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.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Benjamin Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to lend my support to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, regarding extending the Staying Put scheme to the age of 25. My Amendment 130 does exactly the same thing but for some reason is in the next group. I will say a few words about it when we get to the next group, but I just want to underline my support. I think it is a very important issue.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Amendment 164 to introduce a national offer for child care leavers. This is strongly recommended by Barnardo’s because this amendment would end the postcode lottery of support for care leavers and help remove barriers to opportunity. Each year around 13,000 young people leave care without the support they need, and the outcomes of these young people remain much lower than those of their peers. That is why we at Barnardo’s—and I declare an interest as vice-president—believe that there should be a new minimum standard of support for care leavers: a national offer regardless of where they live. It should include measures recommended by Barnardo’s, which I hope the Government and the Minister will agree to.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 97 and 99 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer, who cannot be here today. His support for Amendment 99, and mine, is grounded in—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 100 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, which would insert a new clause aimed at giving all care leavers up to the age of 25 priority status in homelessness legislation. To that extent, it is a subsection of the much broader debate about how we look after care leavers.

The amendment would end a current anomaly in the law, whereby care leavers up to the age of 21 are entitled to priority under the homelessness legislation, if they present as homeless to their local authority, but not those between the age of 21 and 25. It is supported by a range of charities, not least Barnardo’s.

All young people need a safe and stable home in which to start their adult life—and, if you do not have that, it is difficult to access education, employment and health services. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, care leavers are more likely to be homeless than non-care leavers. Research by the charity Become shows that they are nine times more likely to become homeless, and that threat does not stop at the age of 21. Again as we heard from the noble Baroness, the numbers of young care leavers presenting as homeless has gone up by 50%.

We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, earlier that non-care leavers are staying at home much longer; the average age at which they leave is now 24, up from 21 a decade ago. Over the years, the legislation has been gradually catching up with that trend, beginning I think with the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which recognised that the state or local authorities need to support children beyond the age of 18. Again as we heard earlier, care leavers do not have the same safety net of family to fall back on.

There is a lot in the Bill which I welcome to support care leavers, in particular a recent amendment disapplying intentionality for care leavers, meaning that local authorities, when they have a corporate parenting duty, no longer view care-experienced people under 25 as being intentionally homeless. But the Bill needs to go a little bit further. Under the current legislation, all young care leavers under the age of 21 who present as homeless are deemed to be in priority need, which means that local authorities have an obligation to accommodate them. However, there is no such automatic protection for care leavers between the ages of 21 and 25. Under the current homelessness legislation, they are required to prove that they are vulnerable—something that is not defined in legislation. This means that they have go around getting letters from their GP, for which they may have to pay, and getting other letters from psychiatric services, to prove that they are vulnerable and their corporate parent is under an obligation to support them.

There is also a problem with children who are placed out of area. They are not apparently automatically eligible for the usual care support in the local authority in which they are now living, even if they have been living there for many years, whereas local care leavers have that entitlement. That seems to be an anomaly that the Minister might like to comment on.

Finally, the amendment would bring the homelessness legislation into line with the Children and Social Work Act 2017, which obliges local authorities to continue to provide support up to the age of 25. It will not be a panacea for all the problems facing care leavers, but it will be an important step towards ensuring that, when the worst happens, help is available for a young person who may have few other places they can turn to for help. So I encourage the Government to accept the amendment.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I support two amendments in this group, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, Amendment 99, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, Amendment 100, both of which I have put my name to.

With more than 80,000 children in care, the highest figure on record, this Bill represents an opportunity to strengthen support for all care leavers. One in three care leavers becomes homeless in the first two years after leaving care. Many become drug users and end up with a criminal record.

Some of the most affected care-experienced children are those from diverse backgrounds, who suffer double discrimination. Research by Barnardo’s found that nearly one in 10 black children in care has received a custodial sentence by the time they turn 18. When many finally leave care, they find themselves in prison or with a criminal record, which makes it difficult to find a home or employment, or develop a secure, happy life and any hope of a prosperous existence. They find themselves being part of a gang, which becomes a family substitute but leads to even more disaster.

As the Minister said in reference to the earlier group of amendments, there is an urgent need to improve understanding across agencies and departments of the needs of children in care and care-experienced young people, as well as providing training on how to better address these needs. For example, the Department for Education could extend corporate parenting principles to all bodies involved with care-experienced young people.

As we have heard, many young people can depend on their parents to support them long after they leave school or university, both financially and with a roof over their head. But support for care leavers across the country is piecemeal—a postcode lottery. Ashley John-Baptiste’s book, Looked After: A Childhood in Care, which I highly recommend, illustrates graphically just how difficult it is for young people to navigate their life after leaving care without support, especially if they want to go to university. It is potluck and almost an impossible task. Therefore, we should be doing more to ensure that care leavers are supported into adulthood, which I why I support Amendment 99 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

Through Amendment 100, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to increase protection for care leavers facing homelessness. I welcome this amendment and fully support it. We need to support care leavers and give them the opportunity to forge a happy, secure and hopeful life. It is our duty to do this and I hope that the Minister will agree with me and other Peers, and support these amendments.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My Lords, on Amendment 100, from the noble Lord, Lord Young, I will offer a bit of Big Issue news. We did a survey in the early part of this century in which we surveyed 150 to 200 Big Issue vendors. Some 80% of them had been through the care system; most of them had been in care for a period of at least 10 years. I wrote an article about this which upset a lot of people, because I said that, in order to produce a Big Issue vendor, you had to spend over £1 million. To me, that is one of most frightening things: how expensive it is to keep people poor.

It costs £70,000 to keep somebody in foster care, but it costs almost £200,000 to keep somebody in care. We need to look at this problem. In spite of all the moral outrage, we need to look at this as a bit of fiscal bad news. We have to start shifting our resources towards moving children into foster care as much as possible. I am going to talk about this later, but I wanted to give noble Lords the news that Big Issue vendors are very, very expensive.