Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
2A: Because the Commons consider the Amendment to be unnecessary in light of existing statutory guidance about bringing a child protection plan to an end and steps already being taken to strengthen multi-agency decision making relating to child protection.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, K and K1. In this group we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to child protection plans, multi-agency child protection teams and local authority consent for children not in school. For each, I will set out the rationale for why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I will speak first to Motion A relating to Amendment 2, originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, regarding decisions to end child protection plans for under-fives when care proceedings are initiated or a care or supervision order is granted. When care proceedings begin, the child protection plan should not automatically be discharged. Statutory guidance is clear that a multi-agency meeting should take place to make this decision.
The Ofsted inspection framework reflects this statutory guidance and includes a focus on child protection. However, I note the noble Baroness’s concerns about children losing support at key transition points, potentially making them more vulnerable. This is why we will strengthen statutory guidance to make sure that the reason for the decision and any ongoing support is recorded.
We expect expert practitioners in multi-agency child protection teams to make decisions about plans ending. These teams bring fresh child protection expertise to concerns and will know the circumstances of the child well, so they are best placed to make these important decisions. While senior and experienced directors of children’s services should get involved only when needed, this is already provided for in the statutory framework.
Motion B relates to Amendment 5, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requiring that the Secretary of State delay an evaluation of the families first for children pathfinder in Parliament before the multi-agency child protection team measures come into force.
Effective multi-agency child protection practice, which prevents tragedies and saves lives, needs to happen now. Delay is unacceptable. The Government will set out implementation plans covering the next phase of children’s social care reform following Royal Assent, including information about the planned pathfinder evaluation.
This summer, we expect to publish interim findings that are informing national rollout. Clause 3 also includes powers to make regulations about the functions of multi-agency child protection teams. The regulations will be subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny and will reflect learning from the pathfinders and national reform rollout. Regulations are not expected to come into effect until 2027, but the system is rightly changing now and we must not hinder this.
I turn finally to Motion K, relating to Amendment 44, and Motion K1, relating to Amendment 44B in lieu, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The amendment in lieu would require parents to obtain permission from their local authority before withdrawing their child from school for home education if their child is currently, or has ever been, the subject of care or supervision order proceedings, unless the child has since been adopted. We share the noble Baroness’s commitment to ensuring that every child is safe. However, we remain unconvinced about extending the consent requirement further. Children who are the subject of such proceedings would almost always fall within existing protections, either through a child protection plan triggering the Government’s proposed consent measure or as a looked-after child whose education is already determined by the local authority through their care plan.
We recognise concerns about children previously subject to proceedings potentially being vulnerable. That is why we have extended the consent requirement to children who have been on a child protection plan in the last five years and extended the school attendance order power to these children who are already being home educated. This approach maintains the high threshold for consent to child protection action, recognises that children may be vulnerable if they are withdrawn from school within five years after a plan ends, and balances this with the reality that families can and do change.
On Report, the noble Baroness referenced the review into the tragic death of Sara Sharif. We have already amended the Bill to respond directly to its recommendations. We will pilot mandatory meetings before any child in a pilot area can be removed from school for home education, and the new power for local authorities to request to visit home-educated children in their homes will benefit the children that the noble Baroness is most concerned about. Importantly, our wider children’s social care measures also strengthen information sharing, improve early preventive support, create new multi-agency child protection teams and strengthen the role of education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements. It is for these reasons that the Government disagree with these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments. I thank the Minister in her absence for the meetings we have had away from your Lordships’ Chamber. Clearly, protecting our young people is close to all our hearts and is something that we will keep a watching brief on. We have looked at the Government’s proposals. Early on, when I arrived at your Lordships’ House, I worked with the Children’s Commissioner and a briefing was sent to all noble Lords in June last year about something I was trying to bring forward on Report to try to make young people’s lives better. On that occasion, I failed to convince noble Lords on both the main two Benches and, as we live in a democracy, I chose not to pursue that.
I wish the Government well with their intentions. Clearly, as the opposition here—the smaller opposition—our duty will be to continue to hold the Government to account on the reassurances they have given us in briefings and, more importantly, on what they have written to us both from your Lordships’ House and the other place. These Benches are not minded to oppose what the Government are proposing, but we are putting them on notice that we will continue to watch the progress and we wish this Bill well.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments regarding Motion A and the commitment to strengthen statutory guidance, and for the publication of interim findings in relation to Motion B for the multi-agency child protection teams. To the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I say that there are multiple pathfinders, and the one to which he referred—the one he was worried that my amendment might delay—was a different pathfinder from the one to which my amendment referred. It is easy to be confused with so many paths going on.
I turn to my Motion K1, and again acknowledge that the Government have done the right thing by introducing a new power for local authorities to withhold consent to home-educate a child where there are significant safeguarding concerns. Noble Lords know that we spent time testing the limits of what these concerns might be, in Committee and on Report, to ensure that they are proportionate. That has been informed in part by the tragic death of Sara Sharif, whose father took her out of school.
As we heard, in response to our debates, the Government broadened their initial definition of children who are eligible. Then, on Report, we tested the appetite of the House for a much wider scope, but this was rejected in the other place. Last night we all received a letter from Ministers that covered the response to the Sara Sharif safeguarding practice review. I have read the letter several times. I find it extraordinary that, although I explained to the Minister on Monday that my amendment would simply cover children who had been in the care system, there is no mention of those children or my amendment anywhere in the letter—unless I missed it. Either officials and Ministers do not understand the significance of care proceedings, which I find very hard to believe—particularly of the Minister at the Dispatch Box today—or there is no political will to engage with this subject. I feel uncomfortable saying this in the House but, reading the letter, that is what it feels like. Either way, it is a very unfortunate oversight.
As the Minister knows, in the hierarchy of safeguarding, the greatest concern is for children who are in care or care proceedings, where the state judges that they cannot stay safely with their birth parents. These children are at greater risk than those on a child protection plan, but the Bill as currently drafted, and the Government’s rejection of my amendment to the Motion, leaves this specific gap. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said, you could have two children: one who was returned to their parents three years ago, having been in care, and another who came off a child protection plan three years ago. If the parents of both children want to take them out of school, the local authority cannot have a say on the first child, but it can on the second. I am guessing that the Minister does not feel entirely comfortable about that.
When the Minister says that almost all children will fall within existing proceedings, that is almost all children except Sara Sharif. Sara Sharif was on a child protection plan at birth, but she was never on a child protection plan again and there were two sets of failed care proceedings. She is precisely the child we should all be thinking about this evening.
I will finish by quoting the Secretary of State, who made a Statement on 13 November last year when the safeguarding practice review was published. She said:
“The whole country remembers with profound sadness the tragic murder of Sara Sharif by her father and stepmother in August 2023. Aged just 10 years old, the unimaginable cruelty of Sara’s death at the hands of those who should have been her first and brightest source of love and care shocked us all … The introduction of compulsory children not in school registers will empower local authorities to better identify children who need support and protection, as will the accompanying duties on parents of eligible children and out-of-school education providers”.
I emphasise the following:
“The measures will ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/25; col. 31WS.]
Outside this place, people will judge us not by what we said but by what we did. Let us be crystal-clear: without my amendment, these measures will not ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests. When the next serious case review happens—and sadly it will—I hope the House will remember this debate and the chance we had to do the right thing tonight by supporting my amendment when we come to vote later.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I am exceptionally grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I recognise the commitment and contribution they have all made during the passage of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for not pursuing any of the points further, as he said.
To address the main points raised, as I said in my opening speech, I fully recognise the importance of what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve with Amendment 2 on the discharge of child protection plans. I hope I have provided reassurance that, although the statutory framework already requires robust multi-agency oversight of child protection plans, we will strengthen expectations for reasons to be recorded.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
The Minister needs to respond.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I cannot express my sadness enough about the issues that the noble Baroness raises, but I am seeking to reassure her and the House that the provisions we are bringing in will be sufficient as we move forward. That is the issue. I think the Minister she referred to from the conversation on Monday was the Minister in the other place, not me. I am sorry that she is not satisfied with the letter, but I know that he went into meticulous detail and I am confident that he responded.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am sorry, but the meticulous detail in the letter did not refer anywhere to children in care or those who had been in care proceedings. It referred to my previous amendment and children who were classified as being in need. I will let the noble Baroness progress.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Perhaps if I continue with my comments, the noble Baroness can intervene if appropriate.
I reassure all noble Lords that the child would almost certainly be caught by the Government’s proposed consent measure due to a child protection plan, or by being a looked-after child, and therefore education provision would be a matter for the local authority to decide. Family hubs also provide support through targeted multidisciplinary support for vulnerable children. However, I want to reassure noble Lords that, as we move into implementation of the policy, we will continue to engage with noble Lords. Should it become clear that the proposal to extend consent to children who are currently, or were historically, the subject of care or supervision orders or proceedings would strengthen the policy substantially and improve protection for this wider group of children, we would, of course, be open to considering how it could be delivered.
Where a care or supervision order is no longer in place, and the child was not subject to a current protection plan or had not been in the last five years, it would be appropriate to require consent. Children who have returned home after a care or supervision order are already supervised by the local authority, and where the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, child protection plans apply. The information-sharing duty included in the Bill will make sure agencies are talking to each other when there are concerns about a child, ensuring appropriate escalation. Using historic Section 31 orders as a blanket trigger could unfairly brand families long after risks have reduced.
The independent review into Sara’s death was clear that there were long-term, broader multi-agency failings that resulted in Sara not receiving the level of protection she needed. Extending the consent requirement to all children who are ever subject to supervision order proceedings was not actually a recommendation of the review. Instead, it highlighted the need for stronger multi-agency practice, information sharing, early identification of risk and better decision-making. Those are exactly the reforms that this Bill delivers. Of course, for further reassurance, we will include specific sign-off of child protection plans for children entering proceedings, in consultation with multi-agency child protection team regulations.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her contribution on the matter of evidence for multi-agency child protection teams. I hope she is now reassured and that I have set out how the findings from the independent Families First for Children pathfinder evaluation will be used and shared. We are also confident that there is strong evidence from evaluations on multi-agency safeguarding hubs, strengthening families and supporting families programmes and youth offending teams, which all demonstrate how effectively multi-agency working improves outcomes for children. Most importantly, I remind the House once more that the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, which means there is already adequate provision in place for parliamentary scrutiny ahead of the regulations coming into force.
On Motion K1, which would expand the home education consent requirement, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. The Government are committed to ensuring that every child receives a safe, suitable education. The Bill’s current requirements strike the right balance, extending them to all children who have ever been the subject of care or supervision proceedings. They would capture children already benefiting from appropriate checks and would not risk indefinitely stigmatising families who have made sustainable changes. I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, but, having worked with families in this space, I can say that this is an issue. Stigmatisation is a very real thing for many families.
I recognise, of course, concerns that the current consent requirement would not have prevented Sara Sharif being removed from school. However, the home education measures are one part of the system that safeguards children, and we have also made significant changes to reform and strengthen child protection in the Bill. The Bill strengthens the wider children’s social care system and the children not in school measures, which directly responds to some of the recommendations and adds targeted safeguards where children can become less visible. Of course, I recognise the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that home-educated parents very often have a great deal to offer from their experience in this area.
In closing, I urge noble Lords to resist Motion K1 and I commend Motion A.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 16, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 16A.
16A: Because the Commons does not consider the review proposed by the Amendment to be necessary in light of the ongoing public consultation on adoption and special guardianship support services.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion C and shall speak also to Motions D, E, F and F1. In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, sibling contact, regional co-operation arrangements and deprivation of liberty. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I will speak to Motion C, relating to Amendment 16, originally tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerning a proposed review of the per-child funding level for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. The Government have confirmed £55 million for the support fund in 2026-27, with continuation into 2027-28. A 12-week public consultation on adoption support is under way, seeking evidence on what best supports adopted children and outlining eight proposals for a future system. Introducing the review proposed in the amendment could potentially inhibit balanced consideration of the consultation responses. We therefore cannot accept this.
Motion D relates to Amendment 17, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. As we have previously set out, the amendment will not alter the duties placed on local authorities. There is already a requirement in regulations for local authorities to record in the care plan any contact arrangements made between a looked-after child and any sibling with whom they are not living. This is why the Government do not support this amendment.
Instead, we propose Amendment 17B in lieu, to add siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act 1989. This will make clear the expectations on local authorities to allow reasonable contact between children in care and their whole, half and step-siblings where this is consistent with their welfare: a duty that already exists for contact been children in care and their parents. I acknowledge Liberal Democrat Peers’ constructive engagement, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and acknowledge in the other place the honourable Member for South Shields, Emma Lewell. Both have tirelessly campaigned for many years on the importance of relationships for children in care, and I therefore urge noble Lords to support this amendment.
Motion E relates to Amendment 19, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. This amendment seeks to include integrated care boards in regional co-operation arrangements. The Government agree that health partners play a vital role in improving outcomes for looked-after children. However, existing duties under Sections 10 and 16E, 16G and 16J of the Children Act 2004 already require local authorities to co-operate with relevant partners, including ICBs, to promote children’s well-being. These duties will continue to apply to authorities entering into regional co-operation agreements. Following helpful discussions on Report, and with the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, it is clear that these duties could be implemented more consistently.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, we very much welcome the Government’s amendment in relation to sibling contact and hope very much it makes a tangible difference in practice. I will speak briefly to my Motion F1, which relates to how we can provide the highest-quality care for the most vulnerable children: those who are deprived of their liberty. As we have already debated, this must involve the local authority and the integrated care board.
The Minister will be very familiar with the difficulty of getting health to the table, even if the door is often held wide open by the local authority. But of course the cost of them not being there is borne by children, whose cases end up being repeatedly delayed because of disputes between health and social care as to who is responsible, who are moved from placement to placement without any join-up, and who attend emergency services without up-to-date information about their needs. My amendment would go some way to addressing this.
However, I am encouraged by the Minister’s promise—which is what I wrote down in very large letters, anyway—that the integrated care board involvement would be “locked in from the outset”. If that is what the Government are going to do, and if the Government are going to create some innovation funding opportunities to see true integrated work between health and social care, then I am grateful to the Government and look forward to following how that develops in practice.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this debate. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her comments, and also say that I am totally confident she will keep a good check on how this goes forward. I am very appreciative of her role.
The Government recognise the vital role of adopters and kinship carers and the need for timely, appropriate support. That is why we are continuing to fund the adoption and special guardianship support. The department is also consulting widely on the future of adoption support, with over 600 responses received already and consultation events planned after Easter. Therefore, with the ongoing work, we do not believe a further review is necessary.
I note all of the comments from around the Chamber recognising the importance of the work we have done in adding siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act. I am sure that makes the Government’s commitment absolutely clear and I very much welcome the support of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We are committed to best practice in helping children to see their siblings; it is a huge step forward for the experience of so many young people.
I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, for highlighting through his Amendment 19 the importance of health involvement in the creation of regional co-operation arrangements. Just to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I was very fortunate in having very good relationships with health colleagues, and I know through that the potential of when we get it right. I fully agree that integrated care boards need to move forward. The statutory mechanisms will be strengthened through the detailed guidance we will publish, alongside the expression of interest for the next wave of regional care co-operatives. I reiterate that this will require relevant ICBs to state their commitment as we go forward. I hope that gives noble Lords the reassurance they require. A financial incentive is an excellent way of moving forward. Therefore, we do not believe the amendment is required.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 17A, and do propose Amendment 17B in lieu—
17A: Because the Commons does not consider the review proposed by the Amendment to be necessary in light of the ongoing public consultation on adoption and special guardianship support services.
“Sibling contact with children in care
In section 34 of the Children Act 1989 (parental contact etc. with children in care)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (c), and
(ii) at the end of paragraph (d) insert “; and
(e) any brother or sister (whether of the whole or half blood) or step-brother or step-sister (whether by marriage or civil partnership) of the child.”;
(b) in subsection (4), for “(d)” substitute “(e)”;
(c) in subsection (8), in paragraph (za), for “(d)” substitute “(e)”.”
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 19A.
19A: Because the Commons does not consider the Amendment to be necessary in light of existing arrangements that ensure local authorities work together with integrated care boards in discharging functions for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 21, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 21A.
21A: Because the Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 42, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 42A.
42A: Because the Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 41 to which the Commons disagree.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion J. I beg to move.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 44, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 44A.
44A: Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion K. I beg to move.
Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)
Baroness Blake of Leeds
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102A.
102A: Because the Amendment imposes inappropriate restrictions on the scope of the adjudicator’s powers to determine school admission numbers under clause 56 and the clause already provides for regulations to make provision about the matters the adjudicator must consider when making a determination about a school’s admission number.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion L. I beg to move.
Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)
Baroness Barran
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 102.”
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 105, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 105A, and do propose Amendments 105B and 105C in lieu—
105A: Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
105B: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—
“Allergy safety policy for pupils at schools
After section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014 insert—
“100A Allergy safety policy
(1) The arrangements made under section 100 by the appropriate authority for a school to which that section applies must include an allergy safety policy.
(2) An “allergy safety policy” is a policy for the management of allergies affecting pupils at the school (including the management of pupils at risk of anaphylaxis).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about matters that must be covered in an allergy safety policy.
(4) The appropriate authority—
(a) must, at least once every year, review the school’s allergy safety policy;
(b) must make such changes to the policy as it considers appropriate following a review.
(5) The appropriate authority must publicise the school’s allergy safety policy in the form of a written document by—
(a) making the policy generally known within the school and to parents of pupils at the school,
(b) taking steps, at least once a year, to bring the policy to the attention of all pupils at the school and parents and all persons who work at the school (whether or not for payment), and
(c) publishing the policy on the school’s website.
(6) In meeting the duties under this section, the appropriate authority must have particular regard to guidance issued for the purposes of section 100(2) that relates to the management of allergies (including anaphylaxis) in schools.
(7) The Education Act 1996 and this section are to be read as if this section were included in that Act.
100B Regulations about allergy safety
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations impose duties on specified persons in connection with the management of allergies affecting pupils at schools to which section 100 applies (including the management of pupils at risk of anaphylaxis).
(2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision about—
(a) the keeping of, and access to, medicinal products and medical devices on school premises and at other places where pupils at a school are under the lawful control or charge of a member of the staff of the school;
(b) procedures for identifying, and managing risks to, pupils with allergies;
(c) provision of training on the recognition and management of allergies for teaching staff, non-teaching staff, persons providing catering services at the school and such other persons as may be specified;
(d) recording and reporting of incidents.
(3) Regulations under this section may require the appropriate authority for a school to which section 100 applies to designate a specified person to have responsibility for specified matters.
(4) A person on whom a duty is imposed by regulations under this section must, in meeting the duty, have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
(5) In this section—
“appropriate authority for a school” has the same meaning as in section 100;
“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.
(6) The Education Act 1996 and this section are to be read as if this section were included in that Act.”
(2) In section 342 of the Education Act 1996 (approval of non-maintained special schools), after subsection (5) insert—
“(5ZA) Regulations made by virtue of subsections (2) and (4)(a) must impose—
(a) a requirement for an allergy safety policy (within the meaning of section 100A of the Children and Families Act 2014) to be in place at a school,
(b) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed by section 100A(4) to (6) of that Act (duty to review and publicise policy etc), and
(c) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed on the appropriate authority for a school by regulations under section 100B of that Act (allergy safety regulations),
and the requirement referred to in paragraph (a) includes a requirement for the policy to comply with provision made by regulations under section 100A(3) of that Act.”
(3) In section 94 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 (independent educational institution standards), after subsection (3A) (inserted by section 37(2)(b) of this Act) insert—
“(3B) Standards prescribed by virtue of subsection (1)(c) must include standards that have the effect of imposing—
(a) a requirement to secure that an allergy safety policy (within the meaning of section 100A of the Children and Families Act 2014) is in place at independent educational institutions,
(b) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed by section 100A(4) to (6) of that Act (duty to review and publicise policy etc), and
(c) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed on the appropriate authority for a school by regulations under section 100B of that Act (allergy safety regulations),
and the requirement referred to in paragraph (a) includes a requirement for the policy to comply with provision made by regulations under section 100A(3) of that Act.””
105C: Title, line 5, after “uniform;” insert “about allergy safety in schools;”
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 106A.
106A: Because the Commons does not consider the Amendment to be necessary in light of the existing guidance about mobile phones in schools.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion N. I beg to move.
Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N)
Baroness Barran
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 106.”
Further Education (Initial Teacher Training) Regulations 2026
Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Further Education (Initial Teacher Training) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their scrutiny of this instrument. These draft regulations were laid in Parliament on 22 January 2026.
As noble Lords will be aware, the quality of teaching is critical to securing the best outcomes for pupils, learners and students in all parts of our education system, from early years right through to adult education. In October last year, the post-16 education White Paper set out an ambitious vision for the future of our skills system in England. The further education sector is the driving engine of that vision. We must ensure that high-quality teaching is hard-wired into our colleges and training providers.
We are taking decisive steps now to improve and secure the quality of teacher training for the FE sector. Ensuring that there is an accessible, attractive and high-quality training offer for new teachers will help improve the recruitment and retention of teachers in the FE sector, contributing to the Government’s commitment to recruit an additional 6,500 teachers for our schools and colleges. It will also send a clear message about our focus on securing high and rising standards of teaching in our colleges.
This instrument marks an important step towards creating a regulated system of teacher training for FE, covering the full range of providers delivering relevant courses across the sector and based on clear, evidence-based quality standards. It dovetails with the focus on quality that comes with the new Ofsted inspection framework for initial teacher education, which will now encompass significantly more FE teacher training providers than it previously did.
For many years, successive Governments have focused efforts on securing standards of teacher training for our primary and secondary schools—with considerable success—but, until recently, that focus had not been extended to how well our FE teachers are being prepared. There is excellent practice in parts of the system, and regulation must not constrain or discourage innovation and excellence. However, there is too much inconsistency across the sector, and some deeply concerning examples of poor practice in FE teacher training have emerged in recent years. Trainees have not always been guaranteed a high-quality training experience that prepares them to be great FE teachers, and employers have not always been assured that teacher training courses are equipping new teachers with the skills and knowledge they will need.
The regulatory system created by these regulations will place new requirements on all providers of specified FE teacher training courses in England. This includes universities, colleges, training providers and any other organisations delivering such courses. These providers will be required: to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the curriculum content of FE teacher training programmes; to have regard to guidance on delivery standards for FE teacher training courses; to register with the Department for Education as a provider of FE teacher training courses; and to submit regular data and information to the Department for Education relating to any specified FE teacher training courses provided.
These measures are proportionate but significant in their intended impact. For the first time, we, employers and potential new teachers will have clear sight of what teacher training provision is being offered, where and by whom. Such transparency is a key ingredient of a quality-focused system. That focus will be enhanced further by requiring all providers of specified courses to have regard to clear, evidence-based standards on course delivery and curriculum content.
DfE officials have worked closely, over a sustained period of time, with stakeholders from the FE provider and teacher training sectors. There is widespread consensus that the approach we are pursuing will deliver a clear, positive dividend in driving up standards, while ensuring that providers continue to have the flexibility they need to exercise their own professional and expert judgment.
These measures have been shaped by public consultation, a formal call for evidence and sustained engagement with professionals from across the sector. I record my thanks to all those who have contributed their time and expertise to the process.
Particular thanks are due to the expert group convened by the Department for Education, chaired by Anna Dawe OBE, principal of Wigan and Leigh College, one of the first technical excellence colleges, which has played a pivotal role in advising on the evidence for high-quality content in FE teacher training. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, has just said, this statutory instrument is probably well overdue. It is something that we have not looked at, because Governments of whatever colour or combination really just did not get around to it. So, I congratulate the current Government on having taken this first step.
Being as fair as I possibly can be, they are starting on a process that may not get the standards we want consistently for something like a decade. There are existing staff structures going through and there is the institution of training. Every standard will take time to bed in and normalise, and it will take time to find out where it has have worked and where it has not. This is not so much a criticism as an observation of what is obvious. It will take time.
Having said that, I do not have any objection to the SI, but it would be interesting to hear some of the things that will be needed to speed up the process of guaranteeing the quality. One is continuing professional development and how we are going to bring up the standards of those teachers already in place, who may be below the standard of what we would want. What is going to be done to intervene to do that? This will vary across the board.
We are dealing with a huge number of students here, every bit as wide as the school system. Their degree of success or failure has probably meant they have ended up in the further education system. Let us face it: as both the previous and current Government have said, even with improved career information and guidance, people are ending up there because they have not succeeded or have not been perceived to be succeeding to the highest level. How are we getting through to these students who may not have succeeded very well?
This brings me on to the subject—which I am sure the noble Baroness would have been disappointed if I had not raised—of special education needs. The new White Paper talks of early identification. The fact that it is being said that this needs to be improved means that people going through this system stand a very good chance of not having their needs identified or having the support structures there. It is a historical problem, and this Government just happen to have been brave enough to hit the wave and go through with it. So, what will they do to improve that structure to get these students through?
A high percentage of people on level 1 or 2 courses will almost certainly have special educational needs. What are we doing to identify these and make sure their teacher has the access to both the knowledge and in some cases the technology—I remind the Grand Committee of my interest with Microlink—so they use the right stuff and identify the right assistive technology to get their students through? Recognising there is a problem and not giving them more of the same is very important for these groups, because they have failed with more of the same already—so you need to work smarter to deliver.
Making sure that is done will mean we stand a better chance of getting people who are in the training phase of their lives, getting ready to go out and earn a living, to actually benefit from this. It would be normal to expect those providing this training to be able to identify whether people can do this. It also means that other support provided in adult life to enable people to do this can be identified through jobcentres et cetera. Whatever people are doing out there, it has to be identified, and they need to be accessed.
We are dealing with a historical problem here; it has been recognised by the previous Government, and we have started taking steps, but what is going to be done? In other words, we thank the Government for this, but what are we going to do to bring the rest of the staff up to the standard? When it comes to special educational needs provision, what are you going to do to identify those on the margin in particular, who are failing—often just failing—because they are not getting that little bit of help?
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition agree that all initial teacher training courses should set and achieve the highest possible standards so that every learner benefits from high-quality teaching. There is no disagreement across this Committee about the importance of well-trained teachers in further education. The sector plays a crucial role in equipping people with the skills that they need to succeed and thrive, and the quality of teaching is central to that mission.
The Government’s own assessment makes clear why action is needed. The current system has led to inconsistency in provision, and Ofsted has expressed serious concerns about the quality of some courses. That is not acceptable for trainee teachers, employers or students. In that context, introducing a clearer framework for initial teacher training in further education is a reasonable step. Establishing expectations around course content and delivery and requiring providers to meet them should help to drive greater consistency across the sector.
However, there are important questions about how this framework will operate in practice. Its success will depend heavily on effective oversight and enforcement. The Government have made it clear that compliance will be monitored primarily through Ofsted inspections, yet they also acknowledge that this will place additional demands on the system, with further resourcing decisions deferred to future fiscal events. So it should be fair and reasonable to ask how the Government will ensure that Ofsted is provided with the adequate funding that it needs to carry out this role properly. Without sufficient resource, there is a real risk that these new standards will exist on paper but not be consistently upheld in practice.
More broadly, your Lordships’ House will note that the Government have left open the possibility of further intervention in future, including tighter controls over the provider market. That underlines the importance of getting this right now and ensuring that the system is both robust and workable from day one.
In conclusion, we support the principle that initial teacher training in further education must be of the highest quality. However, the Government must ensure that the necessary resources and oversight are in place so that these reforms can be meaningful in practice.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords and noble Baroness for their contributions to this important discussion. I personally had the benefit of attending an FE college and, from a very early age, I recognised the extremely important contribution that FE makes to our rich landscape of educational provision.
I will try to pick up the main points made across the discussion. This Government are absolutely focused on improving the quality of teaching across the whole education system. This is an important turning point for FE teacher training. We have to be honest—— I hope noble Lords will recognise this from previous years in government—that it has been the Cinderella of the teacher training system for too long. We have to emphasise the Government’s commitment to promoting high and rising standards in teaching, recognising that there are examples of exceptionally good practice. We need to make sure that that excellence is protected and that trainee teachers and their employers have full confidence in the training they receive.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
We are always grateful for the noble Lord’s insight into these areas, but we know that FE colleges are incredibly inclusive. We must, as I think the noble Lord is suggesting, look out for good practice and make sure that, where we see it, it is replicated and becomes the norm. That is the exact point: we have patchy provision. We want to make sure that, wherever young people go to study, there is a good standard right across the piece. We also want to make sure that the transition between different stages is smoother and information exchange between the different settings much more user-friendly. We collect data, but I do not think we use it effectively enough to assist teachers in making sure that their students get off to the flying start they need.
In her comments on pay, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, in fairness, highlights an important area. The latest data show that the average salary for FE college teachers increased by 6.1% in 2023-24, compared to 2022-23, but the Association of Colleges and the Sixth Form Colleges Association recommended a 4% increase for FE teachers in 2025-26. Actual pay awards are decided in colleges in line with local circumstances. In May 2025, the department announced a further investment of £190 million for colleges and other 16-to-19 providers, in addition to the £400 million of extra funding that we are planning to spend on 16-to-19 education. A significant amount of funding is going in and we want to make sure that these issues are addressed.
On the Ofsted comments, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, the Secretary of State recently wrote to the chief inspector confirming that funding will be made available in the year 2026-27, to ensure that Ofsted can have an impact in the first year of the new four-year inspection cycles. Future funding will, of course, be subject to fiscal events.
I have tried to gather information from, and respond to the information given in, the comments made and the questions asked. I hope noble Lords will feel reassured that every aspect has been addressed with extreme seriousness, recognising just how important the FE sector is and how important it is for learners to feel supported in every setting, responding particularly to their needs. The proposed measures enjoy wide support from across the FE and teacher training sectors and have been developed in close collaboration with leading experts and representatives from those sectors. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling the government amendment, which His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support. We also thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his amendment. He has been described in the media as the United Kingdom’s greatest living expert on Parliament and a world authority on constitutional issues. He is entirely correct that post-legislative scrutiny is essential for any public Act, but it is especially important for Bills as substantial as this. By the conclusion of Report, we will have debated over 10 amendments seeking reviews of various aspects of the Bill, which surely highlights how wide ranging its impact is expected to be. An all-encompassing review would combine these amendments and, most importantly, allow the Government to evidence the positive change that they believe this Bill will put into effect. Some form of post-legislative scrutiny is the right vehicle, and the noble Lord’s amendment would serve as the foundation stone of that verification.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in group 3 concern a review of the Act on commencement. Amendment 205 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I too recognise his continued dedication to this matter, echoing the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and his undoubted experience and expertise in this area. As my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern set out in Committee, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord again that the department understands the importance of the legislative feedback loop, as he described it clearly then and again this afternoon, and is committed to that. However, we believe this amendment cuts across what is a perfectly clear set of cross-government expectations for post-legislative scrutiny.
The question he poses is: why did we not undertake pre-legislative scrutiny? The Government give consideration to which Bills will be published in draft, taking into account the overall requirements of the legislative programme and how to ensure that time is used as efficiently as possible. The Government did not consider the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill necessary for pre-legislative scrutiny, and therefore did not publish it in draft. We wrote to the Education Select Committee upon introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and provided a briefing opportunity with officials before its Second Reading.
The noble Lord has previously raised issues in this House with the current process for such scrutiny. The process seeks to ensure that the chair of the Commons Select Committee has adequate information to decide whether to instigate a fuller inquiry, and we would expect to undertake that fuller inquiry given the importance of this Bill. However, as he will know, should they decide not to, that inquiry can be taken up by another interested parliamentary committee of either House.
In Committee, the noble Lord noted that the Government included post-legislative scrutiny in the Football Governance Act. I am not sure if others in the Chamber were subjected to the passage of the Football Governance Bill, but it was an interesting process. That was a single-issue Bill, so it was deemed appropriate for that Bill. However, that does not mean it is appropriate for all Bills, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware. This Bill covers a broad range of measures, with different timelines for implementation and different evaluation needs. I think we would all agree, for example, that the rollout of a single unique identifier is quite different from the rollout of breakfast clubs.
None the less, alongside our commitment to post-legislative scrutiny, we have committed to a post-implementation review as part of the Better Regulation Framework. We published our plans in the impact assessment for this Bill, on which the RPC rated us green, for how we will monitor and evaluate the transformative measures that will change the lives of millions of children and young people. I hope that noble Lords are reassured. I repeat that commitment now, for good measure: we will undertake post-legislative scrutiny for this Bill, but it is not needed to be included the Bill when it is already an expectation.
On government amendment 246, Clause 67 currently provides that
“any provision of or amendment made by Part 1 or 2, so far as it confers or relates to a power to make regulations or an order”,
will come into force on the day the Act is passed. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his support for the amendment. It will clarify that, by order, we mean secondary legislation. The only instance of secondary legislation order in the Bill is Schedule 3, which amends the Education Act 2002 to provide that the Secretary of State may by order make provision requiring the remuneration of an academy teacher to be at least equal to the amount specified in or determined in accordance with the order. The amendment would ensure that it is clear what order the Bill is referring to.
I hope I have addressed the noble Lord’s concerns, and that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, the Minister’s response is disappointing. I am grateful to the two Front Benches for their very kind opening comments but in terms of the substance of the amendment, I thought the Minister’s comments reinforced the case for post-legislative scrutiny; she spent some time explaining why the Bill has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, which I would have thought adds to the case for subjecting it to post-legislative scrutiny. She referred to the Football Governance Act, which just dealt with one particular issue, whereas this Bill is very wide-ranging. There is therefore scope for a lot of things to go wrong, which I would have thought reinforced the case for checking that the Bill has delivered on all aspects of what the Government seek to achieve with it.
The value of committing to post-legislative scrutiny is the Government demonstrating that they have confidence in the measure. If there is to be a review anyway, why not put that on the face of the Bill? At least critics of it would then know that it will definitely be subject to review—it is in the Bill, and that will happen. That is one of the arguments for post-legislative scrutiny of the Football Governance Act.
As I say, I am disappointed with the response. I shall keep coming back to the case for putting provision for post-legislative scrutiny on the face of Bills that meet the criteria I have outlined, and will press the Government to have the courage of their convictions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, my noble friends have made a compelling human, practical and democratic case for the role of Parliament in expressly approving school closures in the event of a future pandemic or public health emergency. In practical terms, as we all know and have heard in this short debate, parents and teachers see every day the impacts on those young people who missed out on significant chunks of their education and their social development when schools were closed. My noble friend Lord Brady rightly pointed out the fundamental value of schools being open as unlocking all the other good things that we expect and trust them to deliver for our children.
I hope that, when the Minister comes to close, if she does not plan to accept these amendments, she gives a clear response as to how the issues that my noble friends have raised will be dealt with in future. As my noble friend Lady Spielman said, children at that point had no balancing voice to the decisions that were made, and that feels like something we do not want to have happen again.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all the contributors to this important debate. Amendment 207, which has been degrouped and stands alone for the reasons the noble Lord has outlined, would require schools to remain open to all pupils during civil emergencies unless Parliament decides otherwise. As the noble Lord stated during Committee, closing schools has significant impacts on children, as has been reinforced by the discussion here this evening. We all agree that continuity of education is vital for their learning and well-being.
We mentioned it in Committee, but I do not think it has been stressed enough in this debate that almost all schools remained open and allowed attendance in some cases to all pupils and in others to vulnerable children and to children of critical workers. I want to put on record here today our enormous thanks to the staff who worked under incredibly difficult circumstances, with changing guidance on this on a day-to-day basis, in putting the needs of those children first. There were very few total closures, and where they happened, they were usually short-term and for operational reasons. I am sure noble Lords will remember the coverage about deep-cleaning and all the other issues that came up on a daily basis.
We know now that children generally were not at risk from Covid-19 in terms of health. That does not mean that the staff were not, but children were not as vulnerable as was first feared. But that might not always be the case in future pandemics or other whole-system emergencies, and we need to keep that at the forefront of our minds as we discuss this important issue.
I reassure the Committee that the department is committed to learning from the Covid-19 pandemic inquiry. We learned from the last pandemic that planning is at its best when it is agile, takes a whole-system approach and is responsive to the situation. The department is continuing to build its capabilities to support education in all circumstances, including strengthening remote education.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her serious response. She alluded correctly to the role of many different bodies, were these difficult circumstances to happen again. However, if I am not mistaken, the one body she did not mention in her response was Parliament. Does she not accept, as is fundamental to Amendment 207, that in these circumstances a decision to close schools is so important that it should have explicit parliamentary approval within a reasonable time?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I apologise, but my assumption was that all the departments working together would keep Parliament informed of the decision. However, I do not think we can pre-empt at this time how quickly decisions will need to be made. We just need to make sure that we do not create serious disadvantage by putting in legislation something that might undermine our ability to respond at pace and appropriately in circumstances that we perhaps cannot envisage now. With that, I hope that the noble Lord feels reassured enough to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response, and I thank my noble friends Lord Brady and Lady Spielman for cosponsoring this amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for her excellent contribution.
I will make just one point in response to some of the points raised. It is important to learn one lesson from our response to the pandemic. That lesson is that we are pretty poor at learning lessons from previous pandemics. We had a pandemic preparedness strategy, and we prided ourselves on being better prepared for a pandemic than almost every other country. That pandemic preparedness strategy was based on the findings of public inquiries into previous pandemics and epidemics, and it was junked within two weeks in the febrile, panicky atmosphere and the heat of politics. The compelling desire to be seen to be doing something overrode the lessons we had supposedly learned from previous pandemics and epidemics. Sweden, on the other hand, which broadly speaking followed our pandemic preparedness strategy, did far better.
I am a little reassured by the words of the Minister about responding in a more intelligent, systematic, thoughtful way next time, but once the conclusions of the Covid-19 inquiry have been published, the Government need to give some thought to how those will be conveyed and how they will be meaningfully observed by a future Government, in the absence of legislating and giving Parliament the kind of role it should have before critical decisions affecting the most vulnerable people in our society are made. With that, I will of course withdraw my amendment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we admire the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her relentless focus on this issue, which is obviously well intended. But as we made clear in Committee, we are not in a position to support this amendment. Our reservations stem from the belief that its remit would extend to every ministerial decision that may have, either directly or indirectly, an impact on the well-being of children. It may add an additional legal layer of bureaucracy to a legislative process that is, unfortunately, already weighed down and could therefore hinder the decision-making process. While it is no doubt intended to improve the well-being of children, it has the potential to be detrimental to swift and decisive action in the best interests of children, and for those reasons we are not able to support it.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 221, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister, would place a duty on Ministers and officials to prepare and publish a child rights impact assessment, or CRIA, in relation to all relevant legislation, policy and budget development which will impact on children’s well-being, social care or education prior to the decision being taken.
I restate this Government’s continued commitment to upholding children’s rights and the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We continue to work closely with key stakeholders that advocate for the rights of children. As stated in Committee, members of the department meet quarterly with representatives from children’s rights charities, providing Ministers and officials with opportunities to hear directly from experts in the sector, helping us to put children’s rights at the heart of policy-making.
We agree that impacts on children should be carefully assessed as part of policy-making; however, such an amendment is unnecessary, as upon ratifying the UNCRC in 1991, the UK Government made a commitment to give due regard to the UNCRC when making new policy and legislation. Compliance is demonstrated through the periodic reporting process every five years when the Government report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on progress the UK has made in upholding children’s rights.
To pick up on the points about devolved Governments, powerfully made by different contributors—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, clearly wanted to speak about Wales—as we say, these are devolved matters. Devolved Administrations are free to develop their approach to children’s rights and we are confident that the UK Government’s approach fulfils our duties under the UNCRC. This Government are committed to being child-centred and will continue to put children at the heart of our decision-making. We will continue to assess the impact of the devolved Governments’ changes, including the duty on their Ministers to complete child rights impact assessments for relevant work.
Safeguarding children’s rights is of utmost importance, but assessments should be effective and proportionate. Introducing a statutory requirement for Ministers and officials to prepare and publish CRIAs for all measures that affect children would be a significant undertaking. Government departments will continue to complete CRIAs where necessary, including on this legislation, which has been published and will be updated. The Covid inquiry noted that where mandatory arrangements are in place, for example in Scotland and Wales, CRIAs were not completed.
Furthermore, we have heard the strength of feeling on this matter in this House and in subsequent engagements, including between the Minister for Children and Families and my noble friend Lady Lister. My department will therefore be upskilling officials across government on the importance of children’s rights in policy-making. This includes delivering training to officials across government on the importance of children’s rights and supporting the completion of the CRIAs when developing policies or legislation that may impact on children and young people.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I think I win the prize tonight for the most wide-ranging set of amendments that could possibly come together in one group.
I turn first to Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I appreciate the noble Lord’s arguments, which were also put forward in Committee. I thank him for raising them again. However, my view on this remains the same: schools are best placed to understand the needs of their pupils and should be able to choose from a range of options to best suit those needs, with tutoring being one option. Although the national tutoring programme has ended, schools can continue to provide tutoring through the use of funds such as pupil premium, which can be used to support the disadvantaged pupils identified in this proposed amendment. Guidance based on evidence gathered through the programme is available to support schools to deliver tutoring.
In addition, the noble Lord may be aware that on 26 January the Department for Education announced plans to co-create AI tutoring tools with teachers and leading tech companies. This programme will develop and robustly test our AI tutoring tools so they are safe and work for pupils, including the most disadvantaged, and school staff to complement high-quality, face-to-face teaching. We need to have confidence that schools are best able to go forward and use their resources appropriately.
On Amendment 241, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mott, I fully appreciate the noble Lord’s concerns about the educational attainment of children with a parent in prison. We had a good discussion in Committee and we have committed to identifying and supporting all children affected by parental imprisonment. We welcome the intent of this amendment and assure the noble Lord that the Department for Education is working closely with the Ministry of Justice to determine how we can best identify all children affected, not just those of school age, sensitively and ensure that they get support to enable them to thrive.
I think that emphasis on sensitivity is crucial here. I stress what I have said before, which is that we must not make any assumptions in this area about the experience of individual young people and must make sure that their needs are met across the board. It is a complex picture and our approach is to make sure that we link to a consistent nationwide support offer. We are working through the details of exactly how we can do this. Sharing information and increasing awareness have to be fundamental measures that we look at in this. While I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, I hope he recognises the seriousness with which we take this subject.
Amendment 243, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, would require new schools to be built to deliver net zero carbon in operation and to be resilient to climate change, and for action plans to be developed for all existing schools to reach net zero and to be resilient to the impacts of climate change. I can confirm that the Department for Education already requires all centrally funded school building projects to be net zero carbon in operation, designed to be climate resilient to a two-degree centigrade rise in average global temperatures and future proofed for a 4% rise, and to incorporate sustainable drainage systems and promote biodiversity. The DfE’s sustainability strategy introduced an expectation for all schools to develop a climate adaptation plan. This is supported by the Climate Ambassadors Network, which provides free expertise to schools.
The considerations set out in the amendment should be included in the setting’s climate action plan. As I say, guidance has been published, and I hope that schools are aware of the programme of support that is available to help them put the plans in place, with the sustainability leadership and climate action plans in education from the department. The requirement for a climate action plan has also been included in the recently updated estate management standards. This policy is designed to ensure that action is taken at a responsible body and/or setting level to ensure that children and young people are prepared for a changing future and that sustainability and climate resilience is built into the operation of the setting.
Turning to Amendment 243A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, I appreciate the intention behind this amendment: to prevent safeguarding procedures being misused for political purposes. The Government cannot support it, however. Safeguarding teams must be able to consider all relevant information to keep children safe, and restricting their ability to take account of political views would make that vital work harder. We recognise the difficulties that schools face when making decisions that require consideration of safeguarding and security risks alongside political impartiality and freedom of speech. However, we can all agree that the fact that my honourable friend Damien Egan MP was unable to visit a school in his constituency was a completely unacceptable situation, and I think it triggered, in part, the amendment. All Members of Parliament should be able to visit anywhere in their constituency without any fear of antisemitism or prejudice.
Ofsted has inspected the school in question and found no concerns, but it is also vital that we fully understand the circumstances of this case. That is why the Secretary of State has asked the trust to commission an independent investigation into what happened so that key lessons can be learned. The Secretary of State has also announced an independent national review to help ensure that all schools and colleges have the right systems, processes and support available to identify and respond effectively to antisemitism and related issues, as has been outlined. It is important that we do not pre-empt those reviews, and the DfE will of course continue to look at all schools and colleges across the board through the lens of the work they are doing.
On Amendment 243B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I am aware that the VAT status of all further education colleges is an area of continued interest for the sector. Colleges are unable to reclaim VAT incurred on their non-business activity, which includes providing free education. The Government operate VAT refund schemes for local authorities, including the schools they maintain, and for academies. These are variously designed to prevent local authorities needing to raise local taxes to pay for their VAT costs, and to support schools to leave local authority control by ensuring equal VAT treatment between schools and academies. Colleges do not meet the criteria for either scheme. In relation to business activity, colleges enjoy an exemption from VAT which means that they do not have to charge VAT to students but cannot recover it either. I stress that tax is a matter for the Chancellor, who takes decisions at fiscal events in the context of the broader public finances.
Amendment 243E stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Layard, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, for laying out its content and for the work he does with my noble friend, who is regarded as a real champion in this area. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for their comments. The amendment seeks to ensure that every eligible young person aged 16 to 18 in England who wishes to start an apprenticeship at level 3 or below has the opportunity to do so.
This amendment is in the context of an incredible drop-off in the number of people starting apprenticeships, and the unforgivable rise in the number of young people who are NEET across the whole of the country. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Layard is such a champion of apprenticeships, and this Government share his ambition to support more of these opportunities for young people. For this reason, we are investing in young peoples’ futures and rebalancing apprenticeships back towards young people, who obviously have the most to gain from apprenticeships, regaining their confidence, against the backdrop of the fall in starts over the last decade.
Since we last spoke in Committee, we have announced our ambition to support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships, backed by an additional £725 million of investment. We will expand foundation apprenticeships into sectors where young people are traditionally recruited, exploring occupations such as hospitality and retail. We are making £140 million available to pilot new approaches to better connect young people, especially those who are NEET, to local apprenticeship opportunities. From August, apprenticeship training will be completely free for SMEs who hire eligible young people aged 16 to 24.
We also continue to provide a range of financial support to encourage employers to offer apprenticeships to young people. We provide £1,000 to employers when they take on apprentices aged under 19, or eligible 19 to 24 year-olds. Employers receive additional payments of up to £2,000 for eligible foundation apprenticeships. Employers are not required to pay anything towards employees’ national insurance for all apprentices up to age 25.
However, we have to recognise that apprenticeships are jobs, first and foremost. We cannot compel an employer to hire—it must remain for employers to decide when they offer apprenticeships to meet their skills needs.
With those comments, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
Oh, well, all the time, then.
I will keep my remarks very brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lord Parkinson made a convincing case that children involved in performances should get special consideration in this area. I am not sure whether this is something I have to declare on the register, but my husband appeared in a drinking chocolate advert. I am ashamed to say that I just messaged him and, rather like my noble friend Lord Parkinson, he remembers exactly how much he was paid: £17 a day for two days and £200 for repeat broadcasts. My noble friend made the point very vividly: this means a huge amount to the children involved.
On the amendments tabled my noble friend Lord Wei, he will not be surprised to hear me say that the principles underpinning a register were in the previous Government’s Schools Bill and in the current Government’s manifesto, and we should respect that. Having said that, his Amendment 157A, even if it does not need formally to be in legislation, would be a very constructive way forward. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I feel that this group is becoming something of a confessional. It is very interesting to hear noble Lords’ backgrounds. The thing I love about this House is that noble Lords can bring their personal experiences, which makes the debate so rich. I expected it from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, but it is very interesting to have other experiences coming into the Chamber.
This is a very important group of amendments about making sure that the registration system works, that it captures the appropriate children and that it does not in any way undermine young people’s ambitions. That is a very good point.
Amendments 127 and 129, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, would exclude all child performers from inclusion in the children not in school registers. I thank the noble Baroness for her productive engagement with the department and my noble friend the Minister on these issues that she obviously cares very passionately about. I think that she agrees that home-educated child performers should remain in scope of the registers. For that reason, we cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendment, which would exclude all child performers from the registers. However, I am pleased to confirm that the Government intend to exclude school-registered child performers from the scope of the registers and will consult on this position as part of our wider consultation on the content of the regulations. I hope that that gives her the reassurance that she has been seeking in her conversations with us.
Amendment 130, also tabled by the noble Baroness, seeks to place a duty on local authorities to ensure that any children taking part in a performance, and who are not captured on the children not in school register, are registered under the existing child performance regulations. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that children can take part in performance opportunities while also ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, made a very good point about making sure that all children can take up these incredible offers when they come along.
I reassure the noble Baroness that existing legislation already requires children undertaking certain performances and related activities to be licensed with the relevant local authority. That would remain the case regardless of whether a child was also registered on a children not in school register and, as such, this amendment is not required. We recognise the need to review child performance regulations, and the Government are committed to doing so, as was agreed when the noble Baroness met my noble friend the Minister and officials last September. This review will take account of her concerns, and I am sure that she will look forward to further evidence of that work coming forward. Putting children at the heart of everything we do throughout this legislation is central to our ambition to support young people in this country.
Government Amendment 128 seeks to clarify that children who attend school on agreed part-time arrangements can be included in the children not in school registers where they are also receiving education outside of a school setting. This amendment is necessary to ensure local authorities have oversight of those children and can be confident that their overall education is suitable.
Government Amendment 156 clarifies that a local authority may ask an out-of-school education provider to confirm whether they are providing education to children, whether or not those children live in the authority’s area. That will help local authorities identify children who are not recorded on registers but who should be. Not having this clarification risks a loophole where registration is avoided simply by sending children to providers outside their home authority.
Government Amendment 157 also clarifies how the provider duty will work in practice. The amendment would clarify that providers subject to the duty need to give information only on children living in England and Wales. We recognise that there are providers that have significant online or international offerings that may be captured by the duty on out-of-school education providers. As the children not in school registers apply only to children in England and Wales, it would be inappropriate for local authorities to receive details of children outside of these countries.
Amendment 157A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish annual anonymised statistics on the operation of the registers and school attendance orders. We already publish annual anonymised statistics on home-educated children and school attendance orders drawn from local authorities’ voluntary registers. I emphasise that, once the children not in school registers are implemented, the department intends to continue doing so; where this would not identify individuals, it will also publish the number of complaints and appeals, along with their outcomes.
Amendments 148C and 161B were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, added her name to the former; I do not want to leave her experience out of this. They would require the registers to be reviewed, their findings published, and for the registers to be re-approved by Parliament within a set timeframe. We will evaluate the impact of the registers following implementation and will communicate it to the House. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to create uncertainty for families and local authorities by placing sunset clauses in this legislation.
Amendment 161C, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to give parents an independent route of appeal to decisions made by a local authority under Sections 436B to 436G and to prevent local authority enforcement action where a parent has lodged an appeal, ombudsman complaint or judicial review, unless there is suspicion of harm to the child.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the register of children not in school would be required to contain information about all schools or institutions that a child attends or has attended in the past, including those which are institutions not in the further education sector.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The government amendments in this group seek to strengthen the support and engagement local authorities offer to families who wish to home educate. As my noble friend the Minister said during Committee, it is vital that local authorities build constructive relationships with parents. Such relationships are the most effective way for local authorities to understand a child’s education and circumstances and to identify any support families may want or require. The Department for Education is committed to fostering these partnerships wherever possible.
Government Amendment 144 would amend Section 436C(2)(j) to remove the specific reference to institutions in the further education sector. This would ensure that the department can require local authorities, via regulations, to record information about any education institution a registered child is attending or has attended in the past where the local authority has the information or can reasonably obtain it. Such information could be beneficial to include on registers because a history of establishments attended will give local authorities a clearer idea of the child’s circumstances and educational history. This understanding will enable the local authority to offer and provide more bespoke support to the child. For those parents who feel forced into home education, a record of previous schools attended would also give the local authority insight into which settings parents were dissatisfied with. Further analysis of this information could reveal where there may be gaps in support for parents within the school system, enabling the local authority or central government to take action.
Government Amendment 146 would make it clear that information on young carers may be prescribed for inclusion in children not in school registers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for raising this important matter in Committee, and the Carers Trust for its tireless work on ensuring that young carers are identified and supported. As my noble friend the Minister said in Committee, knowing whether a child is a young carer provides important context for an elective home education officer, both in assessing whether the child is receiving a full-time suitable education, and in ensuring that the family is signposted to any relevant support to which they are entitled. Prescribing this information for inclusion on the children not on school register would ensure that local authorities must record it if they can reasonably obtain it.
Turning to government Amendment 158, the department’s guidance is clear that when a parent elects to home-educate, they must be prepared to take full responsibility for their child’s education. This includes making arrangements for access to exams the child may wish to take. Local authorities should, however, be sources of advice for home-educating families. That is why we have tabled Amendment 158, would make it clear that local authorities must give advice and information about access to GCSE exams if requested by the parent of a home-educated child registered on their children not on school register. This advice could include signposting to local centres that may be open to taking private candidates; providing information on how to enter GCSEs as a private candidate; and signposting the Joint Council for Qualifications’ list of exam centres that accept private candidates, and organisations that provide guidance on exams or careers, such as Ofqual and the National Careers Service.
At a national level, the Department for Education will send communications to schools encouraging them to take private candidates and to join the list of centres held by the JCQ. We will engage with the JCQ to explore options for updating this list earlier in the year, ensuring that families have timely access to accurate information to support their planning.
Government Amendment 159 would require local authorities to hold forums with home-educating parents twice a year as part of their support duty, if there is an appetite on the part of parents for them to do so. These forums would be an opportunity for the community to provide feedback and to ask the local authority how the registered support duty and school attendance order process is operating. In turn, the forums would provide local authorities with a better understanding of the needs and views of home-educating families in their areas, laying the foundation for more constructive relationships.
Government Amendment 161 would ensure that the duty on local authorities to offer a biannual engagement forum is targeted specifically at home-educated parents. This would ensure that the forums remain focused on their core purpose. We know that some parents whose children are on a school roll or whose education is arranged by the local authority may also want the opportunity to speak directly to a representative from the local authority. However, where the issues relate to other duties, such as those under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, those discussions are often highly technical or specific to an individual case. Such matters would not be well suited to an open forum of this kind, so those parents would be better supported through the existing routes of communication available to them. I beg to move.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 160. As I did in the last group, I start by saying that I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for having moved in some way on the information provided about exams, and for setting up a forum; it will be interesting to see how that operates. I am also very sympathetic to Amendment 161A from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, in which he proposes setting up a proper forum where parents are asked to take some responsibility for the relationship. That seems quite a positive, and maybe a longer-term, way forward.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are of the view that the government amendments seem entirely reasonable, and we therefore support them. While we understand the intentions behind the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, we cannot support them. These issues were addressed in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I will not repeat those arguments on Report.
Similarly with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, we believe that local authorities simply do not have the capacity right now to be committing new funding, however small. So, while we understand the noble Lord’s intentions, we cannot support his amendment, but we welcome the opportunity to hear the response from the Government on the critical issues highlighted by all noble Lords thus far.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their very considered comments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for bringing his experience into the Chamber. I thank him for the considerate way that he has approached this. I hope we will continue to have a constructive dialogue as we move forward on these important issues.
Amendment 160, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and Amendments 161A and 175ZC tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to require local authorities to act supportively towards, and establish advisory boards of, home-educating families, and ensure that home-educated children can access examinations. As I said at the beginning of this group, local authorities should be sources of support for home-educating families. Noble Lords’ engagement has been constructive and I reassure them that this will be further strengthened by the support duty in the Bill, which is the first ever duty on local authorities to provide support specifically for home-educating families, as well as the government amendments in this group, which clarify that information on GCSE exam access should be provided as part of the support duty and require local authorities to arrange biannual engagement forums, as we have discussed.
We also recognise the importance of ensuring that parents are responsible for bearing the costs of any exams they may enter their child for before they make the decision to withdraw them from school. This is something already made clear in the department’s Elective Home-education guidance and which we would expect to be discussed as part of the mandatory meetings pilots that my noble friend described earlier. To expand on this, while some of these things seem straightforward, they are more involved than perhaps has been suggested. The question is: why can we not require local authorities to find exam centres for all home-educated students? This would involve a local authority forcing a state school or college to accommodate a home-educated pupil. We do not think this is right or appropriate. Exam centres, schools, colleges and private institutions rightly take their own decisions on whether they can accept private candidates based on their individual circumstances, such as financial and administrative capacity and logistical considerations. Schools and colleges have finite resources and exams must be delivered in line with strict regulatory requirements, including desk spacing, appropriate invigilator-to-candidate ratios and the secure administration of assessments to ensure that they are conducted fairly and safely. When a centre is able to accommodate a private candidate within these requirements, we fully encourage it to do so. However, it would not be appropriate to require a centre to breach exam regulations or compromise the integrity of the assessment, or to require a school with a full exam hall potentially to exclude one of their own pupils to make space for a private candidate. Instead, we encourage arrangements to be based on an understanding of each exam centre’s local circumstances and relationships.
However, the department will contact both state-funded and independent schools and colleges to encourage them to accept private candidates and to be included on the list of centres published by the JCQ, as appropriate. To pick up on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, we will also work with the JCQ to explore whether this list can be made available earlier in the year so that families have timely and accurate information to support their planning.
In addition, we will update our guidance to local authorities, encouraging them to provide clear and accessible information for home-educating families at an early stage about the qualifications and exam centres in their area. This will help families to consider exam arrangements before starting a course of study, make informed choices about assessment options and avoid unnecessary travel, where possible.
Lord Wei (Con)
I welcome this timely provision of information for families. I speak for myself, but Peers here have also spoken about the need for exam access and would not want to burden state or other schools that have completely full exam halls. I wonder whether, maybe through a letter, we could have a further conversation with the department about this.
As that information is gathered and you discover what access there is in a local authority, if there literally is none for exams, could there not be some dialogue with the local schools? This would not be to force them to do anything they cannot do, or cannot afford to do, but just to ask how many spare desks they have in their exam halls, which they probably will be able to tell you very quickly. Then, that will allow conversations to happen about creating something in the area, which often may be absent, as we found.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. This is exactly what we are proposing: there needs to be that dialogue, to have a better understanding of what is—or is not—available locally. The noble Lord mentioned his own circumstance, having to travel a long distance. Perhaps if he had been able to have a conversation about which exam boards operate in his local area, that might have made a difference.
That situation, of the offer from different exam boards, is unique to England, which obviously means different syllabuses—which has an impact. The earlier conversations we are proposing will hopefully bring that out. It is difficult to be too prescriptive at this point, because of the different circumstances in different localities. It is for those areas to make clear what provision they are able to make.
In relation to Amendment 175ZC, it is also important to highlight that the Equality Act 2010 already places a statutory duty on awarding organisations to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled students in exams and assessments. This applies to all learners, irrespective of whether they attend a school or are home-educated. I hope that answers the point the noble Lord, Lord Wei, raised about equalities.
Amendment 175ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to ensure that home-educated children and families are not unfairly disadvantaged or subjected to additional administrative and evidential requirements. Of course, we agree that home-educating families and children should not be unfairly disadvantaged. However, the reality is that many services are accessible to children through their school. When a family makes the choice to electively home-educate, they are opting out of this system. This is why our guidance is clear that parents should ensure that they are fully informed about home education before they enter into it. There are existing duties under equalities law to ensure that organisations do not discriminate, and our guidance is clear that any request for evidence must be proportionate. Private businesses, such as many education providers and examination centres, must retain autonomy over who their services are available to, as long as they comply with the law.
Amendment 175ZB, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the training of local authority officers on the children not in school measures. I am happy to reassure the noble Lord that we will be developing the training package for local authorities, focused on their new duties. This training will be co-developed with and co-delivered by home education representatives, and we will engage with relevant stakeholders, including our implementation forums, and safeguarding and domestic abuse organisations, on the materials to be included in this package.
With these comments, I therefore hope the changes the Government are proposing have addressed noble Lords’ concerns. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his comments and explanation of the position he is taking.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I have absolutely no desire to stifle debate, but I ask anyone who wishes still to speak to be very mindful of the number of votes we are expecting at the end of this group. We also have very important dinner break business scheduled for tonight. Please be brief and to the point so we can move on with this important debate.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have two original points to make that have not been covered at all. We should bring ourselves back to the fact that there is an enormous amount of agreement around this Chamber. I think everyone will say we feel enormous sympathy for the families, some of whom are here today, who have lost family as a result of contact with social media. We all accept that we want 16 year-olds on the day of their birthday to be able to stride out into the world confident, capable, ready to step into adulthood. Most of us want to rein in the overwhelmingly powerful digital companies which have been allowed to run wild across the world by political decisions made by adults. I particularly commend the right reverend Prelate for naming the spectre in the room—Donald Trump and his tech bro friends. He is a spectre here and is now recorded in Hansard.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that we have very broad agreement that the Online Safety Act has been a total failure and Ofcom is not delivering what it should be doing. Those are the points of agreement. Where my conclusions drive me is that I would back Amendment 91 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, with some caveats, which I will get back to, but it is not my intention to vote for any of the ban amendments before us today. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Lib Dems’ brave effort to find a way through a middle road and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, almost swayed me that we should make a gesture. The case I put, argument one, is that your Lordships’ House is not the right place: we are not the right people to be making this decision. Many of us have joined since the depths of Covid, but those who were here then will remember when the House went largely remote and lots of people who had never used a computer before were suddenly on Zoom. We met their grandkids: “There you are, Granny. You are off mute now”.
I invite your Lordships to look at the people around you. We are extraordinarily unrepresentative of the country in many ways, but particularly in terms of age. This is where I draw on the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, but come to a different conclusion. I was also in the learning centre and spoke to some of the same pupils. They overwhelmingly said, “We do not want a ban”. My argument is that we must stop doing politics to young people. We must give young people agency and a sense of control. We have bequeathed to them a disastrous, damaging world; failing to give them a say in this is absolutely the wrong way forward.
On that point, I have a serious proposal for the Minister. In the consultation, are the Government prepared to include a people’s assembly that represents young people from around the country? Rather than just asking young people to tick a box in a survey—we all know what happens with “yes” or “no” votes—this would give them the chance to deliberate on how they think we can control the future and improve their situation.
My second point is important and has not been said before. In this debate we have heard a huge amount of scapegoating of social media. Social media is a mirror: it reflects the misogyny, violence, racism and fake news that runs across and through our society, it does not create it. If we could wave a magic wand and get young people off social media, they would still be affected by the dreadful levels of poverty and the schools that operate as exam factories, putting them under tremendous pressure and subjecting them to unbearable discipline. They would still have parents who are struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. They would still encounter all the misogyny and racism in our society. When we are debating and voting on this, we must understand that social media is a mirror; it is not creating where we are now.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, this is a convenient time to break for dinner break business. We will return to the Bill not before 8.36 pm—
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I meant 9.36 pm —wishful thinking; I was just checking that your Lordships are all with me—to allow time for ping-pong on the Holocaust Memorial Bill.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I too will be brief. I was slightly surprised at the need for Amendment 102. If I have understood correctly, the Government have committed to establishing a child protection agency and are currently consulting on it. I absolutely understand that the noble Lord wants to raise this because, clearly, implementation will be crucial if we are to avoid blurring lines of accountability and creating a bureaucracy. But it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
We covered standards for children in need thresholds in Committee. On these Benches, we retain the view that we need flexibility in the system so that practitioners can use their professional judgment to look at the overall situation of a child and keep it under review. But I absolutely accept that there are real problems at what one might call the top end of Section 17, with an extraordinary number of children who are suffering child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation still being classified as “children in need” rather than “child protection”.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, each of these amendments would introduce a new clause, referring to the establishment of the child protection authority and consistent support for children in need, as we have heard. This group raises important issues about child safety, well-being and support. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are, as he outlined, completely committed to working in this area.
Amendment 102, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to impose a binding timetable for the establishment of the child protection agency. Just by way of background, establishing a child protection authority was one of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. In a Statement to the House of Commons on 8 April 2025, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls announced that the Government will establish a child protection authority in England, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, alluded to.
On 11 December 2025, we published a consultation on the child protection authority, which sets out its proposed roles, responsibilities and powers. This will help to make the child protection system clearer and more unified and ensure that there is ongoing improvement through effective support for practitioners. The design and delivery of this authority require consultation, including with child protection experts and Victim Support, to ensure that it has the right constitution and powers. Given this, we do not think it is prudent to agree an arbitrary timeline, but we will work to publish the government response this summer, following which we will move to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, I welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled to Clause 8. I think they will meet the aims of our Amendment 35, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the additional support that the Government will offer to care leavers.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and Baronesses for their positive comments today; they are a measure of the fact that all of us in this Chamber want to put the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society at the centre of the Bill. I think the Government have clearly put across that we are strongly committed to improving support for care leavers, both through the measures in the Bill on Staying Close, local offer and corporate parenting and through our other programmes of work, such as the care leaver covenant and the care leavers interministerial board, all of which seek to ensure that young people leaving care have stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong loving relationships and are engaged in education, employment and training.
We want to support those in care and preparing to leave care before they reach adulthood, and to ensure that they have the same support as all young people. They will of course benefit from the wider changes that we are making for all young people in this space; we have had some fantastic discussions about the need for financial literacy for all young people in different places over the last few months.
I emphasise that in November the independent curriculum assessment review published its report, along with the Government’s response. As part of the review, we are taking forward recommendations that will help to deliver a high-quality curriculum for every young person. One key recommendation is to embed applied knowledge throughout the curriculum, including financial literacy. We have given a clear commitment in our response to the review to strengthen financial education through both the maths and the citizenship curriculum so that all young people and children have the skills they will need in adulthood. These commitments will benefit those children in care and preparing leave care.
Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, seeks to ensure that Staying Close support includes support to access services relating to financial support and literacy. Having said what I did about the review in general, I acknowledge that care leavers have particular and additional needs in this area. I fully endorse the noble Baroness’s intent with this amendment, recognising the importance of care leavers being properly informed of the financial support available to them as they transition to independence.
We have listened to concerns from both Houses about ensuring that care leavers receive the support they need from local authorities, particularly with financial management, and helping care leavers to develop the skills and knowledge that they require in this area. That is why we have tabled two government amendments to Clause 8. Amendment 39, in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, adds services relating to financial literacy to the list of services in Section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, meaning that local authorities will have to publish information about those services as part of their local offer for care leavers. Amendment 40, also in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, amends Clause 8 to require each local authority to include information about the arrangements that it has in place for providing financial support to care leavers in its local offer. In bringing forward these amendments, I acknowledge the continued advocacy for care leavers to receive assistance with financial literacy and financial support that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, has provided in this area, and I thank her for that.
Most care leavers already receive a pathway plan before leaving care that should cover their financial capability, money management skills and strategies to develop these abilities. Adding these government amendments will ensure that care leavers are better aware of the services available to them, and it will increase local authorities’ accountability in supporting care leavers to receive the support they need. That further underscores how the Government have listened to the voices of children and young people because, as we have heard and as everyone engaged in this area acknowledges, when we listen to care leavers’ requests for support, the message that comes across loud and clear is that they want more support in understanding their finances. For that reason, we consider Clause 8 the most effective place for the amendment, ensuring a robust and consistent level of support for every care leaver, not only those accessing Staying Close.
Importantly, including the amendments in Clause 8 does not remove or dilute the support for care leavers receiving Staying Close. Financial literacy remains a key factor in helping young people to find and, importantly, keep accommodation and will continue to be considered as part of the overall assessment of their ability to maintain a tenancy. This will be reflected in the initial programme guidance we will be sharing with local authorities before April this year as the national rollout of the programme begins. This has been developed in collaboration with local authorities, stakeholders and people with care experience and will be updated after evaluation of local authority practice and ahead of the publication of final statutory guidance. I hope that this answers the questions that the noble Baroness asked in moving her amendment, that noble Lords are reassured, and that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and comprehensive response. The fact that the government amendments will go into Clause 8 and my amendment was to Clause 7 does not matter to me. What matters is that those government amendments will be there and that the care-experienced young people will now have access to the financial support and financial literacy that they need. I thank the Government again for their extremely constructive and helpful response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interest in this area. As he opened the group, I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Watson for his sincere interest, as we heard in Committee, when we had a good exploration of the issues.
I will first discuss three amendments together: Amendments 37, 38 and 59. Amendments 37 and 38, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, seek a review of current Staying Put funding and the introduction of a national minimal allowance for Staying Put arrangements. Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, proposes extending current Staying Put duties to the age of 25. We know that the existing Staying Put duties, which continue until a young person reaches 21, enable local authorities to support young people to remain longer in the stable and secure foster homes they know. This continuity helps them to step into adulthood with the same opportunities and life chances as their peers. We recognise that additional stability at a crucial age.
We remain firmly committed to supporting young people in Staying Put arrangements. The provisional local government finance settlement includes continued funding of £100 million through the first multiyear settlement in a decade for local authorities supporting these arrangements. I am sure that all Members who have had local authority experience will recognise that multiyear settlement as crucial in bringing stability back into local government finance. As I said, this will provide greater certainty and enable effective sufficiency planning for Staying Put arrangements.
However—and I emphasise this again—we must also ensure that we prioritise addressing the gaps in current provision with the available resources that we have. That is particularly the case for those moving into independent living at 18 who have not been able to remain with their former foster carers and for those with the most complex needs. This is precisely why we are introducing statutory Staying Close duties. Under these duties, all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those who have a Staying Put arrangement, will receive Staying Close support where their welfare requires it. This will help them find and keep suitable accommodation, and access the wraparound services they need to thrive.
As we introduce a number of new duties for care leavers through the Bill, it is essential that we allow these changes to embed and begin to deliver the outcomes we expect before we review Staying Put and look to amend or include further requirements within the duty. I hope that this gives some comfort to my noble friend Lord Watson. We are not seeking to ignore his comments; we are looking at this in a pragmatic way that will bring things forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked about the initial cost estimates, which amount to several hundred million pounds. Further proper assessment is therefore needed, and we will not shy away from that. Further assessment of the impact of local authority funding will be needed, in this changing picture, for both residential and foster care. As has been set out, we must prioritise those gaps. I know that this is a difficult message to get across, but we need to make sure that, through Staying Close, we reach as many young people as possible.
Amendments 41 and 42 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendment 41 seeks to require local authorities to publish information in their local offer about transition arrangements for care leavers in relation to health and primary care. While fully supporting the aim of the amendment, we believe that it is not required, as there is already an expectation that local authorities will include details of services that may assist care leavers in relation to health and well-being in their local offer.
Similarly, the Government support the intention behind Amendment 42, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which would require that general practice contracts have due regard to the additional health needs of care leavers under the age of 25 when negotiating general practice contracts in the future. However, again, it is not required, as there are already clear expectations in statutory guidance for local authorities, integrated care boards and NHS England to have effective plans in place for looked-after children to make a smooth transition to adulthood, including continuation of access to the health advice and services they need. Additionally, the corporate parenting responsibilities that will be introduced through the Bill, which we will go on to discuss, will require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and NHS England, as relevant authorities, to be alert to matters that might adversely affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers in the exercise of their functions, including negotiating GP services.
Amendment 95, tabled by right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to consult on and publish a national offer for care leavers. Throughout the Bill, the Government are taking significant steps to ensure that young people leaving care are not left to navigate adulthood alone. Our aim is clear: to ensure that every care leaver has a stable home, access to necessary health services, support to build lasting relationships, and the opportunity to thrive in education, employment and training. These are the foundations that every young person deserves, and care leavers should be no exception.
Care leavers’ legal entitlements are already set out in the Children Act 1989, supported by regulations and statutory guidance. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 strengthened this by requiring local authorities to consult on and publish a local offer for care leavers. Statutory guidance makes it clear that this local offer must include information on both the support that care leavers are legally entitled to and any additional help a local authority chooses to provide. Clause 8 of the Bill further strengthens those expectations. Here I am addressing in particular the argument on local as against national that the right reverend Prelate made.
Most importantly, it is local authorities that are best placed to understand the needs of their young people. Crucially, this support should be shaped in consultation and by understanding the needs of care leavers themselves. Therefore, the amendment risks unintentionally creating a one-size-fits-all approach that leaves care leavers in different areas and with different requirements not getting the support that best meets their needs.
With regard to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I suggest that her comments about the cost of foster caring are possibly more relevant to the next group, under Amendment 110C.
I recognise that we are putting in place measures that will take some time to embed and move forward, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that we are absolutely committed to improving the life chances of all young people and, in this case, particularly of young people in care. With those comments, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for those remarks. I will just start on the point that she finished on: that the Government are totally committed to ensuring that all young people have the support that they need. I do not question that. It is unfortunate that there seems to be a cohort of young people who are in foster care, and when they reach the age of 17, they may be able to continue with their foster parents, if they want to and the foster parents are happy to keep them, but there will not be the national minimum allowance, which applies to 16 and 17 year-olds. So, it is incumbent on the foster carers themselves to make up that shortfall. In many cases, with the best will in the world, that simply is not financially possible.
It then opens up the situation where some young people, having just turned 18, have to find alternative arrangements. I take the point that my noble friend the Minister made about wraparound care, the local authority’s offer and the Staying Close arrangements. All those are valuable, and most young people in that situation will make use of them and take advantage of them. But there are some who will not be able to do so. I stress the fact that, in seeking for the national minimum allowance to be extended beyond 17, it would apply only to those situations where the foster family felt able to keep the child and the child wanted to keep the family, as it were. It would not apply to every child of that age.
I am not quite sure about the answer my noble friend gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on her question about cost. In my Amendment 37 on a review, there is no cost implicit. My noble friend the Minister gave a ballpark figure of several hundred million. I do not know whether that would be the case or not: it would depend on the outcome of the review. I had hoped that she might say—although obviously it was never my intention that this should go in the Bill—that the Government would undertake that review. I cannot see any harm in undertaking a review of the Staying Put arrangements that have been in place now for 12 years, since 2014.
I cannot avoid saying that I am disappointed in the response. There are many options for young people. The place I am coming from is: how would any noble Lord who had a child who turned 18 feel if they were obliged to leave home—I am not talking about going to university or college—and find other arrangements at that important and psychologically difficult time in their life? It is no accident that children in care are far less likely to go to university than their peers who live with their birth parents and are far less likely to take up training and apprenticeships. I just make that point to my noble friend. I am not saying that she is being unsympathetic, but I hoped we could at least have a review, which might have pointed the way forward to advancing the number of young people who turn 18 and are able to stay with their foster parents. Foster parents do such a fantastic job. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will remember from our debate in Committee that on this side of the House we had considerable practical reservations about the Government’s approach to regulating groups of children’s homes and foster care providers. These two amendments aim to improve the process that the Government plan to embark on.
Amendment 63 would simply require an agency or an establishment to provide information about its parent undertaking when it registered with Ofsted and to keep that information regularly updated. I assume that it would make it simpler for future regulation and enforcement if the identity of the parent undertaking was clear from the outset, given the complexity of the ownership structures of some of these groups.
My Amendment 64 aims to strengthen the effectiveness of the enforcement regime by giving it commercial teeth that would impact on these businesses. One would hope that preventing them expanding and restructuring financially or organisationally when they were subject to an improvement plan would lead to speedier compliance with the regulatory framework, as well as preventing a suboptimal group from expanding. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, in the absence of other comments I will turn to Amendments 63 and 64, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in relation to the provider oversight scheme. The scheme will enable Ofsted to require provider groups to implement an improvement plan across multiple settings where Ofsted reasonably suspects standards are not being met. If the provider group does not adequately implement improvements, Ofsted will be able to issue it with a fine.
Amendment 63 seeks to ensure that, where an applicant for registration with Ofsted is a subsidiary undertaking, the applicant must provide information about its provider group. This information must then be kept updated and new powers would provide for enforcement of these requirements in regulations. I do not believe this amendment is necessary. There are existing powers in Sections 12 and 22 of the Care Standards Act 2000 which we intend to use to impose requirements on an applicant for registration, or a person already registered to carry on an establishment or agency, to provide information in relation to its parent undertaking—for example, contact details for service of relevant notices by email, and information about other subsidiaries under the same parent undertaking.
Amendment 64 seeks to ensure that, when a parent undertaking is required to implement an improvement plan, it is subject to financial and commercial restrictions, including the limitation on the acquisition of further subsidiaries, the opening of new establishments or agencies, and the organisational or financial restructuring of the parent undertaking while the improvement plan is being implemented. The measure as drafted allows for regulations to set out that a person is not a fit and proper person to carry on an establishment or agency where their parent undertaking—the provider group—has failed or is failing to comply with an improvement notice. This will allow Ofsted to refuse registration applications in respect of new settings that are under the ownership or control of the parent undertaking that has failed to comply with provider oversight requirements. The significant restrictions created by this amendment on parent undertakings which are implementing an improvement plan would not be proportionate, given that the purpose of this measure is to require the provider group to implement change quickly across all settings where concerns have been identified.
I turn to government Amendment 65. It is vital to the safeguarding of children that relevant authorities can quickly and efficiently issue notifications and documents where needed to persons carrying on or managing establishments and agencies and parent undertakings. This measure will amend Section 37 of the Care Standards Act 2000 so that Ofsted notices and documents under Part II of the Act can be served by email, giving the option to choose between delivering notifications by post, by hand or by email. This amendment aligns with our wider aims to deliver efficient technological services. It will bring coherence to communications across reforms and eliminate outdated, costly and time-consuming requirements of delivery only by hand or by post. This will reduce the risk of sensitive financial information being lost, and reduce delays to decisions that could impact the delivery of children’s social care services and to resolving concerns about the care that children receive. I hope I have addressed the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and that she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her remarks. I perhaps accept them more in relation to my Amendment 63 than my Amendment 64, but time will tell how the Government’s plans work out. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, through the Bill, for the first time, key public bodies, from Secretaries of State to schools, NHS organisations and regulators, will be required to be alert to matters that affect looked-after children and care leavers when shaping policy and services. These new corporate parenting duties aim to drive a culture change, tackle stigma and improve outcomes for some of the most vulnerable in our society.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, that the voice of care-experienced young people is crucial in this. The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and I are two people in this Chamber who have experience of being corporate parents—I do not know how many others there are. We know just how serious that is. I understand the reference to language, but the responsibilities that come with this are real and important and need to be taken very seriously indeed.
Amendments 75 and 76 in this group were tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Again, I completely understand where he is coming from, and we have debated this in this Chamber under other debates. These amendments quite rightly seek to strengthen the corporate parent duty by requiring relevant authorities to have due regard to removing or minimising disadvantages faced by looked-after children and care leavers and to take steps to avoid or mitigate any adverse impact of their policies and practices.
We fully share the intent behind these proposals oftackling disadvantage and ensuring that care-experienced young people are not adversely affected by public policy. This is central to our vision for corporate parenting. However, as discussed in Committee, the new corporate parenting responsibilities are broad duties that apply in relation to a corporate parent’s existing functions and can be implemented in a way to fit the unique circumstances of each corporate parent. We believe that our existing measures achieve the aim of tackling disadvantages experienced by looked-after children and care leavers.
Just for a bit of clarity, the current responsibilities require corporate parents to be alert to matters which adversely affect the well-being of the cohort. This will require them to take action as appropriate. I just give the reassurance that this is not just a means of being aware; it comes with responsibilities. Therefore, we anticipate that corporate parents would already consider disadvantages experienced by these young people and how they may be addressed.
We will support implementation through statutory guidance, which will set out the responsibilities and include best practice examples for tackling disadvantage among care-experienced young people. Best practice will draw on not only relevant authorities but wider organisations, including local authorities that have taken action such as representation on governance boards, financial support and discounts, and treating care experience as a protected characteristic. This is the best way to deliver impactful change, not through this amendment, which, as I have outlined, is already sufficiently covered by the clause as drafted. I am delighted to say that we are in contact with Terry Galloway, who is very supportive of the direction we are going in. With his vast experience he will be an invaluable resource, ensuring that we keep moving in the right way.
Amendment 96, also tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to place a duty on public authorities to include in equality impact assessments an assessment of the impact on persons who are being or have been looked after by a local authority. We are determined to tackle the stigma and discrimination faced by care-experienced young people. This is why the Bill introduces corporate parenting duties for Secretaries of State and public bodies, already requiring them to consider the needs of care-experienced young people with the aim of improving outcomes. Clauses 21 to 25 aim to embed this cohort’s challenges into policy and service design. We will commission an implementation partner to support implementation through provision of training and circulation of best practice, including training on how to effectively assess the impact of policies and practices on looked-after children and care leavers. For this reason, the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment 77 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Moraes, who I am very pleased to see back in his rightful place in the Chamber. It seeks to amend the exemption on immigration, asylum, nationality and customs functions in respect of looked-after children so that action that would be taken in adherence with the corporate parenting responsibilities in the exercise of these functions would still be taken where it is not already required by Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. It also seeks to distinguish functions in relation to the acquisition of British citizenship by statutory right from other nationality functions when exercising duties under Section 55 and Clause 21.
While I understand my noble friend’s intent with this amendment, I emphasise that, as my noble friend the Minister noted in Committee, our measures require that public bodies named in this legislation be alert to matters affecting the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, regardless of immigration status, except when performing asylum, immigration, nationality or customs functions. We fully intend on partnering with the sector and care-experienced young people in the immigration system to make sure that our statutory guidance covers their specific needs and vulnerabilities. We will also ensure that our implementation partner develops and delivers training on this cohort to all new corporate parents. As we have heard, my noble friend the Minister recently met with my noble friend Lady Lister and partner organisations, who were greatly reassured by our proposed actions in this area. I hope that this is sufficient reassurance for my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Additionally, Department for Education officials will work closely with the Home Office as it develops its proposals in the immigration White Paper to reduce the financial barriers to young adults who have lived here throughout their childhood accessing British nationality.
Local authorities already follow a separate set of corporate parenting principles and are best placed to take steps to consider whether a young person in their care needs support to seek British citizenship. The Home Office has taken significant steps in recent years to support local authorities in ensuring that children in their care are able to access British citizenship, including by introducing an exception in June 2022 that removed the requirement to pay a fee for an application for citizenship registration by children who are looked after by a local authority.
I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that we will continue to work with the Home Office on how we can improve the experience of looked-after children and care leavers in the immigration, asylum and nationality system, building on existing measures that the Home Office has taken in this space. The further efforts will include working on proposals set out in the White Paper published on 12 May, Restoring Control Over the Immigration System, to ensure that children who have been in the UK for some time then turn 18 and discover they do not have status are fully supported and are able to regularise their status and settle. This will include a clear pathway for those children in care and care leavers.
The White Paper also sets out that the Home Office will consider measures to reduce the financial barriers to young adults who have lived here through their childhood accessing British nationality. Applying the duty to the asylum system would not require the Home Office to decide asylum claims for young people as soon as possible. Given the steps we are taking in this area to ensure that looked-after children in the immigration system benefit from the corporate parenting measures, we do not see the amendment as necessary.
Amendment 79A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to ensure that the corporate parenting guidance issued under Clause 24 is laid in draft before Parliament. This amendment has of course been helpfully raised in reference to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report. Our response to the recommendation explained that guidance issued under Clause 24 will not introduce requirements on corporate parents beyond those enabled by this legislation.
The guidance will help corporate parents understand how the duties could be implemented, using examples of best practice. We will develop statutory guidance in partnership with corporate parents and this will then be subject to consultation. This gives all those affected by the changes, including corporate parents, local authorities, looked-after children, care leavers and all of the above an opportunity to have their say. We will also draw on the expertise of the care-experienced community and representative bodies from within the sector, including those who have campaigned for these amendments, to support guidance drafting.
I can assure the noble Lords that their input will form the backbone of guidance. I hope that with those comments I have addressed the right reverend Prelate’s concern and that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am very grateful for the short debate that we have had this evening. It is clear that we are all passionate about the same thing—we would not be here at this time on a Monday night if we were not. We are passionate about getting the best deal we can for care leavers and young people in care, and I am very grateful to hear that. The fact that we are hearing that from all the Front Benches gives me some assurance that this is not something that would float away were there to be a change of Government—at least not one to any of the parties in this Chamber tonight.
Moving on quickly, I really appreciate the guidance that has been spoken of, and I accept the assurances of the Minister that there are many matters that we sought to put in the Bill, as is proper on Report, but which can be dealt with in that way before the Act is implemented in due course.
Were I merely alert to the fact that it is late at night and I do not have the support of the Front Benches, I might still waste your Lordships’ next 15 minutes by pushing this to a Division, but I am not only “alert to”, I am “having due regard to” those factors. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 75 and will not press Amendment 76 either.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendment to Clause 26 at page 45, line 6, would amend Clause 26 to change references to a “statutory instrument” containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers to a “Welsh statutory instrument” to reflect the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, this group consists of government amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith. They are Amendments 82 to 85, 244, 245, 249 and 253 in relation to consequential provision for Welsh and Scottish Ministers, and minor and technical changes relating to the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025.
Amendments 82 to 85 relate to Clause 26 on the employment of children in England and Wales, and simply update references to the Welsh statutory instruments and the procedure to be followed in the Senedd in consequence of changes made by the 2025 Act, which came into force on 1 January 2026.
Amendments 249 and 253 do the same for Clause 67. This is a change that we are making to refine the drafting in the Bill and ensure that the terms used align with the latest legislative developments.
Amendment 244 will confer power on Welsh Ministers to enable them to make provision consequential to Clauses 11, 12(5), 20 and 31 to 36 in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Welsh Parliament. Amendment 245 will confer power on Scottish Ministers to enable them to make provision consequential to Clause 11 in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. This would ensure that if any such consequential amendments are identified, Scottish and Welsh Ministers could make those changes to the legislation.
I am grateful for the continued engagement of our Welsh and Scottish counterparts on the passage of this landmark legislation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we thank the Minister for her clarification of the reasons behind these consequential amendments. They seem entirely reasonable, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support them.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comments and emphasise again how grateful we are to the devolved Governments for their engagement with the Government on this Bill. We will continue to work closely with them as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
“(4A) Regulations under section 18 made by the Welsh Ministers are to be made by Welsh statutory instrument.””Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my other amendment to clause 26 at page 45 line 6.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 27, page 48, lines 14 to 18.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I turn to the first group of amendments to this important Bill on Report. I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I start with a message of reassurance that this Government are committed to hearing from and listening to children about what matters to them most. It is for this very reason that we have laid government Amendment 4 to Clause 1, on family group decision-making. The amendment requires local authorities to seek the wishes and feelings of the child, as opposed to their views, as was in the original drafting, and to give due consideration to those wishes and feelings in exercising their functions under this clause.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is absolutely right about the importance of the child in these proceedings and the need to make sure that they are included wherever it is appropriate. That includes ascertaining the wishes and feelings of very young children, non-verbal children, and children who may lack capacity and are not able to express their views. This is a complex area that requires the expertise that we have referred to. In making this requirement, 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.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is absolutely right. 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. It is crucial that there is clarity. As we all know, relationships and families are complex, and we need to do everything that we can. 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. It is important to keep that at the front of our deliberations.
I turn to Amendments 1 and 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I completely appreciate the noble Baroness’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 the family group conference model is one of family group decision-making, we believe that including both as distinct terms in legislation risks creating confusion and undermining the clarity that the noble Baroness is seeking. We do not believe that prescribing a particular model in primary legislation is necessary. Likewise, the term “evidence-based approach” could be interpreted differently and including it could create confusion for local authorities if it is not defined in the clause.
Instead, as my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families set out to Peers in a round table on this issue on 11 November, we will set out clear principles in statutory guidance that are informed—this is the crucial bit—by the evidence-based family group conference model. The latest estimates we have are that 80% of authorities already use this model. We will make it clear in national statutory guidance that we expect local authorities to consider using this model, and we will direct local authorities towards the strong evidence base for it. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, talked about evidence repeatedly, so I hope that this addresses her concern.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that there is no attempt at dilution here. We want to make sure that we stick to the evidence-informed model all the way through the process. It is 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, as mandating one approach risks stifling innovation and limiting professional judgment. 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 (FFP) Programme Guide, which sets out clear principles informed by the evidence-based family group conference model. We will continue to embed these principles in updated statutory guidance on pre-proceedings and in the working together guidance, 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 contributed to the development of best practice support and resources for local authorities, which we shall also publish later this year.
I turn to Amendment 3, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I share their determination to ensure that children returning home after a period in care receive the right support. Continued breakdowns are heartbreaking and do so much to damage the future life chances of the young people involved, undermining confidence and causing enormous disruption. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, spoke eloquently about the importance of reaching all family, and indeed not just family. Sometimes, extended members of the family circle may be the appropriate people to be involved in this process. Of course, proper preparation is essential. The 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 make it clear that wider family members should be consulted where appropriate, as I have outlined.
Through this Bill, the Government are introducing a range of measures to ensure that 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 reunification process, and 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. I re-emphasise that 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. I am happy to share an embargoed copy with noble Lords to demonstrate our commitment to this approach.
Turning to Amendment 5, I recognise that the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment is to ensure that children’s welfare needs are prioritised following family group decision-making. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that we need more carers across the piece—kinship carers and foster carers. We know how vital this is for so many young people across the country.
I re-emphasise that local authorities have existing statutory duties to ensure the safety and welfare of children. In addition, Clause 5 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 that kinship carers receive the practical support they need.
Baroness Barran (Con)
On the last point on Amendment 5, the noble Baroness talked about the local care offer. Is she able to say today whether she expects that, when the consultation happens and a template is developed for what that will look like, there will be a specific section on reunification? Obviously, that is a rather different context from the other situations.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I can assure the noble Baroness that her comments are fed into the process and that they are listened to.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks; she also comes with huge expertise on this subject. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for not acknowledging his co-signature of Amendment 3.
I was reassured by what the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said on Amendments 1 and 2. I accept that there could be confusion if you use both terms. I was glad to hear her say that clear principles would be set out in the guidance—as was suggested by my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park—and that there would be no dilution of the models. I thank her very much for that.
I am encouraged by the noble Baroness’s last comments on Amendment 3. I think there is an inconsistency when she points to the recommendations in Working Together to Safeguard Children that there should be family group decision-making meetings at the point of reunification because, as I understand it, that is the same recommendation as there is for using those meetings at the point of care proceedings. The Government have chosen to put one on statute and not the other, but that is, ultimately, the Government’s prerogative. She is, of course, right to bring up the point about delay and avoidable delay, but the choice is between delay and stability. I hope that, where the delay is proportionate, stability really is prioritised in the interests of the child.
In my intervention I touched on the noble Baroness’s remarks on the local support offer. Obviously, I am disappointed that the Government did not accept my Amendments 3 and 5 in particular. I hope that, as they implement this new legislation, local authorities will use all their discretion and creativity to address the needs of specific children in the way that we all, across the House, hope. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
(a) ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings regarding the exercise of those functions, and(b) give due consideration (having regard to the child’s age and understanding) to such wishes and feelings of the child as the authority has been able to ascertain.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that local authorities will take into account the wishes and feelings of a child when making decisions about family group decision-making in relation to the child under section 31ZA of the Children Act 1989 (as inserted by clause 1).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I will Amendment 18, which is in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith. This group covers minor and technical government amendments relating to data protection. These remove Clause 62, and amend certain text in Clauses 4, 13, 18, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 45.
The original drafting sought to clarify that any duties or powers to process personal data are subject to data protection law. However, these references are now unnecessary, following the commencement of Section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 on 20 August 2025. I reassure noble Lords that this absolutely does not remove any data protections; this is about refining drafting to reflect the latest legislative developments.
Section 106 of the 2025 Act introduced a general data protection override into the Data Protection Act 2018. This ensures that the UK’s data protection laws are not overridden by future legislation that imposes a duty or grants a power to process personal data, unless expressly provided otherwise. This does not remove any data protections; this is about refining drafting to reflect the latest legislative changes to the UK’s statute book. I beg to move.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s clarification of the reasons and the impact of these amendments, which seem entirely reasonable.