Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Benjamin Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 152. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who regrets that he cannot be here—perhaps an absent friend, taking what was said earlier—and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for supporting that amendment.

Amendment 152 would remove the exclusion of immigration, asylum and nationality functions from the new corporate parenting duty. There is strong support throughout the children’s sector for the new corporate parenting duty, but there is also widespread dismay that it explicitly excludes immigration, asylum and nationality matters. This exclusion was raised with the Children’s Minister by the Education Select Committee in the Commons. In a subsequent letter, she explained that

“immigration functions are exempt because the Home Office is already subject to existing statutory duties to safeguard children through Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act”.

Not being a lawyer, I sought advice from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, and I am very grateful for its response. ILPA was clear that Section 55 does not justify the exclusion, as argued by Minister Daby. The Section 55 duty is to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children; this is different from the set of duties in Clause 21(1), which is specific to looked-after children. ILPA advises that the new duties are neither in conflict with nor identical to the existing Section 55 duties.

The Refugee and Migrant Children's Consortium, to which I am also grateful for its help, likewise argues that the new duties are fully complementary to and compatible with Section 55. They are, moreover, very modest, as they apply only so far as compliance with the duties is

“consistent with the proper exercise of a Department's functions”

and is “reasonably practicable”. Nevertheless, they are important. Given that this explanation does not really hold water, can my noble friend the Minister explain exactly which elements of Clause 21 are incompatible with immigration, asylum and nationality functions?

There is an important point of principle at stake here: the principle of universality. As the RMCC points out, children’s social care principles and children’s legislation have hitherto been universal. A carve-out such as this in a landmark piece of children’s legislation sets a dangerous precedent by setting up a two-tier care system that potentially undermines the safeguarding of some babies and children. Barnardo’s has expressed disappointment that a Labour Government should be the first to single out a group of children in this way. The principle of universality is fundamental to respecting children’s rights.

The RMCC has warned that, unamended, this clause would be the first piece of primary legislation relating to children since at least our ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to distinguish children subject to immigration control or nationality considerations as somehow different from other children. It also points out that this undermines the cross-government mission-led approach by creating a carve-out for certain functions. It is at odds with the commitment in the opportunity mission to ensure every child has the best start in life. This has serious implications for the well-being of children affected by the carve-out.

Catch22’s National Leaving Care Benchmarking Forum, which is made up of 131 local authority leaving care teams, points out that one in three young people turning 18 and leaving care last year was an unaccompanied asylum-seeker. Catch22 points to the impact that delays in the processing of immigration claims for unaccompanied children has on their mental and physical health and relationships. These children are particularly vulnerable when leaving care.

Become argues that the inclusion of immigration et cetera matters in the corporate parenting duty should

“act as a catalyst to ensure greater collaboration between the Home Office and local authorities”

and help achieve “more trauma-informed practice” in relation to a group who are highly likely to have experienced trauma before their arrival in the UK. Local authorities rely on partner organisations and government departments—the Home Office in particular—for certain functions and support. The removal of Clause 22 would

“help ensure that all children in care facing uncertainty over their immigration or asylum status receive appropriate safeguarding and protection”,

and the same applies to those entitled to register their British nationality.

The need for this was underlined by a newly published study of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people by the LSE and the University of Bedfordshire commissioned by London Councils. It highlighted a separation between practices of care and the practicalities of asylum support, even when the children had a positive relationship with their social worker. Those who did not receive social work support through the asylum process said it amplified their sense of being alone, while others who benefited from corporate parenting felt held and understood. Among the report’s recommendations is much greater involvement of social workers as corporate parents in the asylum-seeking process.

Not only does Clause 22 exclude migrant children, but in its reference to nationality functions it would appear to exclude children who are entitled to British citizenship but have to claim it, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. Can my noble friend explain why children and young people who have lived in the UK in care for most, if not all, of their lives and who are entitled to British citizenship should be covered by this exclusion, if that is indeed the case?

This group is the subject of Amendment 147, a probing amendment, which would require an authority discharging its corporate parenting responsibilities under Clause 21 to consider the right to British citizenship of looked-after children and young people and how to ensure that right is secured.

I am grateful to the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, PRCBC, of which I am a patron, and Amnesty International for their support on this matter. PRCBC provides legal assistance and representation to many children and young people to overcome formidable barriers to claiming their nationality rights. We are talking about children who may have been born in this country, who certainly have lived most of their lives here, but who have to register their right to citizenship with the Home Office under the British Nationality Act 1981. Awareness of this law remains low, including among social workers. The point of this amendment is in part simply to draw attention to the profound importance of the right to British citizenship for the identity, sense of belonging and confidence—in other words, well-being—of this group of children and young people.

PRCBC has witnessed young people devastated when they discover they are not automatically British citizens but have to register their entitlement, and some have even experienced mental breakdown as a result. In order to avoid this happening, the amendment also points to the practical need for action to improve the understanding and capacities of local authorities to ensure that this group of children and young people in their care claim their entitlement. Too many children enter care without the necessary action being taken so that nobody can now identify or obtain the evidence needed to prove that the child is a British citizen entitled to be registered as such.

The vulnerable persons team within the nationalities section of the Home Office, established under the last Government, supports local authorities to take formal steps to secure the citizenship rights of children in their care, and this is very welcome. However, as PRCBC continues to experience, too little is done too late by too many local authorities. They need to understand from the start the importance of British citizenship to the children in their care and act to ensure that vital evidence is identified and secured while it can be.

These two amendments underline the importance of the actions of local authorities and other bodies for the well-being of all children for whom they have corporate parental responsibility, regardless of immigration or nationality status.

In conclusion, returning to Amendment 152, while Clause 22 carves out a function rather than a group of children as such, the effect is to exclude a particularly vulnerable group of children and young people whose well-being is heavily dependent on immigration, asylum, and nationality functions. What this amendment comes down to is that we must put all children and their best interests first. I am sure the Government believe in this principle; therefore, I hope and trust that they will acknowledge that the effect of exclusion of any group of children from the corporate parenting duty because they are affected by immigration, asylum or nationality functions, offends this principle and will thus accept the amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 152 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have put my name. I declare an interest as vice-president of the children’s charity, Barnardo’s.

Currently, nearly one in 10 children in care is an unaccompanied asylum seeker. While their immigration status remains uncertain they face significant disadvantages in accessing services. It is good that the Government recognise that extending corporate parenting duties to a range of public bodies has the potential to improve the agency support of children in and leaving care, yet they also decided specifically to exempt decisions relating to immigration, nationality and asylum. Barnardo’s believes that children who have fled persecution and arrive in this country seeking sanctuary must be seen as children first. They are victims who are not in control of their destiny. Amendment 152 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would end that exemption. I very much support it; I hope that the Government will too, and will show consideration and compassion to these sometimes traumatised children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 154 effectively asks the question, “Why? What is the justification for such an examination?”. I look forward to listening to the Minister’s response to Amendment 155. I beg to move.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 168, 228, 376 and 377 concern child performances and sporting activities. I declare my interest as per the register.

On Amendment 168, there is no system in place to safeguard and protect children’s earnings from financial abuse when they are engaged in performances, paid sport or modelling activities. Other countries, such as the US and numerous EU territories, have legislation in place to ensure that employers pay a percentage of the child’s earnings into a trust account where earnings are protected by the state until the child reaches the age of 18. We lag behind the times with this provision, and safeguarding and protection are long overdue.

Local authorities can add stipulations to licences—for example, that 80% must be paid into a child’s savings account or 50% used for the child’s benefit. However, these conditions differ throughout Great Britain and are sadly ineffective, as a parent can access and use the child’s money and not necessarily for the child’s benefit or in their interest. Local authorities themselves are concerned about how best to protect these earnings but, sadly, there is no system or law in place to support this.

My amendment would ensure that a small percentage of the child’s earnings is held in trust until the child reaches adulthood and is not accessible by a parent, guardian or the child themselves. If this amendment becomes law, trust accounts will protect the child’s earnings until they reach the age of 18. Income will be protected and any tax liabilities more easily calculated. As we enter a world of streaming platforms, social influencers and headline child stars, these earnings can be in the millions of pounds and we have a responsibility to ensure that all children, regardless of which local authority they reside in, have effective means to safeguard their future and their earnings.

Amendment 228 deals with a child not appearing on the school register. The Bill as it stands fails to recognise the unique needs of children working within the entertainment industry, where many are educated in flexi-alternative provisions. The safeguarding elements of this pre-approval to be absent from school have already been scrutinised by the licensing authority and the education provisions are accounted for in the conditions of the licence period.

What is proposed in the Bill is the opposite of what should be a positive. This life-changing experience for a child is regarded as a negative absence, not only for the child but for the school. It will not record the beneficial reason for their absence—merely another day missed from school, which negatively affects both the child and the school’s record and could affect its Ofsted standing. This unique opportunity should be celebrated, not penalised.

When the child is granted a licence to perform within Great Britain, the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, combined with the Children (Performances and Activities) (England) Regulations 2014, make provision for the approval of education to be shared with local authorities. Requiring this information not only to be carefully considered and shared but then duplicated and, as often happens, amended at the last minute due to the requirements of the production, would divert valuable resources away from the safeguarding of young people and the most vulnerable children.

The Bill’s current requirement to include children within the register with pre-approved flexi-education from licensing authorities would divert attention from the very children the register is intending to capture. It will slow down the process of licensing children to perform. Local authorities will require information not available at the time of a licence application to add children to the register. The licensing process, in reality, is evolving and live; it is where industry collaborates with licensing authorities. It is imperative that the process works for all parties involved.

Amendment 376 concerns a body of persons approval, or BOPA, which is in the wrong place. It currently sits within Part 6 of the regulations, which targets only performance abroad rather than performance in the UK. My amendment highlights the need for a licensing authority that approves a performance abroad or exempts a performance within the UK to notify the local authority in which the child lives. This will ensure that the local authorities are fully aware of the children who are performing, to finally join up the dots and offer a working solution using the technological advances of 2025. This in turn will help safeguard a child from overperforming and not receiving the regulated overnight rest breaks, and give consideration for meaningful education.

At present, local authorities are aware of performances by children in their area only if they have granted the licence. Exemptions granted under a body of persons approval, or licences granted by a magistrate’s court for children to perform abroad, are not shared with the local authority where the child resides. However, under the Bill, they are expected to note on the register information that is not being shared. There is currently no legal requirement or process for a magistrate’s court to inform the child’s local authority that they are missing school under the child employment abroad order, so it will not be aware of the child’s involvement in a performance.

Amendment 376 requires licensing authorities that approve a licence, or authorise a performance under a body of persons approval, to notify the local authority in which the child resides. We have a duty to protect our children, regardless of where they perform, and the current system requires urgent consideration of we license children for paid and unpaid performances, to ensure that we have an effective, joined-up approach.

Finally, Amendment 377 calls for a review of the child performance regulations 2014. Since the regulations were revised in 2014, we have seen a substantial change to the entertainment industry, with streaming platforms, new film studios and diverse opportunities for children to be involved and perform. The industry is fast-paced and must adapt to new technologies. The very interpretation of the performance regulations across each local authority makes it hard to take a balanced approach when multiple children from different areas are involved in the same production. Children performing in the UK from other countries, which have their own regulations and union rules that must be followed alongside our laws, result in a mixture of regulations that do not always have the best interests of children at heart.

In 2014, the then Government agreed to revisit these regulations after 10 years, some of which I was instrumental in securing. It is important to acknowledge that, to move forward in the best way to support all children to partake in performance, there needs to be a period of reflection to stay current with an ever-evolving industry. Would the Government commit to review the child performance regulations to include the necessary improvements needed?

Our world has changed, and we have to adapt or face being left behind, otherwise children will miss out on potentially life-changing experiences and opportunities. We have an opportunity, by agreeing to my amendments, to make a positive change for children and young people in performing arts and sporting activities. I look forward to working with the Government to make these changes.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 155. It is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and I agree with everything that she said; I therefore also support her.

What prompted me to look at this space were the government Amendments 157 and 158 on the employment of children in England and Wales and in Scotland. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that they do not sufficiently cover the difficulties and discrepancies between what is in the Bill and the on-the-ground opportunities for children in the performing arts. I was especially concerned by the timing restrictions in proposed new Clause 2(1)(d)—as well as in the proposed new paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h)—which requires children not to work before 7 am or after 8 pm. The Minister is shaking her head, so clarification from her that this does not apply to children in the performing arts would be great.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, about the opportunities for children to take part in the performing arts. My first pay packet came as a performer with Scottish Ballet at the age of nine, which introduced me to all sorts of career opportunities that I would not have had in school, including becoming a choreologist. I would therefore welcome anything to clarify that children are encouraged to take up these opportunities. I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify the licensing agreement for performing arts and children being paid as performers. I look forward to hearing her answer.