Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out from “parents” to the end of line 10 and insert “and any other person with parental responsibility for the child, or the child, if they have reached the age of 16.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to extend the right to Family Group Conferencing to children aged 16 and 17 so they are able to agree their own care plan.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in my name, which is cosigned by my noble friend Lord Effingham. The Bill states that

“the authority must offer a family group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child”.

In moving this amendment, I seek to extend the right to family group conferences to children, young people and young adults so that, most importantly, they can contribute to and ultimately agree their own care plan. The purpose is as simple as that. Why should they not be able to do this?

I thank all the organisations that work tirelessly to support families, children and young people every day, including for their briefings on this important subject. I am only sorry that I cannot refer to them all. Research commissioned by County Councils stated that there would be nearly 100,000 children in care, representing a 36% rise in a decade. By including 16 and 17 year-olds in the family group conferencing, we may be able to reduce the number going into care —where it is safe to do so—and staying, with the support of their family or those with parental responsibility, reducing the trauma they may face and ensuring that their futures are not impaired. That is a laudable aim that I hope all noble Lords will support.

I am grateful to the Family Rights Group for its briefing on the Bill, in particular on this issue. It said:

“The Bill gives the local authority the discretion to decide if the child is invited to be involved in the FGDM process or not. This is unsatisfactory and does not make for a child-centred process. This approach differs to elsewhere in the child welfare system, for example looked-after children reviews, where there is a presumption in favour of the child taking part. The Bill should ensure children are invited to take part in their family-group decision-making meeting, if safe and consistent with their welfare to do so”.


The British Association of Social Workers welcomes and supports the proposal to extend family group conferencing to include the voices of 16 and 17 year-olds. It says:

“This approach is rooted in social work values of participation, empowerment, and ensuring that young people are not passive subjects of decisions, but active partners in shaping their own futures. It also aligns with our support for the Keep Caring until 18 campaign, recognising that young people need to be heard, supported and cared for consistently as they transition into adulthood”.


I could not have put it better myself.

I received this from Action for Children:

“The Children’s Charities Coalition believe that real, positive changes to the lives of young people cannot be achieved without listening to their wishes and feelings when making decisions that affect them … We urge Parliamentarians to ensure the Bill strengthens requirements on local authorities to ascertain the wishes and feelings of children and give their views due weight in decisions that affect them”.


This amendment seeks to strengthen this request by extending the right to family group conferencing to children aged 16 and 17, so that they can agree their own care plan. I cannot help but reflect on my noble friend Lord Balfe’s contribution and how he wished that somebody had listened to him. For 32 years, I have been involved with young people. They are an admirable bunch. They have different characteristics and get into different kinds of trouble, but they succeed on many occasions.

Let me tell the Committee about one young lad. All he wanted to do was work in a television shop. He wanted to repair them, and we found him a job. He was excellent at the work and the employer loved him, but one day the employer called me and said: “You’ve got to get him out. You’ve got to come and withdraw him”. I went along ready to do the deed. I said to the employer, “What’s wrong with him?”, and he said, “His personal hygiene is disastrous”. I sat the lad down with the employer and asked him, “How’s things at home? How’s it all going? What challenges have you got?” He said, “My mum’s died and my dad does the washing by chucking it in the bath. I don’t even think the hot tap comes on”. While the employer heard that, it obviously touched his heart, and the long and the short of it was that the boy moved in with him and his wife, had his washing done and had a terrific career.

This is all we want for young people. My amendment simply says that we must listen and take their views into account. I beg to move.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I have five amendments in this group, all of which come from my knowledge and understanding of evidence-based work. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Foundations What Works Centre for Children and Families.

I have been involved in this even longer than the noble Baroness opposite. My first job in this country was in 1970 in Newcastle, at what was then the first of the children’s departments after the Seebohm report. I had just qualified as a social worker specialising in family casework. You do not get anything like that these days.

I was keenly aware that this country, in its legislation on children, responds to tragedies, and I have seen this all my working life. We do not start by asking what we need to give children the very best. We start from: “This child died in dire circumstances and we must make sure that it never happens again”. Of course, we have to do that, but we need legislation that starts by asking: what are the best ways to support families to enable their children to have the very best in life? We get things the wrong way round, so I am pleased that the Government are trying to start by asking what we mean by the well-being and best interests of children, and how we can start there, rather than just asking how we protect children. Protection is very important, but if we think about well-being first, many of them will not need a level of protection.

My amendments all come from the work that Foundations has done on family group conferencing. I am delighted that the Government talk about family group decision-making in the Bill, but I want them to be brave and go to the next stage: the family group conference, which is now a well-established and researched evidence-based model. In 2023, Foundations completed a randomised control trial of family group conferences—the first in the UK and the largest in the world—which involved over 2,500 children and their families across 21 local authorities in England. The evaluation found that the children whose families were referred for an FGC at pre-proceeding stage were less likely to go into care. It also found that 12 months after the pre-proceedings letter was issued, 36% of children whose families were referred were taken into care, compared with nearly half, or 45%, of children who were not. Children who had been part of this process were less likely to go to court for the decisions about their care: only three in five—59% of children—who were referred to FGCs had care proceedings issued, compared with 72% of children who were not referred. They also spent less time in care: six months after the pre-proceeding letter, children whose families had been referred to FGCs spent an average of 87 days in care, compared with 115 days for those who had not been through the process.

Foundations estimated that 2,293 fewer children would go into care within a 12-month period if FGCs were rolled out nationally. This in turn could save taxpayers over £150 million within two years, from a reduction in both court proceedings and the number of children entering the care system. From my perspective, when I was dealing with this in government and was responsible for social exclusion, it was so clear that when you used evidence-based programmes, although you did stop a bit of, “Let every flower bloom”, which we love in this country, you got much better outcomes for children; for example, by introducing parenting classes in Sure Start—I could say a lot more about that now, but I am not going to. We need to look at evidence-based programmes and use them. We do not have time to let these kids suffer while we think, “Oh, that might be a good idea. Why don’t we try that instead?” Until we have based something on evidence, we should be giving them the strength of what we know works.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It may be that in part of my response I pre-empted the point that the noble Baroness is making in Amendment 17, but I did recognise the point about Amendment 19, which I think the noble Baroness made, about the process in place to discharge that particular child protection plan. On that, I outlined that we are confident that the current system and the strengthened focus on multiagency child protection are robust and that there is sufficient accountability around discharging child protection plans. If I have not sufficiently reassured the noble Baroness about that, I am willing to write to clarify the points I was trying to make on that amendment.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply, which was very encouraging, as especially was the spirit in which the debate happened. Things seem to have calmed somewhat.

I did not quite get what I wanted, so I will reserve the right to think about it for Report, but I hope we can keep the dialogue going. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

“For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling and congratulate For Women Scotland and the many others who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue despite suffering abuse and threats at the hands of activists. I know that noble Lords across the House will agree that there is no place for threats and abuse in public discourse. I take the opportunity to thank the lesbian groups who came together as the Lesbian Interveners for the For Women Scotland case. These included the LGB Alliance, the Lesbian Project and Scottish Lesbians.

Many people, including many within the Conservative Party, have acted to protect the rights of women and girls, at great personal cost. In government we rejected Labour’s calls to introduce self-identification and ordered police forces to stop recording offences by trans women in female crime statistics.

We welcome the clarity that the Supreme Court judgment has given. This ruling is an important step forward for women and girls. We on the Conservative Benches have always known what a woman is, yet we regret that something as simple as biological sex has become so politicised. The Supreme Court ruling is a powerful victory for the many determined women who stood up for what they believe in, and for those across the UK who recognise the importance of protecting women and girls’ privacy and dignity.

However, we must acknowledge that this ruling follows years of struggle. It is only now that the Labour Party has listened. The judgment was a vital affirmation of the rights of women and girls to access single-sex spaces and have those rights protected. Biological sex matters in sports, in our prisons, in our hospitals and in our changing rooms. Unfortunately, women have had to struggle with the NHS, their employers and other organisations, and ultimately through the courts, to protect their privacy and dignity.

We hope that this ruling will safeguard the rights of women and girls and protect their dignity, ensuring fairness and preventing harm, but this ruling is just the beginning. We must now ensure that policy reflects this clarity, strengthening protections for single-sex spaces, safeguarding women’s sports and ensuring that our institutions are not clouded by ideology.

We are grateful for the Supreme Court judgment, and we once again thank For Women Scotland for its work in securing this ruling. However, I look to the Minister to provide further explanation of the steps that the Government will take to uphold this ruling. Will she ensure that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is supported by the Government in its enforcement of the code of practice?

The Minister will not be surprised that I have a few questions for her. If she cannot answer them all—although she can have a go—then I ask her to write to us. Will the Government publish relationships, sex and health education guidance that would prevent schools teaching gender ideology as fact? How will they ensure that schools comply with the ruling? Similarly, can the Minister confirm how the Government will ensure that all public services are fully compliant with the ruling?

Will the Minister ensure that the police now update all their policies after this judgment, particularly regarding the accurate reporting of male crimes and statistics and the right of women to be dealt with by female police officers, particularly in the event of a strip search?

Digital verification services enabled by the data Bill run the risk of reintroducing gender self-ID if they do not contain a requirement for accurate sex reporting. Will the Minister ensure that that is acted upon? My last question, the Minister will be pleased to know, is: will she confirm that people will be cared for on the hospital wards that are appropriate to their biological sex?

I hope the Minister will carefully consider the implications of the judgment and that her Government will look to do the right thing in securing the rights and safety of women and girls.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement, which we have not had the privilege of listening to in this House today, said that the ruling was not a zero-sum game. That is a phrase I have been using for quite a long time in this context, and I totally agree, but the practical repercussions of the ruling have been left to others to sort out—for women, trans people, non-binary, intersex and anyone else who may not pass muster through no fault of their own.

We need guidelines, as the noble Baroness has just mentioned, for the management of single-sex spaces and for institutions such as hospitals, the police, operators of gyms and so on. Then there are everyone else’s human rights, such as the right to privacy and to safety—if you are a trans woman being forced to use men’s toilets, for example—and not to be subjected to degrading treatment. How will the Government organise these guidelines? Can the Minister say what the timescale is? In the meantime, what is the advice to those who are now not allowed to use single-sex facilities? Are they to lose their right to public life, including as advisers to this House?

Aid: Anti-Corruption Measures

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord McInnes of Kilwinning]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they take to ensure that anti-corruption measures are supported as part of (1) aid to developing countries, and countries recovering from natural disasters, and (2) the reconstruction of former conflict areas.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, every minute of the 60 for this debate is allocated, which is great. I therefore respectfully ask that everybody adhere to their time slot, which would be much appreciated.

[Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to open this debate. I thank other noble Lords for participating in such numbers, even though it has an impact on everyone’s timing. I also thank the House of Lords Library for the research briefing we all received, which I am sure everyone agrees is excellent. I am especially pleased that today we have the privilege of my noble friend the Minister finding time in his busy schedule to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government.

I begin by making absolutely clear that I am a passionate advocate of the Government’s commitment to investing 0.7% of GDP in international development. It is now more important than ever that the UK is seen to be at the forefront of international development, and I echo the ambition of my right honourable friend in the other place, Andrew Mitchell, that the UK must be a development superpower as we find our way forward in a post-European Union environment. Too often, corruption in recipient countries is used by some as a reason for the UK to reduce its aid programmes. It is my view that it is our responsibility to try to eliminate corruption in recipient countries, whether at a governmental level or, as is often the case, at an endemic cultural level, and not to stand aside from it.

I very much welcome the Government’s joined-up corruption strategy, especially the focus on joint working resulting from the 2016 anti-corruption conference and the five-year plan from 2017 to 2022. However, while not wishing in any way to underestimate the importance of the Government’s international efforts, I should like to focus this afternoon on the country-by-country strategy that I believe is necessary to deal with corruption in much of the developing world.

My interest is in seeing the UK use its significant development muscle to ensure that the corruption that blights so many of the developing countries we wish to support is reduced. This corruption does much to undermine the social and political contract necessary for developing countries to succeed. There is little point in our investing in the stability of these states if the populace do not have confidence in their state. It is also essential that our international development programmes have the flexibility to react to new types of corruption formed in reaction to natural disasters and post-conflict situations. All too often, this corruption manifests itself around the issues of internally displaced persons, refugees, human trafficking and the abuse of minorities.

I refer to my registered interests and to my visit last year to Baghdad with my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, as guests of the Iraqi Government. Time and time again, when speaking to young people, religious minorities, government Ministers and representatives of civic society, we were told that corruption was the greatest obstacle to reconstruction. From the ability of internally displaced people to return, to the ability of young people to get on and not have to think constantly of emigrating to North America or Europe, it was the insidious low-level corruption that follows war—as night follows day—that was raised with us. The Iraqi Government were trying their best to deal with the problem, but it was clear that there was an expectation that at least some of our development support should be directed towards supporting them in that task.

In Iraq and elsewhere, it is frequently minorities—for example, Christians and Yazidis in Iraq—who find corruption the biggest obstacle to remaining in their own country. Emigration then becomes the only option for many and, as the critical mass of the minority decreases, the corruption faced by the remaining minority increases. Corruption undoubtedly falls more heavily on minorities, and raises significant human rights issues. That is why an important part of the work that DfID should do is to develop a country-by-country strategy, identifying both victims and potential victims of low-level corruption, and how aid and partnership—working with the relevant Governments—can reduce pressure on these minorities. Day-to-day corruption, focused on specific minorities or certain geographical areas, can easily become a human rights issue, and I would be grateful if my noble friend would confirm that there is regular interaction between the various country desks in the FCO, human rights monitoring and DfID on these issues.

The report on overseas corruption by the International Development Committee in the other place clearly identifies that it is only through bespoke country plans that corruption can be dealt with at source. There is no one-size-fits-all strategy for corruption in any individual country; it needs to take into account the culture, customs, history and demographic make-up of any individual state. The department has correctly been praised by, for example, the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, for being able to focus a bespoke plan on countries. What progress has been made in producing new country-by-country anti-corruption strategies? I am disappointed that the last publication of a large number of country-by-country strategies was in 2013. I recognise and applaud the enormous strides the Government have made in supporting anti-corruption in Afghanistan, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya and Tanzania. However, unless there are broader strategies beyond these countries, the department may lose reactive flexibility.

Likewise, there clearly needs to be a serious focus on low-level, day-to-day corruption, along with a requirement to reverse what can be a deeply embedded culture, which will take a long-term timescale. We are in danger of always looking at five-year cycles, and of short-termism when dealing with issues that have been embedded for many decades. Even in these unpredictable times, with the support of all major parties, DfID has an enviable position, in contrast to other departments, of being able to develop a long-term plan beyond the usual five-year cycle. Would the Minister reassure me that a longer-term approach can be used on anti-corruption methods in individual countries, beyond the five-year cycle?

We are all rightly proud that, through DfID, we as a country are available to help immediately after a natural disaster, or to help those fleeing conflict zones. As well as day-to-day, low-level corruption, there is a danger of any emergency aid programme being reactive and, in a fast-moving environment, that systems protecting programmes from corruption may not yet be in place. As part of disaster prevention, can bespoke strategies be identified for potential disasters in vulnerable and developing countries, so that on arrival in that country, British aid and emergency help may be prepared for any corruption endemic in that particular country?

I do not share the cynicism of some in this country about the benefit of the work DfID carries out. We have a humanitarian responsibility, and it is fundamentally in our own interests, to support developing countries across the world. It would be helpful, however, in dealing with the naysayers in the United Kingdom, if there was a clear country-by-country strategy on what corruption we are determined to remove from these countries.

I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords this afternoon. We have much to be proud of in all that DfID does, but we must move beyond just a commitment to 0.7%, to ensure that everything we do deals with the corruption that gets in the way of so much development work.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That this House takes note of International Women’s Day and the United Kingdom’s role in advancing gender equality globally.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, it is wonderful that we have so many excellent speakers in this final, very important debate today. Many noble Lords have made transport arrangements, so I shall just say, in the nicest way possible, that it would be much appreciated if noble Lords could stick to the time allocated.

Domestic Abuse

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, we go into this very important debate with a tight timeframe, so could I please respectfully ask that all speeches conclude as the clock reaches six minutes, so that the Minister can give the fullest reply possible? Thank you.

Safeguarding in the Aid Sector

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I must declare an interest as from 1985 to 1991 I was director of Oxfam. I was a long-standing supporter of Oxfam before that and I remain a firm supporter of Oxfam. Last weekend, I was in my local shop in Cockermouth talking with the volunteers, who have obviously been affected by this story. For all of us involved in that work over the years—right back to 1942 in the middle of the war, when Oxfam was founded to try to get relief to the Greeks under German occupation—this has been a terrible nightmare. What happened in Haiti was wrong and despicable. It was a complete contradiction of the purpose of Oxfam in its exploitation of individuals, who will remain harmed. I am very glad that the organisation has not just issued an email but been to see the Government to talk to them about how genuinely sorry it is.

We must remember certain points. First, the Government have a responsibility for public funds, and that must be recognised by everyone. Secondly, it is terribly important to recognise that charities, not only Oxfam but right across the field, must be accountable, and, as the Minister has said, being accountable involves transparency, complete integrity and openness. Anyway, it is stupid to do anything else because, as we have seen, almost inevitably it will become known in one way or another and do even more damage than it would have done at the time.

I shall conclude by making a couple of observations. The current leadership, including Mark Goldring and the new chairman who took office only last year, were nowhere near the situation when it occurred; they have been dealing with a situation that they inherited. A lot of very hard work has been going on in seeing how proper standards, regulation and accountability can be put in place. If that is not sufficient, it is quite right that the Government should challenge it, and I am sure that if they work together it can be tackled. However, it is interesting to note that the highly esteemed Tufts University in the United States, which has done an inquiry into this problem, has said that during its inquiry it became convinced that the best regulations now in place were those of Oxfam. There is therefore a certain paradox in the situation.

I thank the Minister for the understanding way in which he has handled this Statement. It is quite right that the organisation has to look to its governance and its transparency. It also has to face up to its responsibility to those countless volunteers; the saddest part of the whole story is what these wicked people in Haiti did to their very own colleagues and the work that they were trying to do. I would like a reassurance from the Minister that in all that the Government are doing, and I totally understand that the Government have to be very firm in the public interest, their objective is to enable Oxfam to be in a convincing position to continue the work that started in 1942—it has been in the front line of so many situations, such as in Kampuchea, South Africa in the bad years, Latin America and the Middle East—and to face the public and speak with authority and morality again.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his significant contribution. If he has a question, may we please have it? There are other people who still wish to ask questions.

[Lord Bates]

I thank the noble Lord. I realise that what is happening to the organisation to which he has given so much of his life must be breaking his heart, and that he feels passionately about it. I think his words, which he has said in forthright terms on the record, will speak more to the organisation that he cares for than anything that I can add, and I thank him for that.

Financial Inclusion: New Technology

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly about a different slant to the subject matter of the debate. My noble friend Lord Holmes referred to financial exclusion. I am not the sharpest knife in the box when it comes to tech, as was proven this week when I got a new telephone—I will not mention the number of hours of help I have needed to get it running. Our young people in this country are really great at getting to grips with new technology, and by giving them the skills and opportunities to do that, they become financially included in our society.

I watched 60 young people in a rural community, who were not very well grounded in life and were causing a lot of problems but who had great technology skills, help SMEs to develop and grow their businesses. The impact of that involvement meant that they were able to reduce the number of policemen in the rural community because these young people were so well integrated and included. Promoting financial inclusion and innovative new technology certainly has a social impact as well.