Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness Benjamin

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

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

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