Lords Chamber

Wednesday 14th January 2026

(began 2 hours, 20 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:06
None Portrait Oral questions: Call from C40 Cities to give city representatives a formal role in the COP climate negotiations
-

First First Oral First Oral Question First Oral Question Lord First Oral Question Lord Rees First Oral Question Lord Rees of eastern.
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
None Portrait Oral questions: Impact of investment in early years education on children’s long-term outcomes, including attainment, employability, and wellbeing
-

Second Oral Question the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I think the IFS report published last year, should be essential reading for everyone, especially those who have responsibility for nurturing and developing the next generation. The the evidence shows that children with access to surestart centres, defined within a 2.5km radius, performed significantly better in assessment. Ages seven, 11 and 16. But as my noble friend says, getting children to the point where they're ready to learn when they enter the early years settings is absolutely crucial.

And that is what the best

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Start family hubs are being set up to do. My Lords, my Lords, a Labour MPs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my Lords, a Labour MPs House. Is rightly in recent weeks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is rightly in recent weeks discussed the issue around the NEETs figure totalling almost a million young people. So my question is to the Minister, is has any work been done in terms of any work been done in terms of looking at that cohort of young people and what sort of support they had in their early years? And can we actually start to map out where there are gaps where young people are neat, because they didn't have that support early on? Yeah.

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the noble the noble Lord raises a complex issue. But absolutely, the evidence we need to absolutely, the evidence we need to look at cohorts of young people and really understand why some of them are failing to come forward. We are failing to come forward. We know that Covid, for example, has had a huge impact on mental health had a huge impact on mental health and has sapped the confidence. But it's absolutely fundamental that everything we do is evidence based. So gathering that information and evidence is absolutely fundamental for helping to develop our policies going forward.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. Following on from my noble friend Baroness Penn's question, I friend Baroness Penn's question, I just wondered whether the Minister could say when the government plans to produce guidance specifically for early years settings about the use of screens both by children themselves and indeed, as the noble Lady rightly raises by their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

parents? I'm becoming very used to the noble Lady asking quite specific questions, and I have to say, I don't know the answer to that. I'm sure this is something that is being worked up and looked at, and we're happy to share that the our way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord middle aged. Early years education provides

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Early years education provides an ideal opportunity to screen for lifelong and specific learning difficulties, such as dyscalculia, difficulties, such as dyscalculia, which, without intervention and adequate support, will have a significant impact on employment significant impact on employment and education outcomes. So will government consider introducing early years screening for this early years screening for this condition, so that appropriate support can be put in place at the point at which it is going to make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a difference? The the I think the really interesting developments within the best start hubs is that councils, local councils, are being tasked local councils, are being tasked with having dedicated SEN practitioners within each of them. Dyscalculia, of course, comes under the umbrella of those conditions. And I know, not least because the And I know, not least because the noble Lady's efforts that the profile of this is being raised and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

understood. And as with anything else, the earlier it's picked up, I think the better. My Lords, my Lords, a Labour MPs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my Lords, a Labour MPs visit to a school in his constituency in Bristol was cancelled by members of the National Education Union purely National Education Union purely because he was Jewish. What message does that send to the long term

**** Possible New Speaker ****

outcomes of our children? Yeah, yeah. Well I'm not I'm not apprised of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well I'm not I'm not apprised of the actual details. And obviously it's something that has been picked up and will be looked at very seriously going forward.
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Can I can I first of all say to >> Can I can I first of all say to the noble Baroness that we the the unity of purpose between His Majesty's opposition and the Majesty's opposition and the government and all members of this House, sends a hugely important and significant signal to Russia and to our adversaries. So the first part of the question very much welcome that I anticipated the noble Baroness question. And I don't normally do this, but I want to read something because I want to make sure that I guess because if I'm not careful, I'll stray into areas that would not not be appropriate, which but the but the but.

So I apologise to the house but just I think it's important just to read something from it. So please forgive me if I take a little bit longer than I would normally do, but I think it's a really important point the noble Baroness has made. As we have made clear in our recent statements regarding the US military operations, to interdict the MV Bella one, the UK will not stand by as malign activity increases on the high seas. Alongside our allies, we are stepping up our response against shadow vessels and we will continue to do so.

We are fully committed to tackling the threat posed by the Shadow Fleet, and are working with partners to maximise efforts. We will use the range of tools at our disposal to crack down on sanctions evasion and illegal maritime activity. I hope that goes some way to answering the noble Baroness Carr question.
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:52
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Delays to the awarding of the New Medium Helicopter contract and potential closure of Leonardo’s helicopter site in Yeovil
-

reviews and pledges, MoD orders have effectively dried up out there. There is a desert in the defence
15:52
15:53
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:03
None Portrait Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill – report stage (day 1) Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-

>> Question is the question is that this report be now received. As many as have that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause one, amendment one Baroness Barran.
16:04
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, it's good to be back scrutinising the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill after what seems like a long break. But noble Lords will remember that while I think all sides of the House supported the approach of family group conferencing or a family group decision making meeting as described in the bill, there were a number of points that required clarification, and I think those are still outstanding. And I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to cover them.

In her response today, amendment one seeks to clarify what the government is really intending to implement. We've been told that the introduction of family group decision making is based on the success of the pilot sites in the Families First for Children pathfinders, but the evaluation, published in July, is clear that family group conferencing, not family group decision making meetings, was used in the pilot sites when children were on the cusp of care proceedings. So which approach is it? And if it isn't family group conferencing, what is the evidence based? I suppose I'm really concerned that the government isn't actually committed to following the evidence based family group conferencing model, but rather a slimmed down, stripped down version we might call FGC light.

And the evaluation, published in July, did not have any outcome data and was largely a process of evaluation because of the stage the pilots are at. Amendment two aims to press the government for a commitment that there won't be a dilution of the model. The bill talks about a meeting, while the evaluation talks about the importance of careful preparation, including pre-meetings, and that it's followed by funded support through the Family Network support package. So again, can the noble Baroness, the Minister, be clear that the government is proposing that the evidence informed model is followed? Turning to amendment three, we did question at committee whether it was actually necessary to have a duty to offer family group decision making in statute at all, and in particular at the point of care proceedings when there is already an expectation set out in the statutory guidance to the Children Act, that this should be offered.

Our amendments at committee included a focus on using family group conferencing at different points in the safeguarding process, and it seems that the evaluation, which was on page 58, it recommends, and I quote, the timing of the offer of family group conferences needs to be explored in greater detail to establish clarity around the pros and cons of offering it at different phases in the family's journey. End quote. Amendment three would require family group decision making or family group conferencing to be offered at the point that a child who has been in care returns to their original family, something that occurs in over a quarter of cases.

This is an obvious point at which additional support would be helpful, and could avoid a second care placement, as happens all too frequently. Indeed, in about a third of those cases, and it doesn't take much imagination to appreciate how traumatic and how damaging it is for children and their parents for that to happen. And finally, amendment five, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who, of course, brings great personal experience to this topic, introduces the idea of a kinship support plan, as we will come to in a later group, we believe that the government needs to take action to increase the number of foster and kinship carers beyond what is already proposed.

The idea of a kinship support plan is to increase the resilience of kinship care placement by offering additional support, either from the local authority directly or from wider community resources. And I wonder whether the government is considering anything of this type, which would increase the chances of successful kinship placements. These are cases where the threshold of significant harm will have been met, and therefore it's reasonable to offer additional support to carers and right touch oversight of the safety and well-being of the child in their care.

My Lords, I beg to move.
16:08
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause one, >> Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line nine. After meeting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert or family group conference. My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Barran to the noble Lady Baroness Barran for returning us to this important topic of family group conferences and for the refined amendments she has now presented, including amendment three, to which I've added my name. They will embed what is already now established as good practice into legislation. I also welcome the noble Baroness request for clarification of what lies behind the differing terminology.

The government, to their credit, recognised the important role of family, group decision making meetings. The arguments for such conferences are strong, enabling family members to be informed about local authorities concerns and proposals, including the wider family members who may have been kept in the dark or given an incomplete version of the problems. Just from the parents perspective, perhaps coloured by a negative view of the local authorities intentions, they are a good opportunity to maintain focus on the child or children while listening to and respecting the views of the family, particularly if the family has otherwise been marginalised.

As well as sharing information, conferences do allow social workers to explore and assess what family members might have to offer and what support might assist them to help divert cases away from legal proceedings. There is no doubt that family group conferences secure considerable financial savings for local authorities and for the courts, and I would emphasise the point the noble Baroness made proper preparation for them is essential. Ideally, such conferences should take place as early as possible, and at the preceding stage that we discussed at Committee stage.

However, amendment three would also require such a meeting to be offered when it is planned that the child will be returned to the care of family members. Again, that would be a good opportunity for informed discussion to clarify the expectations of the local authority for the future care of the child, and to discuss any difficulties that may have to be confronted. I do hope, therefore, that the government will use these amendments as an opportunity to build such points into the legal structure.
16:11
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Portrait Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)
-
-
Whilst welcoming the government's amendment to ensure government's amendment to ensure the child's voice is heard in group family group decision making. I would also like to add my support to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Baroness Barran in this group, as we discussed in Committee stage, family group decision making is a broad generic term without clear principles and standards about what families can expect and indeed the explanatory notes of the bills themselves state GDM is an umbrella term.

As a result, there still remains concern amongst charities and organisations supporting vulnerable families that FG approaches unsupported by evidence may proliferate at a local level as a result of the lack of specificity in the bill, and this is despite clear evidence, as my noble friend highlighted, both in the UK and internationally, that family group conferences in particular, are a successful and effective model of diverting children from care and supporting them to remain in their family. So if she's unable to accept amendment two, I hope in her response, the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to provide strong reassurance that in the regulations and statutory guidance, it will be made clear that local authorities will be expected to follow the principles and standards drawn from the robust national and international research findings on the efficacy of the of the Group approach, group conferences, approaches and turning to amendment three.

As was highlighted during our discussions at Committee stage, reunification is the most common way for children to leave care, but sadly too many break down due to lack of support. There's currently no strategy by which to support Reunifying families, and 78% of local authorities admit that what they do provide is inadequate. In winding up. In our previous debate on this issue, the noble Baroness, the Minister, said she had some sympathy with the objective of this measure in the bill, not least because of the challenges of reunification and the need to ensure that it is supported.

So I hope that even at this late stage, the Minister might look favourably on accepting this amendment as it could make a real difference to the stability of a child's return home.
16:13
16:15
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, anecdotal evidence often doesn't help. But when Margaret and I adopted a brother and a sister because their mother had died of cancer, the boy was eight. The sister was three. They came to live with us. After quite a considerable period of time. We consulted their family in Uganda, and they were very happy that we could adopt these children. The social workers who are working with us, particularly lady called Ruth, were supportive of that arrangement.

And then, of course, we then had to meet the local council of Lambeth on what we wanted. And that meeting was a very harrowing meeting. They didn't understand where we were coming from. They then asked questions why is a family living in Britain wishing to adopt Ugandan children? To which I answered Ugandan. We've been in touch with the family. They know what has gone on and the years of trying to help these children integrate within our own family, and that was not a very easy meeting, I must say.

So this family gathered meetings that are being suggested. Are you confident that a they will do a lot of homework before the meeting actually takes place? And eventually we had actually got to the family court and the judge then taking a decision purely in the favour of the children and where they're going to be placed. And he continued to to be responsible for ensuring that this happens. So if a child has been put into care away from the family and the intending to reunite, may I suggest that it's not always very easy to assess the interests of a child, because those who've been with the particular child have got greater knowledge, and particularly the social worker who's been working with the family over a considerable period of time, should be brought into the picture much earlier than what happened to us.

I know my daughter, but when I read the original. Section of this particular bill, and I'm very glad that the the noble Lord, the Baroness Minister, is putting on an amendment which may improve that particular situation. But I happen to feel that the amendments that are moved in this section, particularly section amendment one, two and three and and four, they may go somewhere to allay my fears and concerns. And please forgive me for being personal about this matter, but if you've lived with children, thank God they've now gone on to do wonderful things and to take responsibilities for their own life.

But there was a harrowing meeting and I hope others will not find this family gathering, family meetings, wanting to knock the spirit out of those who are wanting to do the best for children who childhood.
16:19
16:20
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I turn to the amendments in this first group of the Report stage of this important bill? And can I thank noble Lords for their contributions? And I just want to start with a message of reassurance from the start that this government is committed to hearing from and listening to children about what matters to them most. It is for this very reason that we've laid government amendment four to clause one on family group decision making, which requires local authorities to seek the wishes and feelings of the child as opposed to their views as was in the original drafting and giving due consideration to those wishes and feelings in exercising its functions.

Under this section, the noble and Right reverend Lord Lord Sentamu is absolutely right in terms of the absolute importance of the child in these proceedings and to make sure, wherever it's appropriate, they are in included. So this office includes ascertaining the wishes and feelings of very young children, non-verbal children or children who may lack capacity and are not able to express views. This is a complex area and does require the expertise that we've referred to.

In doing so, the amendment strengthens the requirement on local authorities to hear and give weight to children's voices without changing the overall effect of the clause. I think Lord Lord Storey is absolutely right and from experience, these situations often come out of a state of crisis where extended family members might not have been expecting the difficulties that were going to come up. And it's absolutely crucial that there is clarity and relationships. And families, as we all know, are complex and we need to do everything we can.

So evidence shows that engaging family networks through the use of family group decision making meetings can reduce applications for court proceedings and divert children from entering the care system, improving the outcomes for children and their families. And I think it's important to keep this at the front of of our deliberations. Turning to amendments one and two, tabled by the noble Baroness. Lady Baron, I completely appreciate the noble Lady's desire to ensure that the term family group decision making is well understood and that families are offered evidence based support.

However, given that family Group conference is a model of family group decision making, we believe that including both as distinct terms in legislation risks creating confusion and undermining the clarity the noble Lady is seeking. And we do not believe that prescribing a particular model in primary legislation is necessary. Likewise, including the term evidence based approach could be interpreted differently and create confusion for local authorities if not defined in the clause. Instead, as my noble friend, the Minister for Children and Families set out to peers in a round table on the 11th of November.

On this issue, we will set out clear principles in statutory guidance informed and this is the crucial bit by the evidence based family Group conference model. The latest estimates that we have are that 80% of all authorities already use this model, and we will make clear that we expect local authorities to consider using this model in national statutory guidance and direct local authorities towards the strong evidence base for it. And Baroness Evans talks about evidence repeatedly, and I hope that does address her concern.

And and for Baroness Barran, can I assure her there is no attempt to around dilution here, and we want to make sure that we stick to the evidence informed model all the way through the process. It's an incredibly powerful means of bringing people together, and we want to make sure that we use every skill that exists out there to get the very best outcomes for children and their families. Our intention is to avoid tying local authorities to a single model in legislation mandating one approach risk stifling innovation and limiting professional judgement.

Local authorities have been clear that flexibility in primary legislation is essential to design services that meet local needs and family circumstances. We have already published the Families First Partnership Guide, which sets out clear principles informed by the evidence based family Group conference model, and we will continue to embed these principles in updated statutory guidance on pre proceedings and in working together, both of which we will publish later this year. Statutory guidance, rather than primary legislation is the right place for this.

Key organisations and proponents of the family Group conference model have also contributed to the development of best practice, support and resources for local authorities, which we shall also publish later this year. Turning to amendment three, also tabled by the by Baroness Barran and supported by the noble and learned Lord Meston. Can I just say I share their determination to ensure that children returning home after a period in care receive the right support, continued breakdowns is heartbreaking and it does so much to damage the future life chances of the young people involved.

Undermining confidence and and and enormous disruption. And I think the noble and learned Lord Meston speaks eloquently about the importance of reaching all family and and indeed not just family. Sometimes extended members of the family circle might be the appropriate people to be involved in this process. And of course, proper preparation is essential. Statutory guidance working together to safeguard children already provides that local authorities should consider family group decision making when planning for reunification to support the transition from care to home, and we will continue to support this approach.

The care planning regulations also make clear that wider family members should be consulted where appropriate. As I've outlined through this bill, the government is also introducing a range of measures to ensure children leaving care receive the necessary support to improve their outcomes. Although we agree that family group decision making can be an important part of the unification process, and we are mandating measures to ensure young people get the support they need, we are concerned that introducing a second statutory trigger point to offer family group decision making risks delaying the reunification process for some families.

Just to reemphasize, we have commissioned the production of best practice, support and resource for local authorities on family group decision making, which makes clear that family group decision making should be championed as a tool to support reunification. And I can say I will. I'm happy to share an embargoed copy with noble Lords and ladies to demonstrate our commitment to this approach. Turning to amendment five, I recognise the intention, of course, behind the noble Baroness May amendment to ensure that children's welfare needs are prioritised following family group decision making, and I agree with the noble Lord Hampton.

Of course we need more carers across the piece. Kinship carers, foster carers. We know how vital this is for so many young people across the country. To re-emphasise. Local authorities have existing statutory duties to ensure the safety and welfare of children. In addition, clause five of this bill will place a duty on local authorities to publish a kinship local offer, setting out the support available to children living in kinship care in the area, cementing the expectation already set out in statutory guidance.

This transparency will reduce barriers to obtaining help and ensure kinship carers receive the practical support they need to. It is a key principle that the creation of a family plan through the family group decision making process should be family led. The Families First Partnership Programme Guide tells local authorities that once the plan is agreed, safeguarding partnerships should commit to providing the support contained within it to the family network and it should be integrated into and given sufficient weight within family health and child protection plans through the development of best practice, support and resources on family group decision making.

Families were clear that when children and their families voices are heard and plans are co-created and owned by families, the results are not just better plans, but stronger, more resilient families, requiring the creation of a separate kinship support plan risks distracting from or diluting the weight given to the family led plan. Having responded to the comments made, I hope I've addressed the noble Ladies concerns and I hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she feels able to withdraw her amendment. noble Lady sits down on the last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lady sits down on the last point. On amendment five. She talked about the local care offer. I wonder whether she's able to say today whether she expects when the today whether she expects when the consultation happens and when there's a kind of template developed for what that will look developed for what that will look like, that there will be a specific section on reunification, because obviously that's a rather different context than the other situations.
16:31
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
I think. Sure. The noble Lady is that her comments are fed into the process and that they are listened to. >> I'd like to thank the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to thank the noble Lady very much for her remarks, and obviously she also comes with huge obviously she also comes with huge expertise on this subject. Can I also apologise to the noble and learned Lord Lord Meston that I didn't acknowledge his co of amendment three? Starting with amendments one and two. I was reassured by what the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said. I accept there could be confusion if you use both terms, and I was glad to hear her say that there would be clear principles set out in the guidance, as was suggested by my noble friend Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, and that she said there would be no dilution of the models.

And I thank her very much for that. Turning to amendment three, I'm encouraged by her last comments. I think there is an inconsistency that she points to the recommendations in working together, that there should be family group decision making meetings at the point of reunification because, as I understand it, you know, that is the same. Recommendation as there is for using those meetings at the point of care proceedings. But the government has chosen to put one on statute and not the other.

But that is obviously ultimately the government's prerogative. I suppose I would just say, of course she's right to bring up the point about delay and avoidable delay, but actually the choice is between delay and stability. And I hope very much that that where where the delay is proportionate, stability really is prioritised in the interests of the child. I think I've touched already in my intervention on the noble Lady's remarks on the local support offer. Obviously, I'm disappointed the government didn't accept, particularly my amendments three and five.

I hope that local authorities, as they implement this new legislation, will use all of their discretion and creativity to address the needs of specific children in the way that we've all across the house very much hope to do. But with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendments is by leave withdrawn. Amendments two and three Baroness Barran not moved. Amendment four move. moved. Amendment four move. Formally, the question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content of that opinion will say content contrary not content. The The contents have it Baroness Barran amendment five not moved after amendment five not moved after clause one, amendment six Baroness Barran.
16:35
None Portrait Amdt. 6 Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-

My Lords, amendment six in my >> My Lords, amendment six in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, who I know is unable, through no who I know is unable, through no fault of her own, to be with us this afternoon, would require sign off from the Director of Children's Services or Head of Social Work practice, where a child under five previously on a child protection plan becomes subject to section 31 care proceedings.

Last year, there were about 18,600 children involved in care proceedings and about 16% of children in care are under five. Yet children in this age group are disproportionately represented in the most serious cases. Children under the age of one accounted for about 30% of serious incident notifications last year, and earlier triennial reviews found that about 65% of cases involved children under the age of five. So if we just pause to think about that, this age group appears roughly four times as often in serious incidents where a child is killed or seriously harmed, as it does in the care population.

And in this context, the amendment is modest, really modest, practical safeguard that could help prevent avoidable abuse and tragedy and say very young lives. And I hope very much the Minister will consider her position. My back of the envelope estimate would be that a director of children's services, on average, would have to look at 20 of these cases annually. And given the length of time of care proceedings, I think it's the least we should expect them to do.

Turning to the wider amendments in this group, on the 17th of December, the Minister for Children and Families wrote to peers following two very helpful round tables about part one of the bill. In that letter, he rightly emphasised the importance of local authorities operating within the right framework so that families receive, and I quote, intensive well-evidenced early help, that children are protected through more expert and decisive multi-agency child protection, and that children leaving care benefit from enduring relationships facilitated by the care system.

He warned against overreliance on legislation, regulations and guidance, arguing that an ever growing stack of rules has in the past failed to improve practice and has undermined professional judgement and accountability. And I think that analysis is compelling. But unfortunately, clause three takes us in the opposite direction from the approach he advocates, and that is why the amendments in this group are needed. There is, as yet, no robust evidence for the government's chosen model. I thank the Department for the email that they sent me yesterday, setting out in a bit more detail some of the evidence from the Pathfinders, but they remain at a very early stage.

The evaluation concentrates, as it says itself, on process and implementation rather than outcomes. And there were only ten families interviewed for the evaluation, some of whom were unaware that they were part of these pathfinder sites. There's no counterfactual. There's no control group. There's no convincing data yet showing better decision making or earlier intervention. Moreover, one of the pilot sites recently moved from good to requires improvement at a recent Ofsted inspection, which underlines that this is not a magic wand.

Wanting a model to succeed is not the same as demonstrating that it does, and amendment 17 would therefore delay implementation of this clause until a proper evidence base is available, which is entirely consistent with the Minister's own stated aims and the list of those expressing concerns about these reforms is growing at committee. Reference was made to Professor Eileen Munro, public concerns who is possibly the closest thing to a household name in social work in this country, and similar concerns have been raised by Professors June Thorburn and Professor Ray Jones.

A community care poll of social workers found that 78% of respondents agreed with research, warning that combining the investigative and the chairing role of lead social workers would undermine impartiality. The children's Minister argues for avoiding prescription. Yet the bill allows the Secretary of State by regulation to prescribe, and I quote, support of any kind to be delivered by the multi-agency child protection teams. If we all try and imagine a future government who each of us would least likely like to see in charge, it's not difficult to see how such a broad power could be misused, and so amendment 11 would remove it.

Despite the minister's concerns about overprescription, the pathfinders themselves have been heavily prescribed. Some of the evaluation documentation only underlines how little is actually known about the real world impact of this approach. For example, appendix four asks the evaluators and I quote, to identify what impact a greater role for education has on services and what costs are associated with strengthening the role of education, signalling that the implications for for a key partner are still unclear. Indeed, funding issues were brought up in the email, which the department kindly sent me, where they pointed out that the dedicated health roles in most areas within the multi-agency Child Protection Team are funded by the local authority, as are a number of the education roles.

Police, on the other hand, have funded their posts, but I think this links to the government amendments 12 and 14, which, if I've understood them correctly, would allow special constables that would be unpaid volunteers to act as the police representative at the multi-agency Child Protection Team meetings, that the Minister is shaking her head. So if I've misunderstood. I look forward to being corrected. But I thought that was what her letter to your Lordship said. And it's obviously absolutely critical that we don't have a dilution of skills.

Which leads me on to another point from the evaluation, which highlights a lack of confidence among the so-called alternatively qualified practitioners. So non-social workers who will be now working in early help and child in need teams in relation to risk assessment and real concerns that they don't have the same expertise both in risk assessment, but also, crucially in the identification of harm as qualified social workers. Turning to amendment 13, for which I am very grateful to Professor Peter Green, co-chair of the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, and Doctor Vanessa MP, would stipulate minimum qualification levels for staff, including health professionals aligned with the intercollegiate document and working together.

Safeguarding leads in health are deeply concerned about the government's decision effectively to halve the capacity of designated doctors and nurses who specialist expertise underpins safe, multi-agency practice. Working together defines designated professionals as dedicated clinicians whose roles centre on providing clinical expertise and strategic advice to the system. And, to quote Professor Green, halving or worse, this workforce is the same as halving the number of top paediatric heart surgeons. Children's heart surgeons in the NHS, and that is a loss that would be unimaginable in any other area of child health.

So I hope the noble Minister, when she comes to reply, will agree with me that the multi-agency child protection teams cannot function effectively if overall safeguarding standards fall because senior highly experienced safeguarding professionals are lost from health services. When she comes to respond, can she set out clearly how, in the face of cuts of 50% or more to statutory safeguarding posts, there will not be a deterioration in safeguarding standards within health and in multi-agency working. If the government are willing to protect these posts, there will be no reason to test the opinion of the House on amendment 13.

So, my Lords, there is agreement with the government's underlying aims in clause three, but deep concern about the speed of implementation, the weakness of the evidence base, the dilution of expertise and the scale of concurrent change, especially for local authorities and integrated care boards. These amendments offer a measured way to secure the benefits of reform, while avoiding serious and avoidable risks to very vulnerable children. I hope the government will pause and treat them with the seriousness they deserve.

I beg to move.
16:45
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause one. Insert the new clause as one. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Barran in noble friend Lady Barran in supporting amendment six, 13, 17, 250 and 251. And I've also added my name to amendments 11, 15, and 16. I'd like to remind you, Lordships, from my register of interests, in that I'm a councillor in the London Borough of Bexley. I was previously leader and Cabinet member for children's services, hence my interest in this area. I'd like to put on record my thanks to the Minister in the other place, Josh McAllister, for the round table discussion recently.

I mentioned on this subject last November when we did discuss some of the points our amendments today cover, so I hope he'll find them helpful. Likewise, I understand the hon. Lady. The Minister opened up communications with directors of children's social care across the country last summer during recess, for which I thank her and I know it was welcomed. I also apologise if some of the points I'm about to make are similar to those they may have made to her last summer.

So firstly, not everything in this bill is bad. As I think I said previously, we all want a system that keeps seeks to keep children safe. However, I don't understand the government's reticence to ensure the policy that pilots are fully evaluated and that information shared with others before full implementation, which they are proposing, happens before the end of the year. Baroness Blake has just made the case for evidence based changes. I hope I'm knocking on an open door. When we met the Minister from the other place in November, he promised to share in the evaluation done.

But the documents circulated, which was from July 2025, was Implementation and Process Evaluation report. Early findings? Surely this isn't sufficient to drive full implementation before the end of the year, and I hope to explain why. Firstly, I'm hearing that in some areas the caseloads are increasing for the family health lead practitioners. I'm also told that the number of section 47 are increasing in some of those areas. There's a suggestion that it could be about enlisting the expertise of the multi-agency child protection team.

If these two points are consistent across the pilots, it would contradict the minister's suggestion that the proposal would decrease demand. But more importantly, it puts demand on the service that isn't currently there. Surely it would be sensible to understand why that's happening. Is it happening in all the pilot areas or restricted to some? And what's driving it to ensure that if there is an issue, it can be addressed and avoid it happening more widely? It has to be in everyone's interest to understand the reason for the increase.

And that's why we ask for the full evaluation. It would be helpful if the DfE were to conduct and publish comparative data analysis from both wave one and wave two Pathfinder authorities to include trends in referral volumes, assessment outcomes, escalation from early help to statutory intervention, and section 47 activity to inform the rollout. To ensure the right resources in place and the safe implementation of the multi-agency child protection teams. Likewise, it would seem sensible to evaluate pilots from a cost perspective across agencies to ensure funding is available to make sure children are safe.

Once the scheme is fully implemented and where the costs are needed. This will avoid cost shunting, but it might also necessitate new burdens. Funding from the government. The next reason is recruitment and retention of appropriate staff. I understand that the pathfinder areas reported significant challenges in recruiting both social workers and qualified practitioners for the multi-agency child protection schemes, with particular difficulties for key partners such as Icbs and police due to workforce shortages and funding constraints.

Indeed, the early evaluation did say that resourcing was a key concern across wave one and wave two areas, with this also being a key challenge across partner agencies. The partner agencies expressed nervousness about assuming that family health partnership role and the additional strain it would put on their already limited capacity. However, the evaluation didn't publish specific recruitment or vacancy data for the multi-agency child protection, so instead it highlights barriers such as partner agency workload, funding uncertainty and delays in recruiting specialist roles.

It would be helpful if the DfE publish workforce metrics and proposed solutions to recruitment and retention challenges, including a competency training and development programme for the multi-agency child protection schemes and alternative and alternate qualified staff similar to that for qualified social workers. Of course, the strain on resourcing from partners could potentially explain some of the apparent lack of engagement that's been seen in the pilots. The Minister from the other place told us that lessons had been learned from the send inspection process and that police, health and schools would all be willing partners.

But I understand that's not the findings of the pilot areas so far. He also suggested that there'd be unique qualifications for health and police. But and I understand and my understanding of the letter that came out recently from the hon. Lady, the Minister is the same as my colleague in that there was a suggestion that it might be open to police staff and specials, so I look forward to clarification at that point as well, because I believe that would diminish the role.

To be able to make those people would not necessarily be able to make the decisions or the commitments that might be necessary. Likewise, there's a concern about potential change in landscapes and how that might impact delivery. I'm referring specifically to local government reform, of course, and also to the icbs. And in addition to workforce, how might that impact IT systems? The impact of cross border cases also needs consideration, especially as partner agencies involved may not be coterminous with the local authorities.

Finally, there is a concern about the inflexibility of the proposals. The Minister from the other place has indicated that the system is overregulated, and that the new expectation is a self-improving system using practice guides rather than introduction of further statutory guidance, which could mean a way of reducing the financial burden on central government and potentially shifting it to local authorities. How will the Department ensure that the absence of tighter statutory guidance does not lead to variable implementation, or a lack of accountability for best practice?
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page