Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

Report (3rd Day) (Continued)

21:50

Amendment 98

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

98: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Free milk entitlement: child minder agencies(1) The Secretary of State must, using powers under section 175 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (regulations, orders and schemes), amend regulation 18 of the Welfare Food Regulations 1996 (milk or dried milk for children in day care) to ensure that children provided with daycare by childminders registered with child minder agencies are entitled to free milk.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.”

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very different topic from what we were discussing before the dinner break—we move to nursery milk. Only in your Lordships’ House could one say those words.

My Amendment 98 would bring childminders who are registered with a childminding agency into the scope of the free nursery milk scheme. As your Lordships know, the nursery milk scheme provides a free portion of milk every day to any child under the age of five attending a registered childcare setting; it is a long-standing initiative dating back to the 1940s. The legislation underpinning the scheme was written before childminder agencies—CMAs—came into existence, and a later drafting oversight meant that milk subsidies were not mentioned in the legislation that created CMAs in 2014. For a decade, childminders registered through CMAs have been unable to claim milk subsidies, while those registered directly with Ofsted can; that is despite the fact that all childminders are Ofsted regulated and operate under the same regulations.

The loophole has been widely acknowledged as a clear legislative oversight. Two successive Governments, including my own, have pledged to fix it, but sadly no action has been taken. As a result, more than 10,000 children are currently missing out on free milk. As CMA-registered childminders make up a growing share of the workforce, the number of children affected increases every year. A simple legislative update would close this loophole and restore parity across the early years sector. I hope that the Minister can do better and go further than previous Governments—including my own—and commit not only to addressing this but to giving the House a “no later than” date for doing so. I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. The purpose of Amendment 104 is to ensure that no eligible family misses out on the Healthy Start payments, as there is evidence that many families have not been aware of this important extra support and have therefore not applied for it. I have tabled this amendment again because I was not content with the Minister’s response in Committee, but I thank her for her subsequent letter.

During that debate, the Minister said that she could not accept my amendment because the Healthy Start programme requires an eligibility check as the funds come in the form of a prepaid card. This, she said, is a financial product and therefore requires the recipient to accept the terms. Will the Minister please note that my amendment, in proposed new subsection (3), takes note of that fact and requires that the eligible person must be able to opt out of the scheme if they wish. That, of course, implies that they also opt in.

This could be done by rejecting the terms of the card offered, rather than accepting them. However, the Minister went on to say that to increase uptake, which she agreed is important, the NHS Business Services Authority will write to those eligible to encourage them to apply to the scheme.

Three questions arise from that answer. First, if the NHS Business Services Authority is going to write to those who are eligible, it must have already found out who is eligible. If that is the case, why can those people not be enrolled, informed that they have been enrolled and, finally, given the chance to opt out if they wish? I cannot imagine that many will.

Secondly, now that the Minister has laid Amendments 111 and 112, which I am sure she will explain in a few minutes, it is clear that government departments will now be able to share information for the purpose of ascertaining eligibility for free school meals. I hope we can assume, therefore, that the NHSBSA will also be able to get information from other departments to ascertain whether the families are eligible for Healthy Start. If the NHSBSA is going to write to eligible people, will it at least enclose an application form and prepaid envelope to make it very easy to apply and accept the terms? There should be no need for the recipient to have to supply any further evidence of their eligibility, because the NHSBSA will already have established that, or it would not have written to them in the first place. What possible further checks are needed?

Thirdly, can the Minister say how long this programme will take to get up and running? Will she undertake to report to Parliament about to what extent this activity has improved uptake over the first year of its operation? I look forward to the Minister’s reply on that matter.

The purpose of my Amendment 113 is to ensure that schools and caterers are supported to provide adequate, affordable and nutritious food at breakfast and lunch to all the children at the school, whether they are on free school meals or they pay. I have laid the amendment again because there are several questions to ask about the Minister’s Committee stage reply and there have been developments since Committee.

The amendment requires the current school standards review to be completed within 12 months of Royal Assent and that a supportive scheme be set up to ensure compliance with those standards. This timescale is not a lot to ask, given that the then relevant Minister in the Department for Education promised me almost a year ago, when I discussed with him the recommendations of your Lordships’ House’s report Recipe for Health: A Plan to Fix Our Broken Food System, that the review would happen. It took until 5 June 2025 for an announcement that consultations would take place. Oh, how slowly the wheels of government turn. However, the Minister promised in Committee to share the details of this consultation in due course. Can she say now when “due course” will be? She said that it will include how to ensure whether schools comply with the updated standards. Currently, there is very little inspection and enforcement, the responsibility having been given to school governors. It must be said that some schools provide a very good standard of food but others do not. It is not always their fault.

Research carried out by Professor Greta Defeyter of Northumbria University has shown that larger schools, especially those in areas where not too many pupils are eligible for free school meals, sometimes manage to benefit from economies of scale, and some actually make a profit from the allowance they get for free school meals. However, this is not always spent on improving the general quality of food in the school.

However, there are others, particularly small schools in areas of high deprivation, in which the free school meal budget has to be supplemented from the education budget. There is certainly nothing left over to improve the food overall. This is crazy, given the importance of good food to child health and development. There are certainly questions to be asked about how the allocation of funds works—not just in theory but taking into account the facts on the ground. However, I am talking about the quality and affordability of all food served in schools, not just the free school meals. This amendment is not about free school meal entitlement. It is more important that free school meal children get a nutritious meal at lunchtime because their parents may not be able to give them one in the evening—or sometimes any meal at all.

22:00

The Minister mentioned building on the compliance pilot. This took place with the Food Standards Agency in 2022-23 and focused on the ability of local authority food safety officers to ask questions about the standards of the food rather than just inspecting food hygiene in school kitchens. It was found that, yes, they could carry out this role given clear guidance, but that more work needed to be done to respond to the findings of schools that were failing. We now have consultations about reviewing the school food standards and bringing them up to date, but no plan to inspect or enforce the new standards or to help schools to comply; nor am I aware of any plan to review whether some schools are being disadvantaged by how FSM allowance is calculated, particularly small schools in disadvantaged areas, as I just mentioned.

A wider review will be required as soon as we have the new standards. It is also relevant to note that we are awaiting the updated nutrient profiling scheme. I would have thought that this would also affect the new school food standards. There are several interacting policies here. While we are waiting for the Government to act, the very effective All-Party Group on School Food led by the Minister’s very determined colleague, Sharon Hodgson MP, has outlined a plan for an in-depth inquiry into school food. It will have the benefit of an expert advisory board and will call witnesses, including head teachers, local authority and private caterers, other experts, NGOs, academics, pupils and industry representatives to ensure that it benefits from a clear picture of the situation and, most importantly, how to fix it. We are not just talking about money here, though there may be recommendations about how it is allocated.

Sharon Hodgson and I are hoping to meet Minister Bailey from the Department for Education, who is now responsible for school food, to discuss our plan for the inquiry. If the Minister can assure us that the Government are going to do a similar root-and-branch overhaul of school food, there may be no need for the all-party group to go ahead with this inquiry. However, if she prefers to wait for the recommendations of the all-party group inquiry, I hope that she and the Minister can assure us today that the Government will take whatever action is necessary to implement the inquiry’s recommendations in the interests of our children’s future health. She will know that all-party group inquiries are cross-party and can be enormously helpful to Governments, since they are close to the grass roots of the problem that they are looking at. You have only to look at how helpful the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health has been to the Government in devising the Tobacco and Vapes Bill currently before Parliament.

The Minister will note that Amendment 113 says in the very first proposed new subsection that the scheme I propose should support schools and caterers to help them feed our children more nourishing food. However, we need to know where we are now so that we can focus more help on those who need it most. Monitoring and compliance are vital parts of the amendment. Can the Minister shed more light on all the factors at play here, and assure me that she and her ministerial colleague in another place will work with the all-party group led by Sharon Hodgson MP as we share a common aim to improve school food?

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Barran and to associate myself with Amendment 104 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, whom it is a pleasure to follow.

The Welfare Food Regulations 1996 lay out in astonishing detail the importance of milk to those who were entitled to it for the early years. While there are different regulatory regimes in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, it is clear that certain children in certain circumstances are entitled to dried milk or fresh milk in prescribed portions per week, be it according to age; to those whose families are on financial assistance for low income; to the Healthy Start, which would include expectant mothers and those with children otherwise under four—and, of course, some people of any age, including children, but not necessarily children, with certain physical and mental difficulties.

I think it is common ground on all sides of this House that the provision of milk as part of a healthy diet is a good thing. But the regulations provide for this milk to be dispensed, if I can use that word, in maternity and healthcare centres, as part of the National Health Service, but also in other welfare and food distribution centres. But the world has changed, and these settings are no longer the only places where people access help.

The NHS, which may work from nine to five, or a food distribution centre, which may open for only a few mornings a week, are not necessarily the only places nowadays where people can access the help they need. Those settings are just not as thick on the ground as they used to be at times that are convenient to families.

I do not deny the good work of those settings, but others are available under the same regulations, and some of them are even paid for by the state. My noble friend Lady Barran laid out the importance of childminders and childminder agencies as a part of the mix that helps provide time and space for families to get into work so they can earn and improve their family circumstances, with the flexibility to take different jobs, which may be available on a part-time, out-of-hours or seasonal basis.

These settings—the childminder agencies—are relevant. They are local, flexible and professional, and we have heard that they are regulated. But for some reason, they are not trusted by these regulations to dispense milk in liquid form or in dried powder. It just serves no purpose to exclude them. This is why these amendments are so important: to exclude the most accessible settings from the ability to provide milk and other healthy foods is not just bad for them, it is bad for the children.

I cannot understand for the life of me why one setting is good and the other is bad. But there is another string to this argument: that it is bad not only for the children and the settings themselves, but for the economy. There are 1.8 million dairy cows in this country, with a herd size average of 225, and that number has doubled in the last 50 years since 1975.

Significant parts of the West Country are devoted to dairying—milk production, cheese production and so forth. I see my noble friend Lady Williams sitting in front of me on the Front Bench. She is from the Cheshire plains and will know better than anybody the importance of the work dairy farmers do, rising early to milk and care for their cow herds, come rain or shine, suffering as they have in the last two months a 30% reduction in the price of liquid milk from the dairies.

It is not just the children who need all the help they can get; it is our dairy farmers too. While this is, of course, a subsidiary point to the main thrust of Amendment 98 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, it is a consideration. The main thrust is that we must stop this arbitrary division that forms gaps between different sorts of settings, saying that only the NHS can be trusted to dispense milk, and that childminders and the CMAs are not to be trusted.

If we really have the interests of the child at heart, we need to have as many settings as possible that can dispense good food and milk and associated products, at times that are convenient for the busy lives families lead, rather than just straitjacketing them into the nine to five and thinking that is good enough.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I support both amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in particular Amendment 113 on the school food improvement scheme. I am incredibly glad to see how many steps the Government are taking, but there are still things we need to work on. The noble Baroness referred to Professor Defeyter’s work on the finances and how, with big schools versus small schools, a lot of the money gets lost. It also happens with councils that are so cash-strapped that they sometimes take some of the money.

We are still living in a country where we have a postcode lottery on food. Some schools do amazing jobs with limited resources and some schools really do not. Nobody can now dispute the fact that the free school lunch, or any school lunch, is incredibly important to children. Yet we hear too often about schools that allow only 20 minutes for lunch, in which time you are meant to play, make a call, go to the toilet and have lunch, which is clearly going to be seen as a secondary part of a school.

It is also secondary in that the school catering departments at the moment get very little training. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of a scheme in the department being run by Chefs in Schools and a lot of philanthropic organisations to actively train chefs to go into schools and work with them to improve the quality. For the same amount of money, you can have really good quality and transform children’s lives.

Finally, nursery is equally important in getting kids eating the right stuff right from the beginning. I absolutely support that we need milk, but children also get fed there and those meals tend to fall outside of anything right now, as far as I can see. I would be interested to know what the Government will do.

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

My Lords, the amendments in the third group cover free school meals, the nursery milk scheme, the Healthy Start scheme and school food. Ensuring that every child has access to nutritious food and support is fundamental to their health, development and ability to learn. We know that good nutrition starts early and that simple measures, whether access to milk or balanced school meals, can make a lasting difference.

I turn to government Amendments 111 and 112. Last year the Government announced that from September 2026, every child in a household receiving universal credit will be entitled to free school meals. This decisive action will lift 100,000 children across England out of poverty and save families around £500 per child each year. The amendments will enshrine this crucial commitment in law and ensure its successful delivery.

A child is currently eligible for free school meals if they attend a state-funded school in England, their household is in receipt of universal credit and the household’s income is less than £7,400. Government Amendment 112 creates a new category of free school meals, to be known as expanded free school meals, which will apply to that cohort of children in receipt of universal credit but with a household income greater than £7,400. This will ensure that free school lunches are provided on request to all pupils from households in receipt of universal credit and that state-funded schools in England will be under a duty to provide meals to those eligible children.

We will support over half a million more children in this way. Providing the most disadvantaged children with a healthy lunch each school day will help secure their education and improve their future prospects.

Government Amendment 111 will deliver the practical implementation of the free school meals expansion. The Department for Education relies on the provisions of the Education Act 2005 to process income and benefits data from other government departments so that it can check and confirm a child’s eligibility for free school meals. The scope of this power is, however, limited. This amendment will amend the 2005 Act to enable the department to identify whether a child is eligible under the current free school meals criteria or the expanded free school meals criteria and then communicate this to local authorities, parents and schools so that they in turn may determine whether a child is also eligible for other education benefits and funding.

22:15

This amendment will for the first time also allow parents and schools to check a child’s eligibility for free school meals by giving them access to the eligibility checking system. This is the digital portal currently used only by local authorities to verify whether a child meets the eligibility criteria for free lunches. Giving parents and schools access to it will simplify and accelerate eligibility checks.

A further change will allow the Department for Education to check eligibility for pupils who are granted free school meals through government guidance or grant. By this, I mean children with no recourse to public funds and children receiving education otherwise than at school who do not meet free school meal eligibility criteria set out in legislation. There is instead an expectation set out in guidance that local authorities should provide them with free school meals. This measure will simplify free school meal eligibility checks for these children and remove administrative burdens on local authorities and schools.

Finally, children whose parents are in receipt of asylum support under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 are eligible for free school meals. This amendment will make it clear that asylum support data is considered a function of social security and may be shared by the Home Office with the Department for Education and other public bodies to verify eligibility for free school meals and other education benefits and funding. This is a minor technical change being made to remove potential ambiguity in the law.

Access to healthy school meals can enhance behaviour, support concentration and raise attendance, all of which help provide children with the foundation they need to succeed. I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments, which will deliver free school meals to our most disadvantaged children.

Amendment 113, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, seeks to establish a school food improvement scheme. I recognise the importance of these reforms and the work that the noble Baroness has done to elevate the profile of childhood nutrition. We agree that it is vital that the food children receive throughout the school day is tasty and nutritious. We are committed to raising the healthiest generation ever and are continuing our work to revise the school food standards. We are engaging experts across the sector and developing our plans to consult on the changes later in the year. Depending on the timing, as the noble Baroness says, I feel sure that my honourable friend, Minister Olivia Bailey, would be more than keen to work with the all-party parliamentary group as well.

As the noble Baroness said, it is also important that we ensure compliance with current and future standards. School governors and trustees have a statutory duty to ensure compliance by holding school leaders to account for meeting the school food standards. Through our review, we will engage with the sector on a range of matters, including compliance. We want to support governors to work confidently with school leaders to ensure the standards are met. In November 2024, along with the National Governance Association, we published an online training programme for governors on school food. Through this training, as it is rolled out, we want to improve understanding of the standards and give governing boards confidence to hold their school leaders to account on their whole-school approach to food. If we need to go further on the compliance regime to ensure that standards are met, we will engage with the sector on that as part of our review.

Amendment 98, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to extend the nursery milk scheme to include children provided with daycare by childminders registered with child minder agencies. I am very aware that significant female politicians in the noble Baroness’s party have been responsible for exactly the opposite of providing additional milk to our children, and I have previously slightly chided the noble Baroness on this. The noble Baroness is the anti-Thatcher of the Conservative Party, and she deserves credit for turning around the record of her party and focusing on getting more milk for children rather than snatching it.

I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concern about ensuring that children looked after by childminders are entitled to free milk through the nursery milk scheme. As she said, currently only children looked after by childminders registered with Ofsted are eligible, which excludes a small cohort. The Government agree with the noble Baroness that this group should not be excluded and intend to extend eligibility so that children receiving care from childminders registered with childminder agencies are also entitled to free nursery milk. However, the amendment cites inaccurate powers, meaning that it would not achieve its objective. It is a fair challenge that we make progress on this. The Department of Health and Social Care is committed to making this change as soon as practicable, and we will aim to do so within six months if parliamentary time allows. I am sure that the noble Baroness will hold us to account for that.

Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, seeks to enshrine in a law a scheme whereby those eligible for Healthy Start are automatically enrolled. The Government’s Healthy Start scheme was introduced in 2006 to encourage a healthy diet for pregnant women, babies and young children under four from very low-income households. I understand the concern to ensure that uptake is maximised. In December 2025, Healthy Start supported over 345,000 vulnerable people, and the introduction of the prepaid card has helped to increase the numbers who can benefit from it. As the noble Baroness said, beneficiaries receive a prepaid card for their Healthy Start payments. I agree that we should do everything possible to ensure that as many eligible people as possible are accessing the scheme.

The NHS Business Services Authority operates the Healthy Start scheme on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Care and makes efforts to promote Healthy Start through its digital channels and has also created free tools that can be used to help promote the scheme locally. However, the applications to Healthy Start require an eligibility check and, more specifically, in relation to the proposed amendment, the prepaid card is a financial product and, under other legislation, it cannot be issued without the applicant accepting its terms and conditions, meaning that auto-enrolment is not possible. The Government have no current plans to amend related legislation about financial products, which is outside the scope of the Bill. However, the scheme is kept under review, and we remain open to considering viable routes to improving uptake.

With those remarks, I hope that I have addressed the noble Baroness’s concerns and that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, responds, I would like a small point of clarification from the Minister. I very much welcome the government amendments and congratulate the Government on what they are doing on free school meals. This is all very welcome, but in introducing it, the Minister said that the additional cohort would get a free school meal on request. She mentioned how the Government will make it easier for families to find out whether they are eligible, but can she say a little more about how they have to apply? Will it be as easy as possible?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Absolutely, it will be. First, by virtue of the fact that it is now open to all those on universal credit without the £7,400 cut-off, it is much clearer to families, to those supporting them and to schools who is eligible. Secondly, as I said, the provisions that enable the sharing of information, and therefore eligibility checks, will now also be open to parents themselves, not just through local authorities.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her encouragement. I am not sure whether I wanted the accolade of being the anti-Thatcher milk donor, but I will take whatever she gives me.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s commitment. I managed to write down only “within six months” before the next thing she said—unfortunately, the ink in my pen ran out—so clearly parliamentary time will be available. I thought the Minister made encouraging remarks about the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I feel that the noble Baroness might appreciate a few lines to expand on her final question. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 98 withdrawn.

Amendment 99

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

99: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Post-removal support for parents to prevent further removals(1) Where a child—(a) is removed from the care of a parent further to any order made pursuant to—(i) section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision orders),(ii) section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (placement orders),(iii) section 46 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (adoption orders),(iv) section 14A of the Children Act 1989 (special guardianship orders), or(b) becomes a looked after child further to an arrangement or order made pursuant to—(i) section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of accommodation for children: voluntary arrangements), or(ii) section 25 of the Children Act 1989 (secure accommodation orders),the local authority must provide support to the parent, where the parent is identified as being at risk of experiencing further child removals.(2) In discharging their duty under subsection (1), the local authority must ensure that the support provided—(a) follows an evidence-informed approach and aims to reduce the risk of further child removals, and(b) is in accordance with any guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause aims to make sure that local authorities offer evidence-informed support to reduce the risk of parents who have one child removed having future children removed.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am not sure whether anyone can remember the first group at this late hour, but I will be testing the opinion of the House. The Minister said that legislators always turn to legislation as the answer. There are quite a few things in the Bill that do not need to be there, but I think this does need to be in legislation. She also said she felt that it would create a rigid model that could not evolve, but we worked hard on the language of the amendment to refer to an “evidence-informed approach” as opposed to “evidence-based”, which I am told means that it can evolve with the evidence. For those two reasons, and thinking about the desperate situation of women who have multiple children removed from their care, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

22:27

Division 4

Amendment 99 disagreed.

Ayes: 53

Noes: 116

22:37

Amendments 100 and 101 not moved.

Amendment 102

Moved by

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley]

102: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Establishment of Child Protection Authority(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, establish a Child Protection Authority for England.(2) The purpose of the Authority is to—(a) improve practice in child protection,(b) provide advice and make recommendations to the Government on child protection policy and reforms to improve child protection,(c) inspect institutions and settings at some times and in such ways as it considers necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with child protection standards, and(d) monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other inquiries relating to the protection of children.(3) The Authority must act with a view to—(a) safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children;(b) ensuring that institutions and settings fulfil their responsibilities in relation to child protection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment establishes the Child Protection Authority for England.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, it is very late, so I will not go through the five pages of my speech. However, I will speak to Amendments 102 and 103 in my name.

The arguments have been well rehearsed previously. I thank the Minister in the other place, Josh MacAlister, for meeting some of us to go through the issues. He is very clear on the so-called postcode lottery of child in need reports that are often produced for children. In some areas it is as high as 70%, and the research I did found that in other areas it is 20%. The Children’s Commissioner found that the lowest percentage of young people known to social care in some local authority areas was 3%.

As we have heard earlier and in previous debates in your Lordships’ House, that number cannot just be demographics. My suggestion and the Children’s Commissioner’s suggestion has been, and we continue to maintain this, that we need some national thresholds so that we do not have a big gap in the care that young people get, depending on where they live. A child in need report is quite crucial.

I understand that the Minister in the other place is very sympathetic to the issue but does not see this as a way forward. Late into this evening and night, I hope I can use my power of persuasion to convince the Minister in front of me to be willing to at least continue to talk and see whether we can find a way forward.

Amendment 102 is about establishing a child protection body that would work to improve child protection practice, advise government and the sector, and conduct inspections. This is an important issue, in addition to the one I raised earlier. I do not intend to speak any further, but I would welcome a response from the Minister. Given that we agree that there is a problem, would she now be willing at least to look at whether we can reinvestigate the national thresholds? I beg to move.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I too will be brief. I was slightly surprised at the need for Amendment 102. If I have understood correctly, the Government have committed to establishing a child protection agency and are currently consulting on it. I absolutely understand that the noble Lord wants to raise this because, clearly, implementation will be crucial if we are to avoid blurring lines of accountability and creating a bureaucracy. But it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say on that.

We covered standards for children in need thresholds in Committee. On these Benches, we retain the view that we need flexibility in the system so that practitioners can use their professional judgment to look at the overall situation of a child and keep it under review. But I absolutely accept that there are real problems at what one might call the top end of Section 17, with an extraordinary number of children who are suffering child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation still being classified as “children in need” rather than “child protection”.

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

My Lords, each of these amendments would introduce a new clause, referring to the establishment of the child protection authority and consistent support for children in need, as we have heard. This group raises important issues about child safety, well-being and support. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are, as he outlined, completely committed to working in this area.

Amendment 102, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to impose a binding timetable for the establishment of the child protection agency. Just by way of background, establishing a child protection authority was one of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. In a Statement to the House of Commons on 8 April 2025, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls announced that the Government will establish a child protection authority in England, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, alluded to.

On 11 December 2025, we published a consultation on the child protection authority, which sets out its proposed roles, responsibilities and powers. This will help to make the child protection system clearer and more unified and ensure that there is ongoing improvement through effective support for practitioners. The design and delivery of this authority require consultation, including with child protection experts and Victim Support, to ensure that it has the right constitution and powers. Given this, we do not think it is prudent to agree an arbitrary timeline, but we will work to publish the government response this summer, following which we will move to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.

22:45

Amendment 103, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, aims to reduce regional variations in the support that children in need receive. We thank the noble Lord for this amendment, recognising the commitment within it to improving support for children. We are all united in that aim across the House, but we do not feel that this proposal would achieve that aim.

Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 places a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child in need by providing appropriate support and services. It gives local authorities discretion to respond to local needs and to account for available resources. This amendment, which calls for prescriptive national criteria and automatic referrals, would remove this flexibility and would ultimately narrow the cohort of children who would be eligible for support.

Our reforms to family help and multi-agency child protection, backed by £2.4 billion over the next three years, will reduce reliance on rigid thresholds and expand access to timely, targeted support for children and families—exactly what we feel this amendment would restrict. Separately, in December 2023, the statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023 strengthened the whole proposal to make it explicit that local authorities and safeguarding partners should publish a threshold document for statutory services under Section 17. Ofsted inspects whether these local thresholds are set appropriately and the effectiveness of support and services for children in need. The statutory guidance is clear that plans setting out support and services for children should be reviewed regularly against progress.

I hope this will help address the noble Lord’s concerns. We welcome the focus on this area and the opportunity to outline our plans. Having highlighted how we are addressing the issues raised, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response. I do not intend to prolong proceedings any further, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 102 withdrawn.

Amendments 103 and 104 not moved.

Amendment 105 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 106 not moved.

Consideration on Report adjourned.