees with the spirit of this amendment. She highlights that some parents have made up the difference and found the money themselves to carry on with this. I find it perverse that, for children with all sorts of problems who need therapeutic counselling, it is suddenly going to stop because the money is not there. Some parents have made up the difference, but those who cannot afford it are not able to do so. Those who come from a poor background and do not have the money are probably the ones who most need it. Those who have got the money can dip their hand in their pocket and pay the difference. That cannot be right in 21st-century UK. For those reasons, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:42

Division 1

Amendment 46 agreed.

Ayes: 235

Noes: 164

18:53

Amendment 47

Tabled by

[Lord Storey]

47: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Restoration of funding to the adoption and special guardianship support fundWithin one month of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must increase the funding available per child per year under the adoption and special guardianship support fund to a level equal to or greater than the funding available per child under the fund in March 2025.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reverse the cut to the adoption and special guardianship support fund.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will want to carry out the wishes of the House and ensure that those parents—all parents—have the support that they need. In the spirit of co-operation, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 47 not moved.

Amendment 48 not moved.

Amendment 49

Moved by

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

49: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Promoting contact between siblings who are not living togetherIn paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1 to the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/959) (care plans), for the words from “for” to “together” substitute “whom they are not living with”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends requirements to promote contact between a child in care and siblings who are not living with them, including those not in care, so far as this is consistent with the child’s welfare.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, as I indicated during the debate on this vital issue of sibling contact, including siblings both in care and not in care, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:54

Division 2

Amendment 49 agreed.

Ayes: 232

Noes: 160

19:04

Amendment 50

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

50: Before Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
“Children in temporary accommodation(1) After section 213A of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness: co-operation in certain cases involving children) insert—“213AA Duty of local housing authority in England to notify in certain cases involving children(1) This section applies where a local housing authority in England secures that accommodation is available for occupation by a child, in response to an application for assistance under this Part, unless securing that such accommodation is available means the authority ceases to be subject to the duty under section 193.(2) Except as provided in subsection (3), the authority must ask the parent of the child—(a) to agree to the authority notifying each relevant body applicable to the child that accommodation has been secured for the child as mentioned in subsection (1), and(b) if that agreement is given, to provide the authority with information about those bodies to enable the authority to identify each relevant body applicable to the child.(3) If the child— (a) is 16 or 17 years old,(b) is living independently from their parents, and(c) is the applicant for assistance within the meaning of section 183(2),the authority must ask the child as provided in subsection (2)(a) and (b).(4) If the parent or child (as the case may be) agrees to the authority making the notification mentioned in subsection (2)(a), the authority must take reasonable steps to notify each relevant body applicable to the child within 14 days beginning with the latest of—(a) the day on which the authority receives agreement,(b) the day on which the information about the relevant body is provided to the authority, and(c) the day on which the child is placed in accommodation.(5) The duties in subsections (2) and (4) only arise once in relation to each application for assistance under this Part.(6) In this section “relevant body” means—(a) the general medical practice in England with which the child is registered;(b) the body in the child’s local authority area in England through which health visiting services are available to the child;(c) the appropriate authority of a relevant educational institution in England at which the child is a registered pupil or student.(7) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations for the purposes of this section—(a) specifying any other description of body as a “relevant body”;(b) specifying any other institution as a relevant educational institution;(c) specifying the appropriate authority to be notified under this section in relation to an institution specified under paragraph (b).(8) In this section—“appropriate authority” means—(a) in relation to an Academy, a non-maintained special school, a special post-16 institution, an independent school or a provider of post-16 education or training, the proprietor;(b) in relation to a school maintained by a local authority or an institution within the further education sector, the governing body;“child” means a person under the age of 18;“parent” in relation to a child, includes any person—(a) who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for the child, or(b) who has care of the child, disregarding any absence of the child at a hospital or boarding school or any other temporary absence;“parental responsibility” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Children Act 1989;“proprietor” means the person or body of persons responsible for the management of the school or institution;“relevant educational institution” means—(a) an Academy (as defined by section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996) other than a secure 16-19 Academy (within the meaning of section 1B(7) of the Academies Act 2010);(b) a school maintained by a local authority (within the meaning of section 142(1) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998); (c) a non-maintained special school (within the meaning of section 337A of the Education Act 1996);(d) an independent school (within the meaning of section 463 of the Education Act 1996);(e) an institution within the further education sector (within the meaning of section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992);(f) a special post-16 institution (within the meaning of section 83 of the Children and Families Act 2014);(g) a provider of post-16 education or training that provides the kind of education or training mentioned in section 123(1)(d) or (g) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006;(h) a provider of post-16 education or training that provides education or training, other than in institutions within the further education sector, which is suitable to the requirements of persons aged 16 or over but under 19 and funded wholly or partly by the Secretary of State.”(2) The amendment made by this section does not apply in relation to a child for whom a local housing authority in England has secured accommodation in response to an application for assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 which was made before the date on which this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a new section into the Housing Act 1996, imposing a duty on local housing authorities in England to notify health and educational bodies when a child is placed in temporary accommodation where the parent (or the child in some cases) agrees to that notification being made.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendment 50 regards notifications where children are placed in temporary accommodation. All noble Lords who spoke to this in Committee saw this as a clearly sensible change to make sure such children can receive the right support when they need it. I am pleased to tell noble Lords that, following extensive cross-government work, the Government have tabled an amendment to introduce a new duty on local housing authorities to notify educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation, if consent is provided.

This underscores this Government’s commitment to break down barriers to opportunity and support all children to have the best life chances. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my honourable and very good friend Dame Siobhain McDonagh for raising what the House in Committee agreed is a very important issue and for engaging the Government constructively on it. This government amendment builds on the previous amendments, achieving their intent. Children in temporary accommodation are particularly vulnerable and may need additional support. This notification will alert health and education providers, enabling them to respond appropriately in accordance with existing duties and responsibilities and help to mitigate the harmful impacts of living in temporary accommodation.

For example, schools and colleges may wish to consider interventions such as providing pastoral support or practical assistance such as breakfast clubs, after-school activities and homework support. Health services may consider making proactive contact with families in temporary accommodation to ensure they do not experience gaps in healthcare provision. Guidance will follow for local authority housing officers and the public bodies receiving the notifications to ensure that we effectively implement this very important measure. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this is an improved version of Amendment 165, tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and me. We are all very grateful for this very positive response. Some 41,000 households in temporary accommodation have been placed out of area and 26,640 of them are households with children, so a large number of children will benefit from this.

I have three quick questions for the Minister. First, when she wound up the debate in Committee, she said some technical issues needed to be resolved. I think she said there were some operational issues to see how it can work. I assume those have been resolved. I hope there can be some IT solutions that mean we do not have to do this manually and it will be done automatically. Secondly, under proposed new subsections (6)(a) and (6)(b), the bodies that have to be notified that there is a child in their area in temporary accommodation out of area are medical practices and schools in England. Those living in Shropshire, for example, may be placed out of area in Wales—is there any duty to notify the Welsh authorities that they have children in temporary accommodation living in their area? Thirdly and finally, when will this very helpful amendment come into operation? What is the commencement date? Having said that, I warmly welcome this initiative.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, I tabled this amendment in Committee. I also pay tribute to Siobhain McDonagh for having pursued this for many years and the way in which she has worked with different parts of government to try to work through the issues. It was always really about the children and not about the problems that government has in doing this. I will now make a very lengthy peroration and simply say thank you.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, I supported and spoke to a similar amendment in Committee. Again, I will not be very long.

I want to celebrate this great example of when campaigning works. I pay tribute to Justlife, which worked alongside the Shared Health Foundation for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Households in Temporary Accommodation. I want to stress the importance of this, and will not apologise for repeating what are such horrific figures. From 2023 to 2025, 80 children died while in temporary accommodation; that was 3% of total child deaths. From 2019 to 2024, temporary accommodation was cited as a factor in the deaths of 74 children.

Having said that, I want to stress, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, was hinting at, that it is crucial that this comes into effect as soon as possible. We could potentially save a life if GP surgeries and schools know the situation that children are in. Much more broadly, we need to get to a situation where we do not have children in temporary accommodation for the long periods of time they are now. Please let this be done as soon as possible.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I give heartfelt thanks to the Minister from these Benches for moving this amendment. I have not dared count the number of amendments my noble friend has tabled, but this is a magnificent example of a Minister and a Government listening.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome the amendment and thank the Government for tabling it.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their thanks and contributions. Tabling and discussing this amendment has been an important first step. We are clear that, if it is agreed, as it appears it will be—this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Young, raised about some of the technical areas where we need to ensure that this works effectively—we will continue to work across departments so that it has the impact that the Government desire: to strengthen information sharing so that educational institutions and health providers are aware where children living in temporary accommodation may require additional or different support.

As I said, alongside the legislation we will provide guidance for local authority housing officers and relevant education and health bodies to ensure that the duty is well understood by all relevant bodies. Where possible, we will update existing guidance to minimise burdens and support accessibility.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, it is worth saying that this is one part of the action that the Government are taking with respect to temporary accommodation. Through our homelessness strategy, published in December, we have set out a range of measures to support families with children in temporary accommodation, including protecting record levels of investment in tackling homelessness and rough sleeping, and eliminating the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families, other than very short-term use in emergencies, by the end of this Parliament. We have set an ambition to cut school days lost for children in temporary accommodation, with a stronger role for pastoral teams to work closely with families in that situation, including preventing unlawful removal from a school’s roll. We have made a clear pledge to prevent deaths caused by gaps in healthcare. To achieve that, there will be proactive health outreach to families in temporary accommodation, and a clinical code to improve data and prevent incidents. We will end the practice of discharging newborns into bed and breakfast, or other unsuitable housing, and work with the NHS on safe and robust pathways.

In response to another question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young, there is no duty within this amendment to notify the Welsh, but we will look at how we can do that in regulations in the future, if needed. I wholly take his point, given that I come from that part of the country myself, about areas that are close to the border, where moves may be happening across the border.

I will write to noble Lords with an update on the timetable for the implementation of this very important step. I thank noble Lords for the welcome they have given it this evening.

Amendment 50 agreed.

Clause 10: Accommodation of looked after children: regional co-operation arrangements

Amendment 51

Moved by

[Lord Bellingham]

51: Clause 10, page 14, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) Regional co-operation arrangements must include the local integrated care board in their development, delivery and governance.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment aims to highlight the need to include health agencies in the regional cooperation arrangements.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. Although she went some way to satisfying me and others who support this amendment, I do not think she went far enough. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

19:15

Division 3

Amendment 51 agreed.

Ayes: 216

Noes: 161

19:26

Amendment 52 not moved.

Clause 11: Use of accommodation for deprivation of liberty

Amendment 53

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

53: Clause 11, page 16, line 33, after “care” insert “, education”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that children deprived of their liberty have access to education.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, we come to this important group, which covers children who are deprived of their liberty. Noble Lords will remember from our debate in Committee that the number of such children has risen by 11 times in only seven years to almost 1,300 in 2024. Most troublingly, the number of children under the age of 12 deprived of their liberty grew by more than 50% in the last quarter, and 97% of these children are already in care. They are deprived of their liberty, typically for an average of six months, and restraint of those children is permitted in two-thirds of cases. The amendments in my name, and those of the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Meston, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, offer a practical route to turning this tide. They would create greater integration of services, stronger accountability and a focus on recovery rather than containment.

Amendment 56 would place an explicit responsibility on local authorities and health partners to be jointly responsible for the funding of care for children who are deprived of their liberty or at risk of being so. The amendment would make clear, through government guidance, the expectation that agencies work together not only at the point of crisis but at an earlier stage.

Amendment 58 would require the Secretaries of State for Education and Health to lay a report before Parliament annually with transparent data showing how many children are deprived of their liberty, as well as their characteristics, circumstances and outcomes. This would bring crucial transparency to the system and show whether the Government’s initiatives are working.

Amendment 55 would ensure there is comprehensive guidance for placement and care planning in relation to the specific aims when applying for a deprivation of liberty order and, crucially, to how a child’s plan will support their recovery so that they spend the shortest possible time with their liberty removed. Currently, children are stuck in limbo for many months, and this amendment would address that.

Amendment 53 would ensure that children deprived of their liberty receive an education. Amendment 60 would strengthen the role of the independent reviewing officer to make sure that decisions are scrutinised robustly. Finally, Amendment 54 would ensure monthly reviews of every deprivation of liberty order by a director of children’s services or head of social work practice to ensure that it continues only where strictly necessary.

These proposals have not been developed in isolation. They seek to build on the important collaborative work led by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, which has brought together representatives from child and adolescent mental health services, children’s social care, regional care co-operatives, NHS England and the Department for Education itself. I urge the Minister not to wait for another review or pilot. These children do not have lobbyists; they do not write to their MP; they do not have front-page advocates. They are, for the most part, invisible. Their lives are bound by locked doors and constant supervision. They cannot ask for change. We must therefore act for them.

19:30

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I have promoted a number of amendments in this group and signed others, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has so elegantly given. I will not waste your Lordships’ time by repeating them. I simply say that, over these last few years, I have become all too familiar with the acronym ACE—adverse childhood experience. We know that any child who has had four or more of those experiences is effectively traumatised, in one way or another, for life. It is a major thing to deprive them of their liberty, so whatever we can do to support these children and ensure it happens as little, for as short a time and with as careful scrutiny as possible will be vital. I therefore urge noble Lords, if these matters are put to a Division, to support them.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I too support these amendments. The debate in Committee threw a light on the working of the deprivation of liberty jurisdiction, which, one could not help noting, was not altogether familiar to many.

Typically, these orders are made when parents cannot provide good enough care and the child concerned needs protection from outside pressures and their own risk-taking behaviour. Before they come to court, the local authority, the guardian and the court have to do their best to provide placement in appropriate settings and to enable the child to maintain significant relationships, both of which are easier said than done. Problems that follow the initial order can include unstable placement and repeated changes of placement. These are not easy to manage. I have read of a child saying that it was pointless to try to build up any relationship in the setting in which she was placed because she knew that she would be moved again or the staff would leave. That is a very unhappy state of affairs.

There can be review hearings by the court, but they are not always satisfactory in my experience. Therefore, sensibly, Amendment 54 would require review by the director of children’s services to ensure proper monitoring and adherence to the objectives of the original authorisation to deprive liberty. Therefore, among this package before us, I strongly support this amendment, which would also comply with the child’s right to regular reviews in accordance with Article 25 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will briefly focus on Amendment 53, on the right to education. I want to bring in the voice of one child who spoke to the Children’s Commissioner in her report on this issue. Talking about the lack of education they were receiving, this child said:

“I don’t think it’s fair that they’re making us miss out on our education because they don’t know where to put us”.


That child understands the situation they are in, and it is just unacceptable. All but two of the children whom the Children’s Commissioner spoke to said they were receiving less education when subjected to deprivation of liberty than they received in their otherwise often very chaotic circumstances. We have to make sure that these children continue with an education.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very important and sensitive area of law, and valid issues and concerns are raised in the amendments spoken to so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I also pay tribute, as she did, to the work of the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory in this area. I know the Government have been working hard to see what can be done and to give various assurances. I hope the Minister can provide further assurances today so that we can all be satisfied that they are taking this issue very seriously and have a clear plan to tackle it.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I have added my name to Amendment 53. It is vital that children who are deprived of liberty can access quality education. Otherwise, we really are depriving them of hope and a future. I too quote the Children’s Commissioner:

“For the very small number of children where controls on their freedom are necessary in order to keep them or others safe, we must make sure they have not only excellent, individualised care, but also full protection under the law … we have a moral obligation to ensure that children at risk of harm are not simply contained and kept out of the community, but are seen, heard, and given the care and support they need to thrive”.


She continues later:

“Where a deprivation of liberty is authorised, the conditions should include a plan for meeting the child’s specific needs through intensive intervention and work aimed at helping them to be safe in the long-term. This plan should be co-produced by health and social care if appropriate, and could include mental health support, mood and behaviour management, work on addressing risks of exploitation, educational support, and any other specialist therapeutic intervention that is required”.


Once again, adding one word to the Bill could change many futures.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for raising important points regarding Clause 11, which, as noble Lords have identified, relates to some of the most vulnerable children in the country. I know that noble Lords rightly feel particularly strongly about this measure. I thank the noble Baroness for her engagement with my officials ahead of this debate, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield.

It is important to remember that Clause 11 will already make an important change from some of the situations identified by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, correctly and graphically identified some of the challenges with the current operation of the system, which is why this measure seeks to bring more children who would otherwise be deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court within a statutory scheme where they will benefit from enhanced safeguards and protections, which many of the amendments in this group are seeking.

Turning to these amendments, I reiterate that this measure is intended not to encourage the practice of depriving children of their liberty but to ensure that there are appropriate rights and safeguards in place to prevent children being deprived of liberty inappropriately or for longer than is absolutely necessary. We are committed to reducing the number of children in complex situations as part of reforms to rebalance the system away from crisis intervention towards earlier help and to prevent children’s needs escalating to the point where they need to be deprived of their liberty, and to ensuring that when they are, it can happen in more appropriate accommodation than has been the case up to this point.

We are grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its scrutiny and have, in government Amendment 57, accepted its recommendation that regulations developed using the powers under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring parliamentary scrutiny and approval in both Houses.

Amendment 56 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is about joint funding arrangements between partners for children deprived of their liberty under this measure. The Government wholly agree that care for these children must be jointly funded and delivered through an integrated, whole-system approach, which should include social care, health, education and youth justice. However, we do not wish to restrict pooled funding arrangements in the way this amendment does, tying it to the existence of the Section 25 order. We think pooled funding arrangements would be beneficial to a wider cohort of looked-after children, including those whose order has recently come to an end or who are at risk of needing to be deprived of their liberty. This requires testing first to ensure that the right cohort of children and relevant partners are included.

That is why the Department for Education, with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, is leading a national programme to tackle underlying systemic failures and to support local areas to work together more effectively. We are building cross-system integration, starting with the peer collaborative convened by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory—rightly praised by several noble Lords this evening—which identified key elements for transforming care for children with complex trauma, supporting professionals to stand together so that risk is better tolerated and supported.

West Sussex, part of the South East Regional Care Cooperative, is working closely with the ICB to test how a cross-system team can drive integrated support, build an understanding of need and identify gaps in the current pathways across health, social care and justice for this cohort of children. We are not waiting; we are making quick progress in a way that is most likely to be appropriate and solve the problems. Next year we will expand to pilots, where we will evaluate methods of pooled funding, developing best practices that can be adopted and adapted by other local areas. We know that pooled funding works—such as through the better care fund for adults—but legislating now would be premature. We must first test and refine the most effective approach to ensure that the eventual framework enables the right level of cross-system integration and innovation.

Amendment 55 on recovery plans, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, aims to ensure that there are plans to remove restrictions from a child. The Government agree that no child should be deprived of their liberty any longer than absolutely necessary, which is why there are already several existing duties on local authorities in this regard, including the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child looked after by them, and that placement decisions are informed by a care plan based on an understanding of the child’s needs and best interests.

Rather than legislate further in this space, diverting local authorities’ attention toward navigating an increasingly complex statutory framework instead of focusing on the child’s needs, we want to strengthen the way in which existing legislation is applied, re-emphasising the need for a care plan that is co-designed between all the professionals involved in a child’s care and treatment.

As part of the court application, it is the practice of local authorities to submit the child’s full care plan. The court should be provided with both the restrictions they plan to impose and the action and progress required to end restrictions as quickly as possible. The plan should be formulated with input from all those professionals involved in the child’s care and will be scrutinised by the court and used to assess progress. If the court is not satisfied about the level of detail included in the plan to allow it to monitor progress and de-escalation, the court should require further input from the relevant professionals.

Similarly, regarding Amendment 60 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, relating to the abilities of independent reviewing officers to escalate concerns on the implementation of a child’s plan to Cafcass, IROs already have the statutory power to perform this function. They are responsible for monitoring the performance of local authorities in relation to a child’s care plan and must consider escalating cases to Cafcass whenever appropriate. This includes issues related to deprivation of liberty. It is therefore not necessary to legislate to expand the legal duties of IROs.

19:45

Amendment 58, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, is about an annual review of impact. As I have stated, the Government are committed to reducing the number of children in these situations. I have already covered some of the specific points raised, namely in relation to recovery plans and IROs. His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service will continue to record and publish statistics on applications made under the amended Section 25. In addition, we will introduce a new module monitoring the use of deprivation of liberty orders under the inherent jurisdiction. It will be included in the annual children looked after data returns from 2026-27 to support our monitoring and evaluation processes in the longer term.

Amendment 54 seeks to impose a requirement on directors of children’s services to review deprivation of liberty orders every four weeks. As I said in Committee, the Bill gives powers to the Secretary of State to set a maximum period after which a deprivation of liberty cannot continue without court authorisation. The court is absolutely the right level to be making that kind of decision. Senior officers in the placing authority who are responsible for and familiar with the child’s needs must already regularly review whether the restrictions are still necessary or appropriate, doing so in partnership with health and other professionals involved in the child’s care. A fixed four-week review requirement on the placing authority risks creating an arbitrary deadline. Providers, in conjunction with placing authorities and other agencies, should be continually ensuring that minimum appropriate restrictions are used to keep that child safe.

Amendment 53 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, includes education in the purpose of this accommodation. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that it is so important that where children are subject to restrictions on their liberty, they can still access education and it remains a focus for those caring for them in their recovery. There are substantial existing requirements on local authorities and others to ensure that all children in care can access education to help them achieve and thrive. However, we acknowledge that the quality and quantity of education for these children is variable—arguably, not good enough—and therefore we are working with the sector to understand promising practice and, via the pilots, will work with local areas to understand how their offer can be bolstered.

Through the peer collaborative, we have seen how including virtual school heads as part of multi-agency discussions for children deprived of liberty can ensure that a child’s educational needs remain a focus. There are a range of models to support a child’s education that could be adopted depending on their individual needs. For some, this may mean continuing to access education in the community. For others, education in-reach services may be appropriate. The point of Clause 11 is to ensure that these children get the treatment they need within a homely environment, which may involve depriving them of their liberty but where they are able to remain closer to home and connected to their community.

This approach supports continuity and stability, as the child can continue to access services after moving on from a placement back to their family home or a foster home. For this reason, the provision of education will not be the primary purpose of the accommodation. While the amendment from the noble Baroness is well intended, it could risk changing the very nature of the accommodation where Clause 11 enables children to be cared for. Local authorities will retain all existing duties in relation to a child’s education while they are accommodated in that accommodation, including when they are under a Section 25 order.

I hope that, by explaining the extent of the wider programme of work under way, I have reassured noble Lords that we are not waiting. We are already taking action, supported by the important work by Nuffield identified in the debate this evening. The existing requirements already in legislation should reassure noble Lords that improving the experiences and outcomes of this group of children is a priority for the Government. I hope this addresses noble Lords’ concerns and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her very full reply and recognise the commitment of the Government and some of the initiatives that she raised.

I do not feel that her response to my Amendment 56 met its aims. She said that it could restrict pooled funding for the group of children to whom it might apply. She knows better than me that the Government can come back with a better version. Until we come to that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 53.

Amendment 53 withdrawn.

Amendments 54 and 55 not moved.

Amendment 56

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

56: Clause 11, page 17, line 25, at end insert—
“(8ZB) Where arrangements are made for the accommodation of a child under this section, health authorities specified in subjection (8ZC) must make joint funding arrangements under this section for the provision of that care.(8ZC) The authorities are—(a) NHS England,(b) any integrated care board, Local Health Board, Special Health Authority, National Health Service trust or NHS foundation trust,(c) the Secretary of State in relation to his or her functions under section 12 of the National Health Service Act 2006, and(d) any person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires joint funding arrangements to be made by relevant health providers for the accommodation of children under section 25 of the Children Act 1989. By mandating joint funding from NHS England, integrated care boards, and other specified health authorities, this amendment seeks to ensure that children receive more holistic and joined up support.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I would like to test the opinion of the House.

19:52

Division 4

Amendment 56 agreed.

Ayes: 159

Noes: 153

20:02

Amendment 57

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

57: Clause 11, page 17, line 25, at end insert—
“(9A) In section 104 of the Children Act 1989 (regulations and orders)—(a) in subsection (3A), after “(3B)” insert “, (3BZA)”;(b) after subsection (3B) insert—“(3BZA) Regulations fall within this subsection if they are regulations made in the exercise of the power conferred by section 25(2) or (7).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations made under section 25(2) or (7) of the Children Act 1989 (use of accommodation for restricting liberty) as amended by clause 11, will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 57 agreed.

Amendment 58

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

58: Clause 11, page 17, line 40, at end insert—
“(12) The relevant Secretaries of State for Education and for Health and Social Care must collaborate to lay before Parliament, annually, a review of the impact of the measures contained in this section.(13) The review must, as a minimum, consider and report on the following matters—(a) the numbers of new section 25 orders made during the last year in England and in Wales, the ages of the children placed under them, and an analysis of whether and where the rate of use is increasing or decreasing;(b) the durations of child detention or other restriction of liberty under such orders (minimum, maximum, mean and median);(c) the types of accommodation in which section 25 orders have been applied, including their registration status with Ofsted or the Care Quality Commission; (d) the approval and use of “recovery plans” for all children to move on from section 25 orders in a short a period as safely possible; (e) the involvement of Independent Reviewing Officers, independent advocates and children themselves in the making and reviewing of section 25 orders;(f) the types of accommodation where children live following the end of a section 25 order.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review to be laid before Parliament, outlining the quantity and impact of section 25 orders that year.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, we made good progress this evening. None the less, having an annual report laid before Parliament would bring together the information that we need in a coherent form, which would allow this House and the other place to properly scrutinise what is going on. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

20:02

Division 5

Amendment 58 disagreed.

Ayes: 148

Noes: 156

20:12

Amendments 59 to 62 not moved0.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.53 pm.