Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the very compassionate comments that ran through their suggestions.

By way of background, the new corporate parenting measures in the Bill will, for the first time, impose a duty on a number of public bodies to be alert to matters that affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers. This means that every Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, schools, colleges, NHS England, integrated care boards, NHS trusts and foundation trusts, Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and the Youth Justice Board will be named as corporate parents and therefore will be required to take the needs and circumstances of looked-after children and care leavers into account when designing policies and delivering services that affect them.

There were powerful comments from all sides, which I hope to address in some more detail. But I start by emphasising that I believe all of us in the public sector or in a position to drive change have a responsibility and, indeed, a moral obligation to do this, levelling the playing field for looked-after children and care leavers, who, as we have heard, are among the most vulnerable groups in our society, have suffered the worst outcomes across a range of measures and deserve this attention to detail, care and understanding, which, quite frankly, is not presently evident in all areas.

We have had lots of figures, but I will add some more: some 26% of the homeless population are care experienced, around one-quarter of the adult prison population have been in care as a child and—as we have heard, but this is a slightly different take on it—care leavers aged 19 to 21 are more than three times more likely than their peers to be not in education, employment or training. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln referenced Terry Galloway, and it was my privilege to come into contact with Terry through my previous role before I came into this House. I do not think I have ever met anyone who is quite so determined, persistent and absolutely dedicated on behalf of other young people across the whole of the country, so I pay tribute to him from us all.

Government Amendments 148 to 150 in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith are minor and technical amendments simply to improve the drafting of the list of corporate parents in Schedule 1. Amendments 148 and 149 add clarity to the definition of integrated care boards and NHS foundation trusts. Amendment 150 clarifies that the reference to NHS trusts in the list of corporate parents applies only to NHS trusts in England.

Clause 21 sets out the responsibilities to be introduced for corporate parents, and the duty aims to drive a widespread culture change across the public sector, which will involve adapting services; increasing awareness of matters that adversely affect looked-after children and care leavers; importantly, tackling stigma and discrimination; and improving all aspects of their lives.

Clause 23 introduces a duty for new corporate parents and local authorities in England to work collaboratively when performing their respective corporate parenting duties. This would prevent silo working—we are all well aware of how damaging people working in their narrow fields can be, particularly in this very important area—and highlight where duplication of effort sometimes gets in the way and how we can make sure that the conversations happen between all relevant people, to help deliver targeted and timely support. Running through all this is a constant reminder of the importance of listening to young people themselves and making sure that their influence is heard and acted upon. We have experience at local authority level of making departments work with responsibility, picking up the corporate parenting responsibilities. That experience will help inform the work of the national institutions to show that it is not only the right thing to do but is empowering in its own right and changes behaviours in a very constructive and positive way.

I turn to Amendment 151, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—I want to continue to bring noble Lords together in their mutual admiration, and I would hate to get in the way of this. The amendment seeks to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of relevant authorities to which the corporate parenting duty applies. Of course, I recognise the passion for this area of work and, importantly, for the personnel who deliver the services. We know that the statistics are far from where they need to be, which is why this Government are absolutely determined to work in this space to make sure that the opportunities we create are available for all. That has to be a basic understanding. While agreeing with the noble Baroness that Jobcentre Plus plays the crucial role in supporting care leavers in making that difficult transition to parenthood, whether through training or a whole range of different skills, I am pleased to be able to reassure her that her amendment is not necessary, as Jobcentre Plus is part of the Department for Work and Pensions and therefore is already in scope of the measures by virtue of the inclusion of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We have several other examples of good practice in this space—

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, having an overall duty and having an access point to make sure that it happens are very often different—I mean, it just happens in government. If the Minister could write to us, telling us how the Government propose to implement that, it would remove certain anxieties on this.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I will consider whether that is necessary when I get to the end of my speaking notes.

To continue, the corporate parenting responsibilities will also apply to bodies that exercise functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, such as the Prison and Probation Service. Of course, there should be real overlap between the different services in this regard. This will be explained in statutory guidance. So that it can be rolled out properly, it is absolutely crucial that, as it is written, the statutory guidance is co-produced and everyone has an opportunity to put money in.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I have no desire to put pressure on the Minister, because I know what it is like to be there, responding to a debate. She is doing very well and giving us confidence. Can she tell the House when the statutory guidance might be available? Can she go back and talk to colleagues and see whether there is any clarification she could put in writing to add to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has just made and to the points in my contribution? Or could we have a cup of tea and talk about it? That might sound better to her; I see that she is smiling.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am from Yorkshire. A cup of tea and perhaps a piece of cake or a biscuit would be absolutely great.

This is a very important point. We want to reassure the House of the level of detail that is going to go into this. I cannot give a guarantee of exact timing, but I am happy to keep the conversations going. While we are on the same page, I think the noble Lord, Lord Storey, made a valid point about the risk of increasing burdens, but I want to reassure him that the responsibilities do not require corporate parents to provide new services or to make specific policy changes that are not compatible with their wider priorities or affordable within their existing budgets. The broad duties can be implemented in a way that reflects the nature and circumstances of the individual corporate parent. I made the point earlier that it is the culture change—the different way of approaching this— that is critical to make sure that this is picked up across the board and drives its way through.

I turn to Amendments 146B and 147A, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and brought to the House by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln—I thank him for doing that and for the way that he got over the points that I know from previous experience that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was concerned about. I have been involved in debates with him on these issues over the last few months and recognise his concern and passion for this area.

These amendments probe the extent to which the corporate parenting responsibilities will lead to action by corporate parents in removing or minimising the disadvantages suffered by looked-after children and care leavers, or in taking steps to avoid, reduce or otherwise mitigate any adverse impact of its policies and practices on them. I agree with the amendments’ intention, but I am satisfied that this is achieved through the duties set out in Clause 21 requiring corporate parents to be alert to matters which might negatively affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, to assess the availability and accessibility of their services, and to seek to provide opportunities to participate in activities which enhance their well-being or employment prospects. The right reverend Prelate is quite right to highlight the rhetoric that can be so damaging, which means that these areas of work are still necessary.

There are plenty of examples of action taken to minimise the disadvantages that care leavers face in the labour market, including the NHS Universal Family Programme, which has supported almost 200 care leavers to find jobs, and the Civil Service Care Leavers Internship Scheme, which has enabled more than 1,000 care leavers to take up opportunities in the Civil Service. The corporate parenting duty will mean that such best practice is shared, creating incremental improvements to care leaver outcomes. It is beholden on everyone who works in this space—and of course it is not just the public sector; the private sector has in many areas stepped up to the plate—to be alert to the range or cocktail of circumstances that contribute to poor lifetime outcomes. Educational disadvantage, financial vulnerability, loneliness, isolation, poor mental health, and the higher risk of exploitation and harm are all factors that we need to take into account.

We cannot repeat enough that the most effective way for corporate parents to understand these challenges is to engage directly with the young people looked after, care leavers and their representatives. We will appoint an expert external organisation to support this engagement so that it is taken forward with the utmost seriousness. We will set out in statutory guidance the examples of best practice to show how the duty can apply to particular corporate parents. We will also set out ways for corporate parents to mitigate the negative impacts of their policies on looked-after children and care leavers.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

I close by congratulating and agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for sneaking in an amendment on Learn with the Lords, which I did not know was in the scope of the legislation, but which I put my name to.

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

My Lords, the amendments in this second group comprise new clauses on accommodation and capacity in children’s residential care, and seek to improve the capacity and, of course, most importantly, the quality of provision for children and young people. I really welcome this rich debate. Time constraints will be upon me, but a lot of excellent points have been made and I will try to pick out the main ones that hold the whole group together.

Amendment 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would prevent local authorities accommodating looked-after children in homes or hostels where young people over the age of 18 also live. The placement of children under 16 in settings other than children’s homes and foster care, or other limited, regulated settings, has, as we have heard, been banned since September 2021. In April 2023, regulations were introduced for supported accommodation for 16 and 17 year-olds, setting national standards and registration requirements for providers. These regulations have been put in place to ensure that 16 and 17 year-olds can be placed in Ofsted-regulated, good-quality accommodation. If a provider is registered, local authorities can accommodate these older children in that accommodation, which may also be used for over-18s. The local authority will consider this when deciding on the suitability of the accommodation for the child. Looked-after 16 to 17 year-olds will continue to reside in foster placements or children’s homes if this best meets their needs. I will come back to that point on further amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for tabling Amendment 119 on boarding school places. I recognise that he is determined to put more oxygen into this space—this is the second time in just a few days that we have discussed this. Of course the Government want to ensure that all children are given the best possible opportunities to succeed, and we recognise how transformational boarding schools have been for some young people and can be in the future, but we do not believe, as I laid out before, that they should be the default for all looked-after children. I stress again that stable educational placements are crucial to ensuring consistency, well-being and educational outcomes in children’s lives. It is critical that we treat children individually and listen to their views on what they would like to happen. We must minimise disruption. Having said that, where a boarding school placement is in the best interests of that child, we want to ensure that we have that opportunity.

I repeat that this is why the Government continue to support the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation’s broadening educational pathways programme, which provides placement matching and brokerage services to children in need and looked-after children in state boarding and independent schools. It is a discussion that I know we will continue to have, but I acknowledge the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Meacher, in particular, that for some young people this will not be appropriate. We have to make sure that we are honest in that assessment when we look at the best provision. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, did an honourable job in his absence on our last day in Committee.

Amendment 129, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to widen local authorities’ sufficiency duty to include consideration of placements that are near to, as well as within, their area. This was spoken to by the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Russell. This theme runs throughout the amendments in this group. The amendment’s implicit support of the Government’s focus on placement sufficiency, including regional collaboration, is welcome. However, the existing duties on local authorities when providing accommodation for looked-after children already include consideration of proximity to the child’s home, so an amendment for this purpose is not deemed to be necessary.

Additionally, ironically, the amendment could lead to increased use of out-of-area placements, because the duty to ensure sufficiency of placements is no longer focused on local authorities’ own areas. Of course, this would not align with local authorities’ duty to provide accommodation within their areas where this is consistent with the child’s welfare. Finally, as we heard in the previous group, the amendment is not necessary to facilitate greater collaborative partnership working or to improve local sufficiency and the Government’s reforms of regional care co-operatives. Establishing effective regional partnerships is going to be important, and of course, the aim is always to assist local authorities with their work in this area and to ensure that they keep working with individual children, reflecting their needs.

I turn to Amendment 144, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson. I have huge respect for his comments and for all the other contributions to the discussions this afternoon. We acknowledge that there are still inappropriate, unregulated placements out there and they are still being used. This is why the Government are so focused on investing in this area, and we have to make sure that we end these practices, which lead to so many unfavourable outcomes for young people. By way of trying to reassure, although we know that practice is not necessarily keeping up, placement of under-16s in formally unregulated accommodation was banned in September 2021. In 2023, regulations were introduced, as I have set out, setting national standards and registration requirements for supported accommodation, which is an option for 16 to 17 year- olds. All looked-after children under the age of 18 are now required to be in Ofsted-regulated or otherwise regulated accommodation. The majority of looked-after children continue to reside in foster placements, or children’s homes where this is the best option to meet their needs.

The amendment would actually remove the opportunity for 16 to 17 year-olds to develop their independence in a safe, supportive environment, and we do not believe that that is appropriate. I base those comments on talking to young people in my local authority area who came into the care system very late in their childhood. They believe that, where the accommodation is appropriate and regulated, this is the appropriate place for them to be. We need to respect that voice coming from young people themselves.

I stress that this is the basis of Clause 13: the belief that Ofsted needs additional enforcement powers and measures to help it bring this into being. Giving Ofsted the power to impose monetary penalties for breaches of the Care Standards Act, including for persons not registering their children’s social care establishment, is paramount. Registration is vital and ensures that children are safe, staff are checked and there is the right level of oversight through regular inspections. There are far too many vulnerable children living in settings where there is no oversight. Between April 2023 and March 2024, Ofsted investigated 1,000 unregistered settings, which tells us the scale of what we have to deal with. Ofsted can already prosecute people who run unregistered children’s services. However, this is a resource-intensive process and can take a very long time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I hope I can take it as good news that they are meeting next week with Minister Georgia Gould, so hopefully the purse strings will be loosened.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord may say that.

In my personal experience, there is no reason why local areas cannot put these arrangements in place. There have been circumstances with agencies in the past—I am sure this does not happen now—where police have gone into a situation of domestic violence, for example, and not even known that there were children hiding under the beds upstairs. That is the shocking result of a lack of joining up—of agencies not speaking to each other. Provisions in the Bill will go a long way to making sure that this becomes normal—a culture shift. It is normal to tell a school if one of its young people has a change of circumstances that could affect them in many different ways. I am delighted that Government Ministers are coming together, and we will await the outcome with interest.

Amendment 170 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, concerns the publication of a national capacity plan for children’s homes intended to highlight the issue of distance placements. I highlight the Government’s commitment to supporting local authorities to meet their sufficiency duty through a range of reforms that will boost system capacity and better meet the needs of children in their areas. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, and others added to the discussions on this amendment. While the amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual national capacity plan, it would also take significant local authority resource to collect, collate and submit additional information on an annual basis to inform the plan, all at a time when their resources for children’s services are rightly focused on implementing reforms to actively improve services. A range of complex contributing factors across the children’s social care system can lead to the use of distance placements, which the Government are addressing through reforms in the Bill and investment in fostering kinship care and local authority children’s homes. Paramount in these decisions is the issue of risk to the safety of the young person. Sadly, in some cases, distance is a necessary factor when considering placements.

Finally, Amendment 134B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, seeks to introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to carry out a review on the distinction in the planning regime between children’s homes and domestic dwelling-houses, and to consider whether it should be removed. I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government continue to work together in this important area. In the last two years it has been clarified via a joint Written Ministerial Statement that planning should not restrict the timely delivery of children’s homes, and we have changed the National Planning Policy Framework to make it explicit that planning authorities must plan to meet the needs of looked-after children.

As we said in Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, we will continue to make progress on further changes that support the delivery of children’s homes where they are needed. This includes data collection and an analysis to translate the data and work out how it needs to be used, which is often overlooked, I am sad to say. In my experience of dealing with an application for a small home in the ward I used to represent, we went out for intensive consultation with the residents living around the home. I am very pleased to say that, in the end, after some scepticism and reservation, when we went through it carefully and they met the people running the home and understood how many children would be there, it went through and was an enormous success. They came and asked how they could help to support the children in the home through their local connections. So there are reasons to be optimistic, but there is a great deal to do, which is why, as I have said before, we have this Bill before us. I thank everyone for their comments but, for the reasons I have outlined in these remarks, I hope the noble Lords will not press the amendments in their names.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, for that comprehensive reply. I think the most important amendment in this group was Amendment 144. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, we should not be looking at placing children in unregulated accommodation. We are taking powers in this Bill to deal with unregulated schools—quite rightly, and I hope a great deal better than we have in the past.

The idea that we are putting children into unregulated homes, or, as one of my amendments will address later, unregulated alternative provision, is really not acceptable. In Clause 30, we are giving power to the same local authorities that are making these placements to override parental judgment as to the best interests of their child. We really need to get our thinking straight in this area. Unregulated accommodation is not acceptable, particularly when we are talking about people charging at the level they are. We ought to be doing something clear about that in the Bill. I am glad that the Government say that they aim to end this practice, and that it should be done away with, but we need a stronger commitment than that.

I was glad to hear the support for boarding schools. I had a miserable time at my boarding school. I would rather have been on the barge of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, frankly, such was the quality of accommodation. But I have seen the hugely transformational effect it can have when it works well, so it is very much a matter of choosing the right child for the right school.

I hope my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton will pursue her campaign when it comes to the Planning Bill, because we need to be sharper than we are. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Russell, will pursue Amendment 165, which is so clearly achievable. If we are moving towards a consistent identifier for children, this is just the sort of thing that ought to be being done.

My noble friend Lady Cash was told that it would be a burden on local authorities to collect the data. I hope that the Department for Education will wander down the road to their friends at the science department and look at what they are doing with AI, because that sort of function of data collection is so much quicker, cheaper and easier if you design the right systems. It ought not to be a matter of cost; it ought to be a matter of course.

Lastly, I felt that that was a rather disappointing response to my amendment. I cannot see that it is ever going to be right to place a 17 year-old in an adult hostel. Children take a long time to grow up. A 17 year-old is not in a position to be with troubled 25 year-olds as their principal companions. I will look again at the Minister’s reply, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, listening to the noble Baroness introduce these amendments, I am remembering how many times, as a Minister, she batted me back with a question. As I interpret these amendments—if I have got it wrong, I am sure I will be told—they basically ask how this will work. Where are the levels of intervention when something does not work? How do we get through? It was a long and complicated series of questions, but that is what Committee is for. If we could get an idea of the answers, if the Minister has them or can tell us where we can find them, I think we would all feel a little more comfortable before the next stage.

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

My Lords, the amendments in this group are all in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Just taking the amendments as they are, the majority of residential settings are owned by provider groups—organisations that own the providers that run settings. The legislation refers to provider groups as “parent undertakings”. Provider groups have influence over how a setting is run, yet they are not accountable in legislation for the quality of the settings they own.

Clause 12 is intended to complement Ofsted’s existing powers. It will allow Ofsted to take action at scale and pace to improve the quality of care when it reasonably suspects that two or more of the provider group settings are not meeting regulatory requirements. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, together with Clause 13, which provides additional enforcement powers for Ofsted, it is part of this Government’s strategy to ensure the safety and well-being of vulnerable children in care.

Amendments 135 and 136 seek to give Ofsted the power to inspect provider groups. Inspection is not necessary at provider group level. Given the existing robust regime for the inspection of settings, the inspection of provider groups would not give Ofsted any additional information that it does not already have to ensure quality of care and the safeguarding of children’s settings, which is obviously the purpose of what we intend to do here.

The inspection of provider groups would add substantial burden to the public purse and would not result in improvements to the quality of care for children, as inspections would focus on provider group policies rather than on the lived experience of children. Additionally, they would not be effective in holding provider groups to account without establishing a burdensome inspection system. Given that there are over 400 provider groups, I think we understand the scale of the additional work that we are talking about.

The clause gives Ofsted the power to serve an improvement plan notice on a provider group to improve quality in two or more of its settings. This is vital, as it will ensure the quickest and most effective action to secure change at scale. Clause 13, which we will come to shortly, gives Ofsted powers to take action against the provider groups when they do not improve the quality of their settings. This amendment would not impose any requirements on the provider groups that Ofsted could enforce against.

Amendment 137 seeks to empower Ofsted to use the services of an independent person, as provided for by Regulation 44 of the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations, to carry out an unannounced visit to a children’s home for administrative breaches or minor concerns about the quality of care being provided. The amendment proposes that, after an independent person has inspected the children’s homes or home, the local authority may issue an improvement plan notice based on the findings.

Under current regulations, the registered person of a children’s home must ensure that an independent person visits the home at least once each month, and this visit may be unannounced. The independent person should have the skills and understanding necessary to form an impartial judgment about the quality of the home’s care. They must produce a report about their visit which sets out their opinion on whether children are effectively safeguarded and whether the home effectively promotes children’s well-being.

Ofsted, the placing authorities and the registered provider, registered manager and responsible individual must be given a copy of the report. The local authority where the home is located must also be given the report if it requests it. Ofsted uses these reports to inform whether further activity or inspection is necessary. They may be used to inform Ofsted decision-making around improvement plan notices to ensure its effective role as the regulator. Ofsted must be the only body responsible for issuing improvement plan notices. Giving local authorities the power to issue an improvement plan notice would mean duplication and would offer no protection additional to what is already in place.

Amendment 138 seeks to probe how an improvement plan might work in practice. Provider oversight has been designed to enable Ofsted to address poor-quality care at scale and at pace. For example, where Ofsted inspects two children’s homes and believes quality is being impacted by the provider group’s policies or management, it could reasonably suspect that those issues were in all homes owned by the provider group. It would be able to use the new powers to ensure that the provider group drove up standards in all its homes.

The provider group would be required to develop and implement an improvement plan to address the issues identified by Ofsted as being of concern. This plan will be approved by Ofsted, if it is satisfied that it will be effective in addressing the concerns. Ofsted can fine the provider group if it fails to submit or implement the improvement plan. When Ofsted is satisfied that improvements have been made, it will consider the plan completed. This will result in improvement in multiple settings simultaneously, which could not be achieved through inspection of provider groups, as would happen if Amendments 135 and 136 were adopted.

Finally, Amendments 138A, 138B and 138C seek to require Ofsted to notify the relevant local authority when an improvement plan notice has been served, cancelled or appealed. Ofsted is currently required to notify all local authorities where certain enforcement actions such as suspension or cancellation of registration are taken. Clause 13 amends these requirements to include a requirement for Ofsted to notify all local authorities where a provider group is issued with a monetary penalty for failing to prepare or implement an improvement plan. This is a more proportionate balance for ensuring local authorities are aware of problems arising and ensuring that children’s accommodation is not unnecessarily disrupted. Not only would additional notifications, as required by these amendments, require significant extra resources both from Ofsted and from local authorities, but the notifications would prove unnecessary where issues were resolved or successfully challenged.

It is important to stress that provider oversight will not be the only tool in Ofsted’s toolbox to tackle poor-quality care where it finds it; it will continue to have its existing powers to work with individual homes, including suspending or cancelling their registration, if it has serious concerns.

I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has asked some detailed questions, as it is her right to do. I am sure that she will understand that I do not have all the answers at my fingertips and that she will give me the space to look specifically at the issues that she has raised. I shall write to her and make sure the responses are shared with Members in the usual way.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Could we make sure that we are all copied in?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

As always. That was the point that I was making. For all the reasons given, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her very detailed reply and for her commitment to write; that is much appreciated.

To respond to the Minister’s remarks, the reason for tabling Amendments 135, 136 and 137 is that the improvement plan is for the parent company or parent undertaking, but it is for when there are concerns about two or more of their establishments or agencies, in the language of the Bill. I understood that to mean, given the severity—that Ofsted suspects that there are grounds for cancelling the undertakings registration—there could within that be concerns about the safety of children in those homes. So the spirit of Amendments 135, 136 and 137 was that we should have really experienced people, either inspectors or Regulation 44 visitors, going in, not to inspect the parent—I am sorry if my amendments were unclear in that regard—but to inspect the subsidiary undertakings. Maybe when the Minister comes to write, she could just reflect on that point.

In the reference to Regulation 44, the amendment should have stated that

“Ofsted may issue an improvement plan notice”,

not

“the local authority may issue an improvement plan notice”.

Of course, the Minister is absolutely right—the local authority cannot issue an improvement plan notice. But again, it was just trying to get at the idea that, if there was a variation in the levels of concern and the level of breach, for a lower-level breach, a Regulation 44 visitor could advise Ofsted. There is an urgency, if it is thought that an undertakings registration should be cancelled, which will not be met by the improvement plan approach on its own.

In relation to the Minister’s remarks about Amendments 138A, 138B and 138C, I think the answer is that, if the process works reasonably quickly, the proportionality that she set out is completely reasonable. If it gets bogged down, and it comes down to, “We sent you a plan, Ofsted doesn’t think the plan is fit for purpose”, and it goes back and forth and back and forth, we would not get the speed that might be needed to prevent other local authorities commissioning a provider when there are grave concerns, as set out in the Bill. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

There is a deafening silence. I turn to group six and the amendments, all in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which concern Clause 13: Amendments 138D, 138E and 139A. They seek to exclude natural persons from the provisions relating to the issue of monetary penalties. Clause 13, as drafted, gives Ofsted an additional power to issue monetary penalties to providers that have breached requirements set out in, or under, the Care Standards Act, including operating a children’s home without registering with Ofsted, which they could also prosecute as a criminal offence.

Ofsted will also be able to issue a monetary penalty to provider groups for failure to comply with new requirements set out in Clause 12 of the Bill. This measure will ensure Ofsted has a full range of enforcement powers so that it can act proportionately and at pace, which will act as a deterrent. This includes individuals who operate children’s homes, other establishments or agencies. It is difficult to see why a natural person running a children’s home, other establishment or agency should not be subject to the same enforcement powers as a partnership or organisation when they have breached the law, and where Ofsted could prosecute that natural person for the relevant breach.

Furthermore, based on data from Companies House, these amendments would result in Ofsted being unable to fine 10 individuals who currently operate children’s homes if they breached the law, compared with the 2,738 companies that operate children’s homes. Ofsted have told me directly that it strongly opposes any amendment that would exclude natural persons and limit who financial penalties can be imposed on for illegally operating children’s homes without being registered. Individuals will—and do—gain financially from illegally operating children’s homes without being registered, and should not be excluded from the potential consequences of doing so. All the discussions in Committee have been about protecting children and making sure that they are safe. We have to make sure that, in this area, in spite of the comments made by the noble Baroness, children and their safety are at the forefront of our minds. It is also worth noting that it is common in legislation for natural persons to be subject to financial penalties in the same way as operations and companies.

For example, the Tenant Fees Act 2019 enables fines to be imposed on landlords, who may be natural persons, for breaching the ban on letting fees being charged, and the Data Protection Act 2018 enables the Information Commissioner to impose fines on persons, including natural persons, who have failed to comply with various notices issued by the ICO.

I have already stated the reasons for the need and intent of these additional powers. However, I add that the clause ensures that Ofsted has an alternative to prosecution where that is currently the only enforcement action. Ofsted will not be able to impose a monetary penalty on a person for the same conduct where criminal proceedings have been brought against them in relation to that same conduct. Further, and importantly, to act as a deterrent and to ensure transparency for the public, the clause gives the Secretary of State the power by regulations to require Ofsted to publish details about the monetary penalties it has issued. Ofsted must also notify local authorities when a monetary penalty has been issued, as it is currently required to do in relation to other enforcement action it takes. A monetary penalty may be used by Ofsted as grounds for cancellation of registration.

I assume it will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness that I will have to write to her on the financial assessment and the other questions she raised on the specific requirements in place. I am more than happy to do that, and to share it with any interested parties. Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments and that the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister, and I will keep my remarks brief. It was very helpful of her to set out the examples of where natural persons are fined, as in data protection and with landlord and tenant. I did not quite follow, but I think she said there were 10 people who might escape this, which seemed like a small number in the totality. I suppose I would still argue that criminal proceedings could be brought, even if they could not be fined, but it was helpful to get those examples and I look forward to her letter. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 79, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and Amendment 80, in the name of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. While we are of course positive towards efforts that support children with a social worker, those currently and previously looked after and those in kinship care, we question why adopted children are excluded from His Majesty’s Government’s plans to strengthen the role of the virtual school head.

Our Amendment 79 would clarify the role of the virtual school head to ensure that those children in the care of the local authority who are then adopted receive the same support as children with a social worker or those in kinship care. Section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989 puts a duty on local authorities to

“make advice and information available in accordance with this section for the purpose of promoting the educational achievement of each relevant child educated in their area”.

Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a duty on a local authority to take

“such steps as it considers appropriate”,

which is a much broader role but one that currently does not appear to include adopted children.

As the helpful briefing from Adoption UK sets out, almost half of adoptive parents surveyed for its 2024 Adoption Barometer had sought advice from their local virtual school in the preceding year. The report highlighted the variability in support that they received and the value they placed on the advocacy that a virtual school head could provide with their child’s school. Their exclusion from the Bill appears inconsistent, and we would be grateful if the Minister could confirm either that adopted children will be included or, if they will not be, why not.

Amendment 80 seeks to include career and employment opportunities for children as part of educational achievement. The number of young people who are unable to find employment or further training when they finish their education is alarmingly high. The ONS estimates that 923,000 individuals aged 16 to 24—12.5%—were not in education, employment or training in the period January to March 2025. Although that is down on the previous quarter, I think all noble Lords would agree that the number is way too high and we must act to reduce it.

Amendments 78 and 81, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to require that authorities publish the steps they have taken to promote the process undertaken that has resulted in the educational achievement of the children in need or in kinship care, and that the Secretary of State may specify how this is reported. It is important for successful practices to be shared, and the amendment would ensure that performance can be more accurately measured.

Amendment 82, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Farmer, seeks to provide boarding school places to children in kinship care. The noble Lords raise a most interesting point. It clearly worked very well for the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Where it works for a child—and that is obviously critically important—it can be a hugely positive experience. That child may have the ability to immerse themselves in education, sports, arts or drama, away from the distractions or dangers that they have previously experienced in their outside school life. It would lessen the time pressures on kinship carers, who we know do an amazing job but often find there are simply not enough hours in the day. We would welcome the opportunity to learn more about the work done by Norfolk County Council, the issues it encountered and how it addressed them. We look forward to discussing this further, and hope the Minister will do so also.

Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, seeks to review virtual school heads and their role in improving educational outcomes for previously looked-after children. There is not yet sufficient evidence to fully analyse the extent of the improvement from the introduction of virtual school heads. As such, this review would certainly help to understand the impact that virtual school heads have had before full implementation. We very much look forward to hearing from the Minister.

In line with what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, these all seem entirely sensible and well thought out amendments.

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

I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important area of the Bill. I think, hand on heart, we all know that children who need a social worker and children in kinship care experience significant difficulties. Many of them have poorer educational outcomes than their peers as a result, across all key stages. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is absolutely right that it is important that everyone shares their experience. In Leeds, we always made sure that the scrutiny of children’s services was held by an opposition member; that seems to make absolute sense. We all want the best for these young people, and we must make sure that every area is fully scrutinised.

Clause 6 aims to confer statutory duties on local authorities to promote the educational achievement of such children, increasing their visibility, as we have heard from many noble Lords, and ensuring that they receive consistent expert support to improve their outcomes. In practice, these duties will be discharged by the virtual school head, who will have strategic oversight of the outcomes of these children, raising awareness and improving visibility of their needs—for example, through the delivery of training to schools in effective strategies for improving outcomes. We have just received more information about why this information is so important. For example, it will mean having a real understanding of the numbers of young people who experience school instability, placement instability or social work instability—all of which contribute to their experience in learning and their ability to achieve going forward. As well as this, virtual school heads will have a duty to provide information and advice, upon request, to kinship carers with special guardianship or child arrangements orders, regardless of whether their child spent time in care. We know that virtual heads were first introduced on a non-statutory basis, and we recognise the need for a much stronger basis. I echo the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about the importance of local authorities in making sure that this moves forward successfully.

As I say, I welcome the spirit of the amendments tabled, which would ensure that virtual school heads work on behalf of all children, while ensuring that local authorities are rightly held accountable for the delivery of their duties. They would also ensure that previously looked-after children adopted from state care are not inadvertently disadvantaged as a result—I will come back to say more on that later. We are confident that the measures in this clause meet these aims and that, as a result, these amendments are not necessary. I will go into more detail later.

Amendment 77, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to enable discussion on which children are eligible for local authority support and how virtual school heads will promote their educational outcomes. Providing clarity on the children to whom the virtual school head role is extended is important. New Section 23ZZZA(2), to be inserted by Clause 6, provides a clear definition of these children. Specifically, they are children for whom the local authority is

“providing or has provided services”

under Section 17(10)(a) or (b) of the Children Act 1989, as well as children

“in the authority’s area who live in kinship care”.

Amendments 78 and 81 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to place a statutory duty on local authorities to publish a report on how they perform in promoting the educational outcomes of these children, and to specify through regulations what local authorities must report on. Transparency and consistency in local authority support are essential for driving improvements, and for ensuring that decisions are made in the child’s best interests and that every child receives support, wherever they live or are educated.

Statutory guidance already requires virtual school heads to publish an annual report summarising strategies for supporting children in their care, while local authorities are held to account through inspections of local authority children’s services. It is vital that we continue to ensure local authorities are held accountable for all children they are responsible for, and that this support is transparent. We will reinforce this accountability by updating statutory guidance to include reporting on strategies for supporting educational outcomes of children in need and children in kinship care. This will ensure greater consistency across all local authorities, enabling continuous improvement in the support provided while allowing for local and regional variations. This Government are committed to ensuring that previously looked-after children who have left care through adoption are supported to succeed in education.

Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that children adopted from local authority care benefit from the same support that the clause extends to children in need and children in kinship care. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his statistics; it is always useful to have that level of granularity in our discussions.

To repeat, local authorities already have a statutory duty under Section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989 to promote the educational achievements of all previously looked-after children who have left care through adoption, special guardianship or child arrangements orders. I hope that satisfies the questions that the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, raised on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. In addition, subsection (3) of Section 23ZZA allows the local authority to

“do anything else that they consider appropriate with a view to promoting the educational achievement of relevant children educated in their area”.

I would suggest that that level of flexibility adds a great deal in the particular circumstances of each individual child.

The proposed amendment is therefore unnecessary, as the existing legislation sufficiently covers these children’s educational needs. However, we are committed to reviewing and revising the sections on promoting the educational outcomes of previously looked-after children in statutory guidance for virtual school heads. There is no room for complacency here; we have to keep revisiting, refreshing and relooking on behalf of all the children we are talking about. This will present an opportunity to further strengthen sections on support for adopted children, and we will work with the adoption sector on this, including by clarifying and reinforcing the interpretation of the duty and incorporating examples of good practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

I am very grateful for the comprehensive and courteous way that the Minister has responded to the amendments. Can she comment on the need, as I see it, for some sort of report back to Parliament?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

With all this work, I believe it is important that we focus on the job in hand through the route of accountability and the local authorities, and do not give virtual school heads yet another onerous task to do. I believe that enough safeguards are in place and enough ways that the outcomes can be reviewed, so I do not believe that this is necessary at this time.

I was going to say that I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments, based on the fact that this is work in progress. We all know the significance of this area and the contribution that so many people make to it. We are opening up an exciting new chapter to make sure that the work that happens is accountable and transparent, and that more people are aware of what needs to be done and how these young people can be helped going forward.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for what I thought was a really satisfactory set of responses to these amendments, and I thank her for that. Will she commit, when the evaluation and the statutory guidance are published, to giving a heads-up to those noble Lords who have expressed an interest in this area during this debate?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I have a feeling that I would not have any other option, given the comments I have received to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 85, 89, 92 and 93 in my name. Clause 7 introduces new requirements for local authorities in England to assess whether certain care leavers aged under 25 need Staying Close support; and when such support is deemed necessary, the local authority must provide it. This provision builds on the Staying Close pilot scheme, which gives care leavers safe and secure accommodation along with a trusted adult relationship for emotional and practical support. I am very grateful to the charity Become for sharing its expertise in this area with me. As the Minister knows, each year thousands of young people face what we might describe as a care cliff edge. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, vividly described, when they leave the system, they are expected to leave home at around 18—often abruptly but, I hope, not always as abruptly as in the case she described—losing vital relationships and support when they most need help transitioning to adulthood.

Research by Become shows that

“the transition from care to ‘independent living’ is often poorly planned and managed, and many young people feel unsupported”.

Evidence from the Staying Close pilots demonstrates

“improved outcomes for care-experienced young people … including better ‘independent living’ skills, increased happiness, better stability, increased participation in … education and employment; and a reduced risk of homelessness”,

and that extending Staying Close support to age 25 will benefit thousands of young people leaving care. We warmly welcome that.

However, we have concerns about the drafting of Clause 7, which could limit its impact. First, Clause 7(2) requires local authorities to assess whether Staying Close support serves the young person’s welfare, but without providing specified assessment criteria. We worry that this could lead to the rationing of support or a postcode lottery. Our Amendment 85 seeks to address that by explicitly setting out the factors the local authority must have due regard to, including the

“wishes and preferences … accommodation requirements … emotional and practical support needs … and existing support network”

of the young person. Our ever-optimistic Amendment 92 would give the local authority flexibility to offer additional support where it is judged to be appropriate.

The current wording defines Staying Close support merely as providing advice and information or making representations to help with accommodation and services. The Minister will know that “making representations” does not always translate into a service. That narrow definition does not reflect the comprehensive support that was offered in the pilots, so our worry is that it will not achieve the same positive outcomes that the pilot did.

Our Amendment 89 aims to strengthen the voice of young people and ensure that a record of their wishes is kept. The Bill does not reference young people’s wishes and preferences. We believe, and I know that the Minister agrees and has been a great leader in this, that young people’s input is vital when determining support.

Lastly, our Amendment 93 gives a strong legal entitlement to an opt-out for all care leavers, ensuring young people’s preferences guide decisions about their support and create consistent assessment criteria. I very much hope the Minister agrees that these are reasonable and practical amendments that the Government could turn into their own.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, very generously pointed out the response of the previous Government and put the case for extended Staying Put support extremely ably. I am sympathetic to the spirit of his amendments; indeed, he or another noble Lord mentioned that, when asked, 75% of children said that they would like to go on living with their foster parents beyond the current limitations. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that. I am also sympathetic to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 94. Having clarity and good performance-management data should always lead to better outcomes.

I feel rather mealy-mouthed not to be more enthusiastic about the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Amendment 164. I absolutely do not want to sound preachy, but I worry. Of course it is extremely important that information is accessible and easily accessible, but, as we often discuss in your Lordships’ House, some of that comes from the culture and the attitude to young people in care and the relationships that we have with them. I suppose my only hesitation is that information without relationships does not get us much further, but I know that all noble Lords know that.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, in responding to these amendments, I start by re-emphasising that we all know that care leavers have some of the worst long-term life outcomes in society and that many have not received the care and support that we would want and expect for them. We are committed to ensuring 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. The ongoing work and the measures in Clause 7 are geared to improving outcomes for those eligible and will help address any cliff edge of support they may face when leaving care.

On Amendments 84, 86 to 88, 90 and 91 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, I thank him for highlighting the issues and for going through the background so thoroughly, but also for highlighting the very positive measures that were announced in the spending review yesterday. We look forward to further detail on how this will feed through into supporting some of the most vulnerable children in our society.

These amendments together would require local authorities to provide former relevant children under the age of 25 with Staying Put support where their welfare requires it. They seek to probe why the Bill makes provision for Staying Close support to be offered to eligible care leavers up to the age of 25 when the Children Act 1989 puts duties on local authorities to support former relevant children and their former foster parents to maintain a Staying Put arrangement until the former relevant child reaches the age of 21.

I acknowledge the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett; of course, it would not be appropriate to comment on an individual case but I am sure that many of us in this Chamber could put our minds to similar extremely stressful and difficult examples that are based on the real experience of some young people. That is exactly why we have the Bill before us and what we are trying to achieve with it.

We fully recognise the importance of these duties and remain strongly committed to the Staying Put arrangements. But, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, as well as my noble friend Lord Watson, we believe at this moment that it is essential that we prioritise filling the gaps that exist in current support, in particular for young people transitioning into independent living, including those who may have been in residential care, who often have the most complex needs. It is difficult to have to prioritise and focus, but this is the place we are in at the moment.

We are doing this very positive work through the introduction of Clause 7, where all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those in or who have left a Staying Put arrangement, will be provided with Staying Close support where their welfare requires it. Staying Close support includes support to find and keep suitable accommodation, and support to access wraparound services.

On Amendments 85, 92 and 93, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I start by reassuring her that we agree with the sentiment of the amendments and that Clause 7 is already very much in that spirit. We are very keen, of course, to make sure that everything we do links and aligns with the different opportunities: for example, how we can bring pathway plans into the mix and make sure that there is a seamless direction of travel. There will be more to discuss on this as we go forward, as I understand she acknowledges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down, I asked about the fact that, apparently, 40% of 17-year-olds turning 18 are in unregulated or independent accommodation. Could the noble Baroness perhaps write to me about that?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I apologise: I knew that I had missed the noble Baroness’s question. Yes, of course I will write on that important point.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will have noticed the difference between the answer she gave on the last group and the answer she gave on my amendment in this one. Channelling the reporting through guidance to the virtual school head is doing something that would be immediate, current and present and would affect the day-to-day way in which a local authority and its team conduct their business; something that may or may not appear in the depths of an Ofsted report every three years is not at all as effective. I encourage the Minister, between now and Report, to consider whether it would not be much better for the continual improvement of the Staying Close services if they were reported on annually and personally by the team responsible for delivering them, so that it becomes much more visible and a much more current thing for them to keep improving, rather than something that they hope will get lost in whatever else Ofsted is saying about the local authority as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said that this was a wide-ranging group. As I was thinking about it, I thought that what pulls it together is that it is a kind of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. A lot of the amendments in it are the basic planks at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid; one of those planks is of course healthcare.

My Amendments 96 and 107A try to address some of the evidence, which noble Lords will be well aware of, that shows that care leavers face much more negative physical and mental health outcomes than their peers. These disparities stem from the trauma they have suffered, adverse childhood experiences and, sadly, in some cases, the inability of their carers to meet their healthcare needs.

In the general population, children and young people visit specialist clinics more frequently than adults, if they need them, and their growth and development necessitate regular adjustments to medication and treatments. In young adulthood, health needs typically stabilise. We expect adults to manage their own healthcare, work with GPs and other medical systems, and self-manage long-term health conditions. Parents in supportive family settings will guide their children, and maybe even grandchildren, through this transition, but care leavers do not have that support. They often struggle to recognise that they need help, they do not know how to seek it, and it can often be very difficult to navigate complex healthcare systems. As a result, care-experienced people have a very poor uptake of physical and mental health support but very great physical and mental health needs. These clear and practical points were raised with me by the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, to which I am extremely grateful for its briefing and advice, and for the time it has taken talking me through these issues.

My Amendment 96 would require local areas to set out clearly the transition arrangements for health and primary care for care leavers. It does not feel like it should be too much to expect this to be available. As importantly, my Amendment 107A would automatically schedule an extended GP appointment for care leavers who wish to use it; that is the simplest way to bridge this gap and empower them to talk about their health needs, and understand what local services are available to them and how to access them easily. Through this, they would receive support in navigating health systems—from booking appointments and requesting repeat prescriptions, to recognising when they need help. It seems a very small ask, and I hope the Minister will say yes.

There is a coherence to the other amendments in this group. They are the planks that all of us all too easily take for granted, such as having confidence in and transparency about how money works, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, so ably argued. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, cited the interesting example of the appetite for financial education of care leavers who are part of the universal basic income pilot.

I put the case for health and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, put the case for Staying Put—it was such a good idea that we have had it twice—and possibly the national offer. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham highlighted very simple human requests about how the housing system works for care leavers. The idea that a young person aged between 21 and 25 who has been through the care system has to yet again prove they are vulnerable is frankly shocking. I hope the Minister can say something encouraging about that.

We have a combination of the specific elements that would make a difference to care leavers’ lives: the reporting data that my noble friend Lord Lucas raised; the financial aspects highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Bird; and, crucially, as I mentioned on an earlier group, the importance of relationships, ably explained by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott on behalf of my noble friend Lord Farmer. I remember listening to the honourable Member for Whitehaven and Workington talking about this issue, and I think he said that every child is one or two relationships away from success or failure. Actually, in the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, of children going into gangs, they are seeking relationships. We would all do the same if we had no choice, but we want strong, positive relationships such as lifelong links has been proven to create, so I very much hope that, when the noble Baroness comes to sum up, she will come with good news.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I like the description of the hierarchy of needs and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I jump around a bit as well in my summing up. It has been a very rich set of contributions to an incredibly important part of the work that has been undertaken in bringing the Bill before your Lordships.

The first four amendments in this group seek to amend Clause 8, which will require local authorities to publish information on the support available to care leavers as they transition to independent living as part of their local offer for care leavers, set out in Section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. The remaining amendments seek to extend support for care leavers to address the poor outcomes they experience across so many aspects of their lives. Improving support for care leavers is something the Government are committed to doing through the measures in this Bill on Staying Close, local offer, corporate parenting and other programmes such as the care leaver covenant, and also by other initiatives that seek to work across government.

The fact that the Government have set up the care leaver ministerial board, chaired by Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson and for MHCLG Angela Rayner, shows absolutely top-level commitment to bringing all the relevant departments together so that they can most properly address the issues that have been raised here. It is probably beyond our ability through this Bill to address all the very important issues that have been raised and spoken to so eloquently from across the Committee.

Of course, the basic principle is that we want to ensure that young people are leaving care with stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong loving relationships, engaged in education, employment and training. In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that is exactly the reason this board has been set up: to bring everything together to address the complex needs of the young people we are addressing.

I assure noble Lords that we are funding a number of family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes. These help looked-after children and care leavers to identify and connect with important people in their lives and create safe, stable, loving relationships. The family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme is being evaluated, and this will help to inform decisions about the future of the programme. From personal experience, the school that two of my grandchildren go to works on the restorative practice model. If noble Lords have not come across it before, I suggest having a look at how it works and how young people can learn at the youngest age how to form relationships and how to express their needs in a coherent and structured way, which can then inform all the complex issues that they will reach going through their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness moves on, I am not clear about something. The specific recommendation from the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals is to have this extended GP appointment. The noble Baroness has now amended my amendment to make sure that it is at a convenient time. I just was not clear whether she said it would take time to produce the statutory guidance that will underpin all the corporate parenting responsibilities. However, as regards putting something—I am going to get the terminology wrong, so forgive me—into the kind of agreement with general practitioners, so that part of their contract is to offer this extended appointment as children young people leave local authority care, I was not clear whether the noble Baroness thought that was a realistic option, with the tweak of it being at a convenient time.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for picking me up on that commitment. This is quite a detailed ask, but it is absolutely realistic that this is a new departure going forward and there will need to be consultation and everyone coming together to make sure that the statutory guidance is deliverable and works. However, I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with more specific detail on that area as we move forward.

Amendment 130, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to extend the provision of Staying Put to age 25. We have discussed this at great length and I am no clearer as to why this is in this group of amendments rather than one of the others. So, without repeating the arguments, I will just say that the rationale is that we cannot commit off the top of our heads to effecting fostering arrangements without recognising that there will be a knock-on impact of change on the whole area of the foster care market, as it were. Any changes in this area are sensitive and have to be taken in the round.

However, the most important thing that we have to address is that too many young people who have come through the route into independent living from residential care, for example—who often, as I said earlier, have the most complex needs—will be a priority area in terms of addressing the support that they do not have because they have not entered the foster care route. So, we are keeping an eye on all of this through the introduction of statutory Staying Close duties, making sure that all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those who are still in a Staying Put arrangement, as well as those who have left it, will be provided with Staying Close support where their welfare requires it.

Amendment 153, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, would require public bodies, when carrying out equality assessments, to consider the needs of people who are or have been in local authority care. We know that looked-after children and care leavers face stigma and discrimination and we are determined to tackle this. There has been effective and passionate campaigning, with many local authorities taking positive action as a result.

Amendment 183A, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to enable care leavers to claim the higher over-25 rate of universal credit. Although he is not in his place, his amendment is an opportunity to revisit this: I was at the Dispatch Box at Second Reading of his PMB on this subject. Just to emphasise what we have already said, the Government recognise the considerable challenges that care leavers face and remain committed to supporting them. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.

The Government have recently announced the first sustained increase to the universal credit standard allowance, and, while under-25s receive a slightly lower rate, additional elements are available, including for housing costs, to help them to live independently, and towards their living costs. They may also be eligible for universal credit elements, including for children, childcare costs and disability. Under-35s who are single and renting in the private rented sector and claim either housing benefit or universal credit can receive help towards their rental costs via the shared accommodation rate of the local housing allowance. Single care leavers under 25 may qualify for the one-bedroom local housing allowance. Discretionary housing payments administered by local authorities can be paid to those entitled to housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit.

The Government have extended the household support fund by a further year, from 1 April 2025 until 31 March 2026. I would emphasise the work that the DWP is doing in this area: its objective to help care leavers into long-term employment is the key to supporting their independent living. This is why we are focusing on providing access to the right skills and opportunities for sustained employment and career progression. Therefore, with all of those considerations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, that was a really disappointing response to Amendment 98. We started with a response to Amendment 78 which was excellent, a continuing annual dialogue by someone who was really involved in what is going on. When we get to this amendment, I am not offered a review at all, it is just the menu: no content of what has been done, how it has been done and what the excitements and disappointments of the year have been. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, when she reviews this day and looks in general, will say, “Actually, my first answer was the better one”, and that that sort of relationship between a local authority and its duties and the public produces a much better response than just a local authority setting out what its offer is and making no comment whatever on how its performance has been, and offering no interaction to the public in general as to how that is going on. I will talk to my noble friend on the Front Bench about coming back to this on Report. It was a more general look at how local authorities should relate to their public about what has happened this year and what they hope to do next year.

Independent Review of Children’s Social Care

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I sincerely thank my noble friend Lord Watson for securing this timely debate and all noble Lords who made such incredibly well-informed contributions today. I also thank those responsible for the many briefings that we have all received. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA, and express my thanks and gratitude to all those working to protect vulnerable children and young people in such difficult circumstances across the country, and to the many carers who do such extraordinary work in all the different settings that exist.

My personal involvement in children’s services goes back a long way, particularly to 2010, when in Leeds, Labour formed a new administration after the local elections and we inherited an inadequate—a failing—children’s services department. I became the lead member, and as a whole council and city we embarked on a journey to become the first core city to achieve an outstanding rating across the board. I am proud to say that Leeds still maintains the outstanding rating today, despite the pressures, which remain immense.

I mention this to illustrate that major change is possible if the collective will of decision-makers is clear and determined, and focused on putting the needs of our most vulnerable children at the heart of everything we do. “Every child matters” was not an empty phrase; surely it should be the bedrock of any civilised society. In the same way, we took the view in Leeds that enhancing the life chances of children and young people is everyone’s business, involving all agencies and all departments, and reflected in all decisions made across the wider community.

To this end, we established Child Friendly Leeds 10 years ago, launched by Her Majesty the Queen and endorsed by King Charles last month in a visit to celebrate its 10-year milestone. A child-friendly city basically means developing a relentless focus on children and young people and taking hard decisions—for example, on targeting funding—that will benefit those vulnerable children whose lives can be blighted without the timely intervention of services to give them, their families and their carers support. One of our collective main priorities was to safely—and I emphasise “safely”—reduce the number of children and young people coming into our care, and to reinvest the significant savings into expanding preventive and early help services on a cross-agency basis.

I was the chair of the children and young people’s board at the LGA, and in that capacity I worked with Josh MacAlister and the review team—along with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer—on the design group, inputting in particular from a local government perspective and bringing Leeds’s experience into the process. I pay tribute to the review team and all the many people who contributed to the process, bringing their rich personal experiences to the discussions and exploring, as we have heard, the commitment to lifelong, loving relationships.

I am deeply disappointed to hear that the Government have delayed issuing their next steps following the publication of the review earlier this summer. We need action now. I am even more concerned that the review will become submerged into the spending review and be seen as a cost problem rather than as an enabler to improve services, achieve better outcomes for young people and their families, and lead to major savings in the wider societal areas that are impacted so heavily by failure in this space.

By way of example, research shows us that roughly 25% of the prison population has had some care experience. That is shocking. Of the young care-experienced people who enter prison, roughly 45% present a substance misuse problem and 61% have a record of being disengaged from education. Indeed, ONS figures released yesterday show that 52% of care-experienced children had been convicted of a criminal offence by the age of 24, and 92% of those who received a custodial sentence had previously been identified with special educational needs. Some 18% had been permanently excluded and 81% had been suspended during their time in education. How much more evidence do we need that action is urgent and that government needs to respond immediately to the recommendations in the review and take action?

The recent figures re skyrocketing incidence of mental health presentations and the worries concerning SEND provision following the scrapping of the education Bill further add to the enormous concern among practitioners. There are so many aspects of the review to highlight. Tackling the workloads and staffing issues in social care remain critical. We hear constantly about the pressures on adult social care budgets but, as said by my noble friend Lady Taylor, we need to shout about the pressures on children’s social care budgets: a 25% higher spend by councils over the last five years, with pressures of over £1 billion estimated for each year. This is simply unsustainable.

From my experience in Leeds, I welcome the focus on early intervention in the review—the right time and the right place being the key focus. I particularly welcome the proposals for strengthening support for kinship carers—we have heard a great deal about this today. Working with kinship carers has been one of the key components of our journey, recognising the huge significance of close family and friend relationships based on understanding and love. The estimate that 162,000 children are being raised by kinship carers across England and Wales is probably an underestimate. I am sure we have all seen the briefings that estimate that every 1,000 children raised in kinship extended families rather than the care system save the Government £40 million and increase the lifetime earnings of those children by £20 million.

In that context, surely the recommendations in the review are fairly modest: for example, non-means-tested financial allowances that match the minimum fostering allowance; the introduction of kinship leave on a par with adoption leave for all special guardians and kinship carers; and, importantly, a requirement for local authorities to use “family group decision-making” as a means to identify kinship arrangements earlier by introducing “family network plans” to offer flexibility, intensive support and funding to give an alternative pathway to children entering local authority care. The focus throughout these recommendations is that better outcomes for children and young people are paramount. I hope the Government will take note of good practice in the sector and learn from its example.

In conclusion, I specifically ask the Minister to assure us that the Government have the ambition and resolve to deliver reforms urgently. By that I mean legislative changes introduced now, and certainly in the next Session. Also, is the urgent need for expanding the number of foster carers being gripped, alongside the support for kinship carers, as I have outlined? We cannot ignore the cocktail of circumstances that are exerting pressure on our families, poverty being front and centre, as well as the mental health experience of parents and children, and domestic violence, to name but a few. Can the Minister assure us that she will use all her experience in this space to personally steer the Government’s response to focus on these issues?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I was hoping not to intervene. I was quite lenient with the previous speaker but one, but I regret that we are now running a bit short of time. I therefore ask all the following speakers either to stick to eight minutes or to go slightly less than that. We do not want to eat into the Minister’s time.

Apprenticeship Levy Scheme

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord is a bit harsh; we are very focused on SMEs, in part because of the productivity potential that apprentices can offer them, but also because of the opportunities that they offer to young people. I am not aware that we have published targets for this, but it is a particular focus in the department.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, in February this year, IPPR North reported a 72% fall in entry-level apprenticeships since 2014. The London Progression Collaboration has revealed a major decline in entry-level apprenticeships in the capital, while starts in high-level apprenticeships, often taken by older people, have skyrocketed. SMEs report that apprenticeship starts fell by more than 36% following the introduction of the levy in 2017. I acknowledge the successes of the apprenticeship levy but, given the priority to help young people through skills training, including apprenticeships, and the levelling-up agenda, and given the obvious problems, can the Minister explain why the Government have ruled out a formal review of the levy as part of their wider considerations?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I think the noble Baroness would acknowledge that some of the changes that we have introduced, including the levy, to create a sustainable model of funding for apprenticeships, reflect some of the problems of quality identified in the Richard review in 2012. I hope that she would also acknowledge that we have seen an important growth in degree apprenticeships. She is absolutely right that we have seen a drop in intermediate apprenticeships, but that is a principal area of focus for the department going forward.