Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

It is worth mentioning in passing that there are often delays in getting the young carer’s needs assessment that is called for in the amendment. I am advised that in some parts of the country you cannot get one at all. Clearly, if the amendment is to be effective in protecting the child, those delays are unacceptable. Perhaps when the Minister replies she can say what is being done to reduce those delays.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendment 209 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, to which I have added my name, and I thank him for introducing it so effectively. A young carer is defined as someone who is under the age of 18 and is looking after a family member or close friend. Often being forced to balance school and their social life with caring duties could seem an impossible task, which can take its toll on a young carer’s mental health. That said, on the other side of the coin, with the right level of support, many of the skills that they learn while caring are later transferable to adult life and the world of work.

All too often, however, young carers are invisible. If adults outside their family, particularly teachers and school support staff, are unaware of their caring responsibilities, it is unlikely that the help that they need will reach them, so it is important that we recognise young carers and learn how we can help them, because being a young carer is undoubtedly demanding. They assume adult responsibilities and worries while still a child and have to prepare for and get to school, study for exams and look after themselves.

During the pandemic, the Children’s Society launched the young carers count campaign, which highlighted the experiences of young carers and called for a child’s status as a carer to be included in the school census. The DfE acknowledged the value of that, because in 2022 it began to include young carers as a category in that census. Now that data is being recorded, a much clearer picture of the number of young carers across England and how they are impacted by their caring responsibilities is beginning to emerge. With proper resourcing, this should help significantly to improve the support that they receive.

The Children and Families Act 2014 amended the Children Act to make it easier for young carers to get an assessment of their needs and introduced whole-family approaches to assessment and support. Local authorities must offer an assessment where it “appears”—I am not quite sure what that means—that a child is involved in providing care. That legislation is aligned with similar provision in the Care Act 2014 that requires local authorities to consider the needs of young carers if, during the assessment of an adult with care needs, or of an adult carer, it appears that a child is providing or intends to provide care. In those circumstances, the authority must consider whether the care being provided by the child is excessive or inappropriate and how the child’s caring responsibilities affect their well-being, education and development.

Amendment 209 would add to Clause 30, which, of course, is concerned with children not in school. When a local authority is informed that a request has been made for a child to be removed from school, this amendment would require that a young carer’s needs assessment is undertaken. This would highlight cases where a child was being withdrawn to enable them to offer more support to a family member, likely at the expense of them attending school and thus continuing with their education. Increased caring responsibilities almost always mean that there is neither the time nor the facility for a child either to receive meaningful education from that relative or to self-educate, even where he or she was at least theoretically old enough to do so and the appropriate learning materials were made available. The starting point for any such assessment should always be that children are children first.

The young carer’s needs assessment must determine whether a young carer is giving what I described earlier as “excessive” care. Although a child might be undertaking relatively minor care tasks, the time that these take up and the demands that they make on the child could place significant limits on their life—for example, if the level of care interferes with school attendance or appears to be isolating the child in their home and preventing contact with their friends. For that reason, I hope that my noble friend will agree that a needs assessment is necessary to ensure that local authorities are aware of young carers’ needs and that their needs are being met, while preserving their access to education.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I can see why my noble friend Lord Storey added his name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young. Any child taking on responsibilities like those described in that amendment is not having a childhood. In reality, they are getting through from day to day—they cannot be doing much more. School may be the only point where they will get some support and some normal life; enabling them to have that may be the only way that they can have a future.

If you spend your entire life looking after somebody else, and they inconveniently live for quite a long time, you could find yourself in middle age without an education or qualifications and having been de-social skilled—I do not know if that is a correct expression. Your life will have been taken over by another function. That should not be put on somebody that young. When she comes to respond, I hope that the Minister will say something positive, because this is something that we should deal with at the first opportunity.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 199ZA in my name. It was previously brought forward by my noble friend Lord Moynihan who, regrettably, cannot be here today, despite his enthusiasm for the subject. I will keep my comments short, as much has been said already on the subject.

This probing amendment goes further than my noble friend Lady Barran’s Amendment 199, out of concern that the Government’s proposals could lead to some schools excluding PE kit altogether as a branded item. This could disincentivise schools and pupils from meeting the Prime Minister’s commitment, made with the Lionesses, that every child across the country should benefit from and have equal access to high-quality PE and sport.

A survey by the Schoolwear Association carried out among school leaders found that over 50% of schools indicated that they would remove PE kits from their uniform policy if a strict cap were imposed, risking reduced sports participation due to the pressure to wear the latest brands, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, particularly among teenage girls. Worryingly, it believes that the Bill, as drafted, would lead to increased PE costs, as mentioned, and pose a risk to sports participation in our schools.

We know why PE uniforms are important: they promote a more equitable environment for students, and inclusivity. Importantly, they remove the pressure to wear the trendy—and, usually, more expensive—kit and create a level playing field. They promote safety, equality and a sense of unity among students, and they enhance school spirit. Schools need to foster a sense of community and belonging.

I of course support the ambition of keeping the cost of school uniforms down, but not at the expense of reducing participation in sport and physical activity in our schools. At a time when we are seeing an increase in the obesity figures for children and concerns about their lifestyles and well-being, we should not put in place barriers to their getting active. In fact, we need to do more to support and encourage activity. Above all, accepting this amendment would raise the profile of PE in schools and the importance of a healthy lifestyle for all our children.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am in favour of Amendment 196, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. That may surprise my colleagues on the Front Bench—to some extent, it surprises me—but I will speak from personal, recently lived experience.

My son is in year 9 at an academy in London. In the Easter break, he moved from one academy to another, so we had to have a complete change of uniform in that period. It was interesting to compare the two schools, because one required considerably more for its badged uniform than the other. The school he originally attended needed a jersey, a blazer, a tie, two PE shirts, two pairs of PE shorts, a house t-shirt, two pairs of monogrammed sports socks, a rugby shirt and a football shirt. The school he has moved to requires just a jersey, a blazer, a tie, one PE shirt, one pair of PE shorts, a rugby shirt and a football shirt.

I accept the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, made on her amendment—which was originally brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—about encouraging young people to be as active as they can in sport. Being active in school may, on many occasions, lead to being active in clubs and societies outwith school; that is self-evident. However, I do not believe that having the school badge on what they wear really makes any difference. I am therefore not in favour of necessitating sports gear being badged.

If boys and girls represent their school, when they play against another school they clearly need to have a jersey with the school badge on it and with proper school colours. But if they are just playing rugby and football, they can do what I did at school: there was a blue top and a white top, which were interchangeable depending on what team you were in that week in preparation for matches at the weekend, and then you got the school top for the actual match on Saturday. Unless you are actually representing the school, you do not need anything with the school’s name on the breast—that would be unnecessary. I do not believe that that will disincentivise people getting involved in sport. PE is compulsory anyway, and it is very much the job of PE teachers and parents to encourage children to be physically active; whether they are wearing a red or a blue top with the school badge on it will not really make much difference.

I take issue with one point that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, made. He said that a blazer can last the whole of a child’s career. I take it that he is not including both primary and secondary schools. Even in secondary school, there are five years between year 7 and year 11. My son turned 14 last month and he is five inches taller than he was this time last year, so the blazer he wore then certainly would not go anywhere near meeting his needs now. It is not impossible, but it would be unusual for a child not to gain much height or girth between joining and leaving a school. I think that most children will probably require three blazers for those five years.

That brings me to another other point about blazers. I am not convinced by the idea that just buying a blazer from a supermarket, and then getting a badge sewn on it, is of any great benefit in tackling the problem of less well-off parents facing the burden of the costs of sending a child—or, in most cases, children—to school. These blazers are not of such good quality. It is well known that blazers bought in a supermarket will not be the same quality as those purchased in bulk by a supplier for a school, which can therefore sell them at a reasonable price because they are bought in bulk.

Incidentally, I checked up on that in relation to my own son. The blazer that we had to buy for him two months ago cost £34; on Amazon, the alternative without a badge was £31. So there was very little difference in price, but the difference in quality—in terms of having to replace the uniform—is important. While I very much support what the Government are trying to do here, I believe that five items, as well as a tie, is perfectly reasonable. This should be given further consideration by my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues in government.

Finally, I am very much committed to children wearing a school uniform. At the moment, we see many children from other countries in and around Parliament, who are clearly on school visits, not wearing school uniforms. In many countries, having a school uniform is unknown. That is unfortunate, because there is undoubtedly the issue of peer pressure, which, incidentally, is not dealt with by some uniform swap system. In many cases, a child wearing a recycled uniform will probably have it pointed out to them by—let us say—not too well-meaning friends, and it may well be obvious. If a child does not wear a uniform, other kinds of peer pressure very much exist, as the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, said in his introduction. That is why uniform is so important.

A uniform school uniform, as opposed to various brands of uniform, is worth having and retaining for a school’s identity, while at the same time not being overdemanding on parents. As I said, I speak from my own recent experience, which, to some extent, surprised me; I thought that all schools had more or less the same requirements, but they do not. However, requiring just three items, as well as a tie, risks parents buying items that are not exactly the same colour or style as that worn by the boy or girl sitting next to their child in class. For that reason, Amendment 196, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is worthy of support.

Amendment 202, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, covers school uniform swaps. In theory, that is a good idea, but it could exacerbate the problems of peer pressure rather than overcoming them.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust. Before I speak to my amendment, I offer my support to all the uniform amendments proposed so far by noble Lords. Schools need a bit more flexibility around uniforms than is allowed for by the Bill.

My amendment, much like Amendments 195A and 199ZA, would caveat the ban on schools being allowed to mandate three items of a branded uniform, excluding branded items that have been provided or lent to pupils free of charge. Why? One reason, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Sater, is that some schools have sport kit sponsors which provide more than three branded items free of charge.

The more important reason is that this prohibition would throw up an obstacle to the expansion of the Combined Cadet Force programme in state schools, which the Government have said they are in favour of. My reading of Clause 29 is that the prohibition would apply to CCF troops, because it says:

“For the purposes of subsection (1)”—


the limit on the number of branded items a pupil is required to have—

“a pupil is required to have a branded item of school uniform for use during a … year if the pupil is required to have it … to participate in any lesson, club, activity or event facilitated by the school during that year”.

A school-based combined cadet force would be an activity facilitated by the school.

I was surprised to see this clause appear as written, because an article in the UK Defence Journal published on 29 May 2025 began:

“The Ministry of Defence has welcomed the findings of a recent academic study highlighting the positive impact of school-based Cadet Forces, and confirmed plans to expand Combined Cadet Forces (CCFs) in state schools as part of a broader effort to improve youth development and opportunity”.


When responding to a Parliamentary Question, from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on 28 May, shortly after this report was published, the Minister of State for Defence, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, affirmed the Government’s support for the report’s recommendation that school-based cadet forces be expanded:

“We very much welcome the excellent research by the University of Northampton on the impact and value of school-based Cadet Forces in the UK, a study commissioned by the Ministry of Defence”.


He went on to describe the report as

“compelling reading for anyone interested in the development of young people”,

noting that it contained

“many useful insights … for school leaders to help support their efforts to seek wider opportunities for all their pupils”.

If the Government are genuinely in favour of expanding the CCF programme, and I hope they are, they must accept my amendment, since the uniforms that members of CCFs have to wear contain more than three branded items. With the exception of combat boots, all the items are provided free of charge by the Ministry of Defence, meaning that if you caveat Clause 29 in the way I am suggesting, it would solve the problem.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord said, as I always do. I prefer the politics of his father, the author of the 1945 Labour manifesto, rather more than his own, but that is something else.

The point he is making about the Combined Cadet Force is interesting. Earlier, I mentioned my son; he is in the air cadets, not associated with a school. The Combined Cadet Force should be available in schools, but it would not be compulsory. It would surely be something that boys or girls would opt in to. Only in a situation where the school made it mandatory that all children join the Combined Cadet Force would the argument he is advancing have any weight.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

As I read it, the clause does not just limit the prohibition to items mandated by the school for every pupil. If those are mandatory for an activity facilitated by the school, I believe this prohibition would still apply. That is my reading of the clause, but perhaps the Minister will correct me on that point when she responds.

To sum up, I welcome the Government’s intention here, which is to avoid schools placing excessive financial burdens on low-income families, but making an exception for items given or lent to pupils would not impose any additional burdens on those families, so I cannot see how the Government could possibly oppose my amendment or the other similar amendments hoping to achieve the same purpose.

School Libraries

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Index on Censorship survey which found that 53 per cent of school librarians reported being asked to remove books from their shelves.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, no authors, books or genres have been banned by the Government. Schools make their own choices about which specific books or other resources they use within the framework of the national curriculum. We trust the judgment of schools and teachers in their choice of books, and it is for individual schools to decide how best to provide and maintain a library service for their pupils and which books to stock.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. This is an issue essentially about intellectual freedom and opposing censorship. The School Library Association believes that it is a symptom of the more polarised society in which we live today, but their members are on the front line. My noble friend is absolutely right: of course it is for schools to decide what to have in their libraries, but a balanced choice of books surely enables children to develop relationships with people who are perhaps from different backgrounds and to understand those who have different beliefs or opinions from theirs. Almost all examples of schoolbooks being withdrawn from libraries followed complaints about LGBTQ content. In her dual roles as Education Minister and Equalities Minister, will my noble friend ask the DfE to begin collecting information on instances when school libraries have been put under pressure to censor their collections?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point about the power of books and reading to enable children—in fact, all of us—not only to recognise the world in which we live but to have our horizons expanded. The Index on Censorship survey was an important but relatively small survey. I understand my noble friend’s point and recognise the important advice provided by the School Library Association, as well as the Government’s reading framework, on how to develop good-quality school libraries. However, it has been the decision of subsequent Governments not to collect the sort of data that my noble friend is asking for, partly because of burdens and partly to allow schools the autonomy to make decisions about how they stock their libraries. I strongly endorse my noble friend’s initial point about the benefits to children from reading and enjoying a broad range of books.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

Thank you—I acknowledge that more money is going in and absolutely acknowledge that there is an expansion of free school meals. I am only worried about the evidence that we have seen. Yesterday, we had a whole-day meeting of Feeding Britain, and I am afraid that a lot of the information that we heard is that this is not there yet. I hope that it filters down, because it is a very straightforward thing to do.

I have put a lot of things into the amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Walmsley, on what school standards should be. It is a good thing for the Government to aim at, and I hope that they will look favourably on the amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 183D, 186A and 187A in this group. I am delighted that the Bill will deliver on Labour’s manifesto commitment to offer universal breakfast clubs for all primary-age children, which will be a significant step towards ending morning hunger in schools across England. But there is a concern that the policy appears to be designed solely for mainstream pupils and, as a result, risks failing to meet the needs of those with special educational needs and disabilities. My amendments would make school breakfast provision more accessible to SEND pupils and create a more individualised approach to the provision.

Although most pupils with SEND are in mainstream education, special provision is vital for many children and young people across the country, for whom there are different barriers to accessing education, which need to be acknowledged and supported by government. The format in the Bill for universal free breakfasts applies only to primary-age pupils, which would mean excluding secondary-age pupils in special schools from breakfast provision. That is inequitable and, within those schools, ultimately unworkable. Special schools are more likely than mainstream schools to be all-through settings, where children can be taught based on need rather than age. My Amendments 183D and 186A would therefore extend the school breakfast provisions in the Bill to include secondary-age pupils in special schools.

Many of these children also access school transport funding, and it is vital that schools and local authorities work with families to create flexible transport approaches, so that anyone wanting to access breakfast clubs is then enabled to. Additionally, some children with SEND access one-to-one support during the school day. This support is a vital key in unlocking the education system to these young people. Without funding for this support being extended to breakfast clubs, they face the prospect of being locked out. For that reason, I support Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would ensure that breakfast clubs are accessible for all pupils with SEND.

Breakfast clubs need to be accessible, but they should be able to deliver a mixed-model approach to breakfast provision. That means being delivered in the classroom or in nurture groups, as opposed to being available only in the normal dining area. Breakfast clubs are harder to access for pupils with SEND, which is why, in special school provision, only 16% of schools partnering with the charity Magic Breakfast operate a breakfast club without another style of school breakfast being delivered as well. I was privileged to witness that at first hand when I visited Eko Pathways school in East Ham recently. More than just instructive, it was an absolute joy to see the children so enthusiastically engaging in the breakfast club. I was struck by the way in which some of them, after queuing for their food, then took it to their classroom and began to tuck in as the lesson began. I accept that that would not be appropriate for mainstream pupils, but it was clearly an important part of making the delivery of breakfast at Eko Pathways school so effective in preparing pupils for their lessons each day. For that reason, I am happy to signal my support for Amendment 187 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister.

I turn to my Amendment 187A, which calls for the Secretary of State to gather and then publish detailed information on the state of breakfast club provision in schools. Of course, the Department for Education will monitor the overall uptake levels of school breakfast provision, which is the key metric in understanding how far-reaching the impact of the policy is proving to be. I believe that the DfE should gather representative data on the characteristics of those receiving breakfast in schools, such as eligibility for free school meals, eligibility for the pupil premium and inclusion on the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index, which has been referred to in previous groups today. That list is not exclusive, but these are the measures that include children and young people most at risk of morning hunger.

I believe the DfE should also consider collecting what is known as satisfaction data from pupils, teachers and caregivers. Without underlying metrics such as satisfaction, it is difficult to improve and augment the policy to increase its reach. Finally, impact measurements should be considered. These can include measuring positive effects on attendance, behaviour and health and well-being, as well, of course, as educational achievement further down the line. The charity Magic Breakfast collects data in relation to these, through both school surveys and academic studies. I hope my noble friend will agree that the Government should consider a balance of such methods to ensure robust data collection. I suspect she may say in her response that this is not required in the Bill, and I would accept that if she would also give a commitment that the data will be collected along the lines that I have suggested.

However, outside of the legislative structure, the Government are showing a commitment to developing better evaluation of policy. The Evaluation Task Force says that it drives

“continuous improvements in the way government programmes are evaluated in order to inform decisions”.

Including data collection and publication in the Bill would be a strong indicator of the Government’s commitment to evaluation.

The risk of not collecting this data is shown by the Welsh Government example. I refer to Amendment 187B in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, regarding impact assessment. I believe that six months is too short a timescale for meaningful assessments to be made. To some extent, the same might be said of Amendment 190 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Cass, but a period of 12 months would at least allow a full school year to be assessed.

Data collection is essential. Primary school free breakfast provision has been available in Wales since 2007, but the Welsh Government do not publish, nor seemingly even record, significant data on the effectiveness of their policy. That might explain why there have been no substantial changes to that policy, which has been in place for some 18 years.

In 2022, Wales was included in Magic Breakfast’s Hidden Hunger report, which found that, despite the legislation being intended to reach all primary schools in Wales, 85% of disadvantaged pupils were not reached by the provision. In another 2022 report, the Child Poverty Action Group and Parentkind noted that school breakfast clubs in Wales were

“not being made available to all families, despite a universal free primary breakfast offer”.

Wales was a leader in school breakfast provision, but a lack of monitoring risks the policy falling behind. Robust data collection being mandated by the Bill could avoid the risk of England falling to the same eventuality.

Lastly, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is not in his place to speak to his Amendment 184, which seeks to ensure that the Government underwrite the cost of providing breakfast clubs. Although it is not appropriate for that to be in the Bill, I sympathise with the noble Lord’s point. Indeed, this point was also made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Bennett, in their contributions. I was of course pleased to see the rollout in April of the first 750 schools providing free breakfasts for almost 200,000 pupils, but some schools have either not put themselves forward to participate or, in a few cases, have even withdrawn, citing financial reasons.

We all want the breakfast club provisions to be in place the length and breadth of the country, and eventually that will happen. I hope my noble friend the Minister will have something to say on the question of schools having their costs covered to ensure that the rollout can be completed as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 175, 190 and 194. The recent Food, Diet and Obesity Committee special inquiry, very ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was a wake-up call for all of us who served on it. We were shocked by the evidence from parents, campaigners, academics and others about the quality of food in schools. Our recommendations were powerful but are, sadly, unimplemented to date. However, there were bright spots, including Chefs in Schools, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which showed how good food can be delivered at very little extra cost.

The Government’s announcement that they want a major shift to prevention in healthcare is welcome, but they need to follow through with children’s nutrition if they are serious about that. Frontier Economics has estimated that overweight and obesity costs the UK economy £98 billion every year. Much of that is due to increased spending on the NHS—money that is then denied to other departments.

We have an obesity crisis—especially childhood obesity—in the UK. One in five children is already overweight or obese when they start primary school. That rises to one in four among the most deprived 20% of the population, who are most likely to be receiving free school meals. We also have increasing rates of tooth decay in children, and type 2 diabetes. Before 2000, it was unheard of for children to get type 2 diabetes. Many of the poorest children require a strong nutritional safety net to ensure that they are well fed and well nourished as they grow.

Amendment 175 relates to the holiday activities and food programme. The introduction of that programme was a proud achievement of the previous Government. It does what it says on the tin, providing activities and meals to children on low incomes during the summer holidays at a time when they are not able to access free school meals, which many rely on. However, unlike free school meals, the scheme has no basis in legislation; this amendment would change that.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, a substantial number of teenage looked-after children are accommodated in adult homes and hostels. They should not be. I beg to move.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

The noble Lord was too quick for all of us. I want to speak on the same subject as he did, that of unregistered accommodation— I have been caught unawares and have the wrong notes in front of me.

I felt it was appropriate to make this point in Amendment 144, in my name, because it really is nothing short of a scandal that some of the most vulnerable children are regularly placed in illegal, unregistered children’s homes. These settings have the least amount of scrutiny, and as a result, children are at increased risk of harm.

Children living in registered children’s homes benefit from the safeguards that regulation brings. Ofsted inspects registered homes at least once a year, and an independent person must visit these homes every month. They check the running of the home and assess whether children are being kept safe—as absolutely anybody would have a right to expect. But children living in unregistered children’s homes do not have these safety nets. There is also no process for assessing the quality of their care or the suitability of the adults providing that care. As my noble friend the Minister said in summing up on the last group of amendments, unregistered means no inspections. Surely this is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.

Children aged 16 to 17 in residential care are treated very differently from their slightly younger peers. In 2021, the previous Government introduced provisions through secondary legislation to prohibit unregulated accommodation for children in care aged 15 or under, but not for those aged 16 or 17. Two years later, the previous Government introduced what they deemed appropriate standards for supported accommodation for children in care and care leavers. These statutory instruments legitimised, and therefore to some extent encouraged, the increasingly shameful practice of placing children in unregulated, unsafe hostels, bed and breakfasts, shared homes, and even, in some cases, caravan parks. All those settings leave them without the support they need and leave them vulnerable to habitual criminals, drug gangs and sexual exploitation—an issue which we have heard all too much about in the last two days.

The changes that followed in 2023 to supported accommodation for 16 and 17 year-olds included no requirement to provide these children in care with any care at all. It is important to remember that, legally, they are still children, up to the age of 18. How many parents would be unconcerned at their own 16 or 17 year-olds leaving home, never mind moving to such totally unsuitable accommodation?

It is appropriate to ask why there should even exist such places as unregistered children’s homes. Unregistered means unregulated, and in such homes there is no requirement for qualified staff or managers to be trained, or even present in the accommodation, and, crucially, no requirement for independent monthly monitoring of the accommodation, as happens with registered homes.

The latest available statistics, from March 2024, show that up to 50% of 16 and 17 year-olds who are in care in England—upwards of 800,000—were living in what might we describe as “care-less”, often bleak accommodation. I was one of many noble Lords who argued against this lack of care for 16 and 17 year-olds when the changes that I referred to were introduced in 2021. Tellingly, one of the recommendations of the MacAlister report was bringing to an end the use of unregistered homes. It has not happened. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who was the Minister responsible at the time, can say why she regarded such accommodation for 16 and 17 year-olds as appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 119 would provide further opportunities for looked-after children, or those on the edge of care, to have access to boarding school places where appropriate. The principles of this amendment are the same as those of my Amendment 82, on children in or going into kinship care, except that the financial benefits may be stronger for non-kinship care. For example, kinship carers who care for children under special guardianship orders or child arrangement orders are not automatically entitled to the same financial support as foster carers. I do not want to repeat word for word everything I said on Amendment 82—both the Ministers present were in their places at the time—but I will give a brief summary.

Noble Lords participating in this Bill know the huge task that confronts carers when taking on children who are more often than not from broken homes and carrying the emotional scars of the unhappiness that has emanated from this breakdown. This is why I am keen to give so much more oxygen to the prospect of offering boarding school places to children in or on the edge of care. I gave the example of the report carried out by the Norfolk local authority in conjunction with the DfE when I was the Minister responsible for this area. I will not repeat everything that was said, but one of the most important pieces of data was that, of the 52 children who were tracked during the three or so years over which this study was carried out, 33 came off the at-risk register. That is the most tremendous result, and I suspect there are not many other examples of particular types of care delivering such a significant improvement in the welfare of those children.

There are two other advantages, one of which is financial. The costs are substantially lower than that of the foster care or care home route. Also, the educational outcomes in this study were better for the children than the national figures. This is one of those rare moments when a policy can deal with three problems at once and not cost any more money. Therefore, I am very hopeful that the Government will consider the amendment.

We heard on Amendment 82 the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in Liverpool. A tremendous amount of the noble Lord’s career has been spent in education. I am very keen to bring cross-party support to this, so I was very encouraged that he was supportive.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Regarding cross-party support, I am willing to indicate support, but I want to clarify a point the noble Lord makes in his amendment about a boarding school place

“in a state secondary school in their local authority area”.

Can he tell us that such schools exist in every local authority area? If they do not, how would this be put into practice?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, there are around 35 state boarding schools in the country, but there are also a number of private boarding schools that are ready to provide support, which is why I mentioned the Royal SpringBoard scholarships and bursaries that are available. I completely accept the noble Lord’s point—that people need to be kept, wherever possible, near their homes—but we need flexibility. We must not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If there is a good boarding school place that is reasonably accessible to the child’s home, but more importantly to the foster carer or kinship carer, then that is what matters. But I take onboard what the noble Lord said.

In her summing-up of Amendment 82, the Minister spoke about stability of setting, and she was very right. The Norfolk study showed that there was a very strong correlation between improvements in those children’s well-being and the length of tenure. The study showed that three years of continuity made a tremendous difference. I hope the Minister will consider this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, what the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has just said is entirely sensible, and, if I may, I add my voice to it.

I did not know about this group of children. It seems wrong in principle that they should not be treated in exactly the same way as all other children in this particularly vulnerable group. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, pointed out, they are quite obviously the most vulnerable of all the children. I declare my interest as patron of the Atkinson unit in Exeter, which is secure accommodation.

What I am really standing up for on this is not only to understand and support in principle what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is saying but to express some concerns. I will just take, as an example, Amendment 120. If this child under the age of 13—and that is a very sad circumstance to have a child under 13—is under an order of the court, the Secretary of State would not be able to deal with it further than suggesting that the court order should be reversed. It is important that, when looking at these amendments, one has to bear in mind that it appears that deprivation of liberty may be able to be made without the introduction of the court. In so far as the court is concerned, I remind the Committee, as a former lawyer and judge, that neither the Home Office, the Department for Education nor any other government department can actually change the law of England other than through the parliamentary process. I have no doubt at all that the Minister knows that perfectly well, but it seems to me we have to be a little careful about the extent of the suggested use of these amendments.

I entirely understand what is intended, and it is entirely laudable, but we just need to be very careful as regards in what circumstances and whether there will be a court order. My recollection is that, in the past, Section 25 orders were also made in the family proceedings court. Not a word has been said about that now, and it may be that that does not happen any longer, but certainly there continue to be orders under the inherent jurisdiction, so I just make that warning to your Lordships.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords often say in this Chamber that it is a pleasure to follow whichever noble Lord or noble Baroness. I cannot say it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, because, given the depth and detail of what she says and the experience she brings as a former judge—and she always speaks without a note—it is not a pleasure but humbling to be given the role of speaking in her wake, as it were. She is, as ever, extremely impressive and adds so much to our debates.

I want to speak to Amendment 506B in my name, on the use of accommodation for deprivation of liberty. When a child is in a secure setting, there is a robust framework for reviewing the suitability of arrangements for deprivation of liberty, including through the appointment of independent persons. Where deprivation of liberty orders are used in other accommodation arrangements, the same safeguards may simply not be there. So there need to be additional safeguards, including, as recommended by the Children’s Commissioner, a record in the looked-after child census, including the type of setting and the length of and reasons for restrictions placed. Also, wherever possible, independent advocacy should be provided for all children where a deprivation of liberty order is being considered or is in place.

Clause 11 provides a statutory framework for children to be deprived of their liberty in accommodation other than a secure children’s home through amending Section 25 of the Children Act 1989. The intention is for there to be parity with secure children’s homes in terms of access to legal aid. But the current position for parents and anyone with parental responsibility in these cases is that they are entitled only to means-tested legal aid. Such means tests are very restrictive; research by the Law Society has demonstrated that even those living in poverty can fail the financial eligibility test for legal aid.

Many parents are therefore left to navigate these complex legal proceedings on their own. The result of these court hearings is significant for children because it could lead to a child being put into a placement that is many miles away from their home environment and their local network of support—mirroring the arguments that we heard in the last group of amendments. Additionally, deprivation of liberty orders are increasingly being used to place children in unregistered accommodation —I will not go there again—due to the lack of secure children’s home places.

According to figures published by the Family Court Statistics Quarterly, there were 1,280 applications to the High Court for deprivation of liberty orders for children in 2024, of which 132 were for children 12 years of age and under. That total figure represents a 120% increase since 2020-21 figures, which themselves reflected a fourfold increase since 2017-18—again, according to the Law Society. By way of comparison, there were 261 applications for secure accommodation for children in 2024.

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, mentioned the Nuffield Foundation; the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory found that almost 90% of parents and carers were not legally represented at any hearings in applications made under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction for deprivation of liberty orders. For an event of such importance to those families involved, that is surely a worryingly high figure and is just unacceptable.

It is surely a basic human right for no child to be deprived of their liberty, particularly into an unregistered placement, without their parents having access to legal advice and representation. There should always be access to non-means tested legal aid for parents and carers in these cases, and Amendment 506B would provide for that.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I speak as someone who has had to make these orders, and in doing so I recognise that these amendments are of great importance, shining light on the deprivation of liberty jurisdiction which has persisted in England and Wales for perhaps too long. In an article in the Observer just a year ago, there was trenchant criticism from the former President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby. He wrote:

“When a system is routinely locking up vulnerable children in highly inappropriate settings because they are too difficult to look after, something is clearly going very, very wrong”.


He described this as a

“moral failure – by the state and by society”.

As has been explained, the existing statutory provision for secure accommodation orders made under Section 25 of the Children Act now covers only a few of those with complex needs and those requiring accommodation because they have to be protected from exploitation or present a risk to others. That is because “secure accommodation” is a term which describes only registered children’s homes specifically approved by the Secretary of State, of which, as we have heard, there are only a limited and increasingly insufficient number available.

With the severe shortage of places and the rising need for accommodation for those whose welfare requires some restriction of liberty, that need has had to be met by applications to the High Court for authorisation under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. As places cannot be found in suitable registered homes which are Section 25 compliant, the High Court then has to consider whether an unregistered placement is in the child’s best interests. All too often, the local authority, the child’s guardian in the proceedings and the court have to struggle when considering what is available. The court is faced usually with a short-term crisis, planned for in the short term, and limited services available, and is battling to keep the child safe. In doing so, one is usually presented with only one unsatisfactory option. As the MacAlister report put it,

“Courts do not take such decisions lightly. Deprivation of liberty orders are often made following a nationwide search for homes, and often after the child has experienced multiple home breakdowns … the harrowing circumstances set out in these High Court judgements are a window into the dysfunction of the care system”.


In practice, if a DoLS is justified, the court has to look at the distance from home, the adequacy of education provision, if any, the adequacy of staffing and the nature and level of any workable restrictions required.

I take one slight issue with something the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said. In my experience, children do participate, at least in some hearings. They sometimes attend in person, but, as we all know, they are often placed far too far away—certainly from the court dealing with it—and sometimes they attend remotely. In my experience, one hears children who are depressed, agitated, traumatised and often very worried. In those circumstances, the court is looking not for what is best but for what is available and what is least worst, trying to keep that child safe.

The shortage of provision and the resultant use of deprivation of liberty authorisations have been known about for a long time and have been the subject of strong criticism from the higher judiciary, which has seen what was meant to be only a last resort become the norm, described by the Supreme Court as an “imperfect stopgap”. The judiciary has felt dismayed that its concerns appeared to be unheeded by Governments and Parliament. It has also been concerned that the courts were having to do what the state really should have been doing without recourse to the court in most cases.

The scale of the problem has been repeatedly highlighted by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, whose excellent work has been referred to during this debate, but also by others, including the BBC and responsible journalists elsewhere. I recognise that Clause 11 creates a new statutory regime and the concept of relevant accommodation, extending the places in which children can be confined. Much of what I have heard from Ministers on the Government Front Bench today has been very reassuring, and a recognition that the Government are getting to grips. Of course, it remains to be seen whether what can be achieved will be a sufficient response to the difficulties created by these orders, and to the independent review’s call for more flexible and innovative types of provision of care for children.

I support the amendments to improve what the Bill intends to achieve, in particular Amendment 124, which would require it to be stated that a deprivation of liberty has to be a last resort. Amendments 120A and 127 expressly provide for education and for therapy. Amendment 123 provides for regular reviews—not by the court, which is what happens at the moment, but by the authorities responsible for that deprivation of liberty. There is much to be said also for Amendment 132 on the involvement of the independent reviewing officer. I will also support Amendment 506B, providing for the availability of legal aid.

I questioned what in reality Amendment 122 would achieve, simply because we are where we are because of the severe shortage of registered children’s homes, of which there were 29 in 2002 and there are now only 13, which has, of course, forced reliance on unregistered placements that are often expensive. I think the answer to my question is that the expectation is that there will be improved registration of homes and an extension of the availability of homes to address what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, called the underlying need to increase capacity.

Finally, in respect of government Amendment 128, I ask what this will all mean for cross-border placements. There are awful stories of children from Devon and Cornwall having to be placed in Scotland.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

84: Clause 7, page 12, line 8, after “support” insert “and staying put support”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this group of amendments, half of which are in my name. Before I go on to them, I will say a word about yesterday’s spending review. I apologise that I could not be here for my noble friend Lord Livermore’s session, just before we started the Bill.

There was significant spend announced yesterday on wider children’s social care. The review stated:

“This settlement will improve support for England’s most vulnerable children and young people by setting aside £555 million over the SR period from the Transformation Fund for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government … and DfE, as well as total capital investment of over £560 million to reform the children’s social care system and support the refurbishment and expansion of the children’s homes estate. This will help more children and families stay safely together, expand support for care leavers and fix the broken care market”.


It obviously remains to be seen how that will shake down, but I think it is a very promising start and a real indication of how seriously the Government view the current situation as far as the children’s social care sector is concerned.

In its present form, the Bill extends Staying Close support only to young people up to the age of 25—that is for any relevant child in residential care—but not Staying Put support for those former relevant children who are living in foster care. The increased support that the Bill provides for care leavers is welcome, but it risks creating a two-tier system for care leavers in residential and foster care. More needs to be done for young people in foster care who want to remain with their foster family beyond the age of 21. The amendments in my name in this group seek to extend entitlement up to the age of 25, with proper funding. I suggest that the figures I have just quoted would be a suitable source for at least part of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, both of whom spoke forcefully in support of the amendments—which may not be surprising, since they added their names to them, for which I also thank them. I say in passing to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the point she raised about 16 and 17 year-olds living in unregistered accommodation, that there will be an opportunity to debate that in group 8 today, if we get that far.

I also thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply, although, of course, it is disappointing. I noticed a nuanced difference in her response—if she will forgive me, it could probably be described in three words, “We’re staying put”, which is effectively what she said—whereas her opposite number in the other place said that the Government were not in favour of extending Staying Put because they wanted to concentrate on young people in residential care, who, she said, had the most complex needs. My noble friend today said that the Government want to concentrate on filling the gaps in current provision. Neither is unimportant, but I think that, where there are gaps in current provision, yes, they can be filled, but that does not mean that there are no gaps in the provision beyond the age of 21 for young people Staying Put.

My noble friend said that, when people in foster care reach the age of 21 and leave for whatever reason, they will have Staying Close to fall back on in certain situations, and of course that is right. But, overall, we are dealing with a relatively small number of people who want to stay on in foster care beyond the age of 21. We are not talking about thousands and thousands, so the cost in additional resources required to do that is relatively modest. I have to come back to the point that I started off with, which is that there was a very positive statement yesterday in the spending review, which may offer the opportunity to deal with this as well, although of course there will be many competing demands.

As I said, it is disappointing. I request the opportunity of discussing this issue a little further with my ministerial colleagues before Report, but I again thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 84 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

105: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Register of foster carers(1) The Secretary of State must introduce a register of local authority foster parents and independent foster parents who are—(a) currently fostering children, or(b) available to foster children.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “local authority foster parent” is defined in accordance with section 105 of the Children Act 1989.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a register of foster carers. The intention is that having such a register, as exists for social workers, would improve the safeguarding of children, and matching and sufficiency of placements, and improve the status of foster carers.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, introducing a national register for foster carers would produce many benefits. Overall, it would enhance their status. One resulting effect would be to attract more volunteers, thus beginning to reduce the shortage of foster carers across England, which currently stands at around 5,000. That in turn would improve the matching process by which children in care are placed with foster families, and increase the portability of foster carers. All those benefits would raise the level of safeguarding of children in the care system.

Last year the Commons Education Committee inquiry into children’s social care recommended that the creation of a national register of foster carers should be considered by the then Minister for Children. The inquiry was interrupted by the general election, but the new committee has reactivated it and is still considering these issues. It has been reported that the Government are considering the merits of a national register, which would certainly be appropriate because both the Scottish and Welsh Governments are consulting on the creation of such a register. Perhaps my noble friend can clarify the current thinking on this.

A register would safeguard children by keeping a central record of foster carers who have had their approval terminated for safeguarding reasons, ensuring that they are not reapproved by another service and then able to care for another child. Currently, services cannot always know this, particularly if potential foster carers are transferring between independents and local authority services. The introduction of a register would go hand in hand with an accredited pre-approval and post-approval training framework and robust national standards of practice, improving the overall quality of care for children.

The number of children in care in England who are moved outwith their local authority area is an issue that we have heard mentioned by noble Lords in several of the debates today. It increased from 41% in 2020 to 45% last year. A register would allow services to make matches more quickly at a local level, which would ultimately reduce out-of-area placements. That could be done by the new regional care co-operatives, which we are going to debate in the seventh group today and which will lead on regional placement commissioning, for which the Bill already makes provision. With a register in place, local authority fostering services could be given access to information on the number of fostering households with vacancies for children in their local area, including those with independent fostering providers, as well as in neighbouring local authorities.

This amendment would require the Government to establish a national register for foster carers. Linked to the regional care co-operatives, that would help to better safeguard children and, as I have said, improve the status of foster carers through formal recognition of their role, allowing services to match children to foster care placements more quickly at the local level.

I hope my noble friend will acknowledge that the register would bring the beneficial outcomes that I have outlined and overall assist in making a significant dent in that shortfall of foster carers, which results in too many young people being denied the option of improving their life chances by being able to find a loving foster family to embrace and nurture them. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 143 seeks to promote the idea of a national foster care strategy. I declare an interest in that a very long time ago my wife and I were registered as foster parents in the London Borough of Lambeth—nothing on the heroic scale of the Timpson family, of whom we heard earlier. It principally involved looking after the children of a single mother while she went into hospital to have her baby; somebody needed to look after her children before she was discharged. The regime in those days was much more relaxed than it is today.

Since then, the relatively informal system has evolved into a much more structured and regulated part of the child welfare system, particularly following the Children Act 1989. There is now a much stronger emphasis on the physical and psychological stability of a child, and more awareness of the risks of inappropriate placements.

I turn to the amendment. Most children grow up in their own home with two parents, one parent, or a parent and a partner, and most of the challenges that confront a family can be met within the normal support mechanism of families, friends, the local authority and heroic voluntary organisations. But at times children have to be taken into care by the local authority. In March 2024 there were 83,630 children in care in England, up from 80,000 in 2020. For those children, there is a range of options: for a very few it will be adoption, but for most it will be kinship care, fostering or children’s homes, and we had a good debate about kinship care and the role of local authorities as a constant theme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that comprehensive response and I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. One thing that has always struck me about your Lordships’ House is the vast experience, on all sides, that often emerges in debates. On this group this evening, we have had two further examples of personal experience from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. Such experience always informs the debate and gives it a depth and breadth that, certainly when I have been in other legislatures, has not always been the case, and it is very valuable.

I heard what my noble friend said in her response about the proposal for a national foster care strategy. One of the strong points of Amendment 143 from the noble Lord, Lord Young—which would have had my name attached to it, incidentally, had it not already had three names when I went to add mine—is subsection (2), from memory, which refers to how we can improve the quality of foster care. That seems self-evident and I am sure the Government are doing it anyway, or trying to do it anyway, but it seems to me that it is important that, however well we are doing, we are not doing well enough, given the figures that have been quoted, not least the number of foster carers coming forward and the high rejection rate, to which the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred, which is astounding—I had not heard that before. There must be some reason for that, which we could surely turn around to get to the 5,000 shortfall, if that is what we have across the country.

On the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about what Napoleon said about the need for a strategy, whatever the Government are doing on this and in the broader children’s social care field, it is important that there is a strategy, whether or not it is written down. I do not know whether Napoleon had strategies throughout his lengthy career—which mostly went pretty well until it ended at what I might say is a London mainline railway station—but I still think it is important to have a strategy underpinning what we are doing.

I have gone on long enough. On my amendment proposing a register of foster carers, I was very encouraged by what my noble friend said—although she did chuck a couple of pebbles into the pond by saying there could be an increase in bureaucracy. There has to be an effective bureaucracy, because we are not bringing enough foster carers into the system; I do not necessarily think that is bureaucracy, because there has to be whatever it takes to ensure that we enrol more people.

As far as national versus local is concerned, I think that the two sit very neatly together: we would have a national strategy, and locally you would make sure that you draw in the people in the areas where they are most needed. I do not see them as mutually exclusive. I am encouraged by what my noble friend said, and I look forward to developments in the near future. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 105 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I should declare an interest: I am a governor of Coram and a trustee of the Foundling Museum. Particularly with my Coram hat on, I think the story of adoption and how it has been viewed, treated and financed over the last 10 years has been a bit of a rollercoaster. The children who are waiting to be adopted, and the families who have been extraordinary enough to adopt, do not deserve to be on a rollercoaster; they deserve to have as smooth progress as possible to enable them to be as effective as adoptive parents as they can be, to give those children the life they deserve and to enable new adoptive parents to take on these children, many of whom have experienced trauma and many of whom are in sibling groups. I salute those who take that on, but it behoves us and our Government to make that as straightforward as possible.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Russell. I will speak to Amendment 145 in my name. To be honest, I am pleasantly surprised that the Public Bill Office accepted the amendments in this group as being within scope, because the Bill seems to studiously avoid adoption. A search that I carried out revealed that the word “adoption” appears only four times in the Bill’s 137 pages, and three of them are as part of other legislation that is referred to.

That is disappointing because the Bill offers an opportunity to improve outcomes for adopted children, some of whom are among the most vulnerable in society, alongside measures for children in kinship care and foster care and care leavers. That is a package, or a jigsaw, all of whose parts interact, and, frankly, I do not understand why one part is virtually absent. There is overwhelming evidence that adoptees are not currently getting the support they need to provide them with an equal chance to thrive, and that is unfortunate. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell said, it is a relatively small number in the greater scheme of things, but I still do not see why adoptive families are not given the credit they deserve for the important job that they do.

The review mentioned in my amendment would consider the adequacy and effectiveness of adoption support and highlight current gaps in the system. Every year, around 4,000 children in the UK are placed in adoptive families, and government data shows that around 80% of adopted children in England last year will have suffered abuse, neglect or violence before adoption. Before being adopted, children spend an average of 15 months in care, often moving through several foster families, and many lose everything that is familiar to them along the way because of that process. Meanwhile, adoption gives children a chance to build some stability as part of a loving, safe and nurturing home. Evidence is quite clear that outcomes are better for children who are adopted than for those who grow up in residential care. The early trauma that they suffer may well be with them for the rest of their lives, and they need the support that can be provided via adoptive families.

Currently, there is a duty under the Adoption Support Services Regulations for a local authority to provide adoption services and to provide information. Often, adoptive families point out that there is a failure to provide information about the support that is available. Individual agencies, on behalf of the local authority, typically give information on their websites about the support they offer, but it does not always work out that way in practice. The support and information vary, and it has to be said that cuts to local authority budgets over the years of Tory Governments have resulted in reduced support for adoptive families, because local authorities are simply not able to provide what they want to provide.

The Adoption Support Services Regulations require updating so that they reflect the changes that have taken place in adoption over the last two decades. They have not been updated since 2005. That includes the regionalisation of adoption agencies in England. The charity Adoption UK has produced evidence that out-of-date regulations can, and in many cases do, impact on family court proceedings, and thus potentially on the time it takes for an adoption order to be made.

The agencies themselves are not Ofsted inspected, meaning there is a lack of accountability and consistency in the system. The thematic inspection of a handful of regional adoption agencies carried out by Ofsted in late 2023 highlighted some of the challenges for those agencies and partner local authorities in achieving the services that adoptees and their families require. The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, will be aware of that; I do not know whether she wants to contribute to this debate, but she will be aware of the outcome of those inspections.

Adoption UK’s meticulously gathered evidence has consistently shown that there are gaps in support. Its adoption barometer survey, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to, reveals that the proportion of adoptive families who said they are facing severe challenges or reaching crisis point is up from 30% in 2020 to 38% in 2023.

I was going to say something about the adoption special guardianship support fund and the other amendments. I am not going to do that now, as other noble Lords have covered that perfectly adequately.

Without effective support services, adopted children are at a higher risk of returning to the care system, with a lack of ongoing support leading to placements too often breaking down. The impact of such breakdowns on the cost to the Treasury is fairly obvious. I do not think it is right that adoption should be pushed to the margins in this way, when adoptive families play such a vital role. I come back to the point I started on: it is a bit of a mystery to me why adoption is not much more prominent in this Bill.

The review that I am advocating in this amendment would consider whether the services provided by the adoption agencies and the existing regulations and guidance covering adoption are fit for purpose. I do not expect this review to be in the Bill, but I would like to think that my noble friend will consider carrying it out as an initiative of the department. As I think everyone accepts, there are gaps in the provision that need to be filled.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, briefly, I support what the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Watson, have said, on the basis of my experience as an adoption judge.

First, in respect of what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said about the variability—as it has now emerged—of regional adoption agencies, I suggest that that is something the Government should be reviewing carefully. Secondly, I want to emphasise the point he made about the sheer awfulness of disrupted and failed adoptions, particularly in cases where so many hopes have been pinned on the adoption and so much trouble has apparently been made in preparing the child and the adopters.

Education (Assemblies) Bill [HL]

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, on her success in bringing the Bill forward to Second Reading. In doing so, I commend her tenacity because I well remember her first attempt at this legislation just over three years ago. I can only wish her more success on this occasion. In preparation for this debate, I dug out the Hansard for that debate, which was in September 2021, and I noted that the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Meacher, also spoke on that day, so there is an element of déjà vu for some of us in your Lordships’ House this afternoon.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, before she departs, that I salute her indefatigability in that she is speaking in three of today’s debates. That is quite remarkable, and I only hope that she had an energy drink with her breakfast. I look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme. As a former Education Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, he will speak with some authority.

The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, again introduced her Bill with conviction, and in doing so highlighted the many issues that surround the requirement for collective worship in England. As she said, the UK is the only western democracy with legal requirements for religious worship in schools, and that must be broadly Christian in those without a religious character. I think that is clearly inappropriate in a country where the 2021 census showed for the first time that Christians are now a minority, and where the population are less religious and more diverse than ever before. I see that as a strength of our democracy and a development that should be embraced, and I believe the legislation should be modernised accordingly.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly called for the repeal of legislation concerning collective worship in schools, describing it as incompatible with children’s freedom of religion or belief. With the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill due in your Lordships’ House shortly, perhaps there might be an opportunity to use it as a vehicle that brings about change.

The law as it stands is, I have to say, widely ignored. A 2022 survey of more than 7,500 teachers recorded 66% as saying that their school did not hold collective worship. This included not just 79% of teachers at schools without a religious character but, remarkably in some respects, 11% of those teaching in faith schools. An investigation by Schools Week last year revealed that in place of an act of Christian worship, some schools now teach pupils about looking after the planet and mindfulness instead. Other schools are replacing Christian worship with multifaith assemblies. There was a time when Ofsted was required to note non-compliance, but it ceased inspecting collective worship some 20 years ago after three-quarters of schools were found to be non-compliant, so the law certainly needs updating to reflect current social trends. The existing guidance on collective worship dates from 1994, in spite of several changes to primary legislation since then, consolidation in the Education Act 1996 and reconsolidation in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. So even if, as I suspect, my noble friend the Minister will say that the new Government have no plans to amend the current requirement for collective worship in schools, at least the guidance relating to the legislation is surely due an update after more than a quarter of a century.

My research for this debate uncovered a Question on collective worship in schools submitted by a Conservative. He asked HMG

“what action they intend to take in respect of the 70 per cent of secondary schools that do not comply fully with the requirement to have a specific daily act of worship”.

The reply he received was:

“The department relies on the OFSTED inspection cycle to identify where failure to fully meet statutory requirements is a key issue, and arrangements are in place within that inspection cycle to revisit those key issues on post inspection plans. Schools which have difficulty in meeting their statutory requirements should seek advice from their local Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education”.—[Official Report, 11/10/1999; col. WA 70.]


That question was asked in October 1999 by the former Secretary of State for Education, now the noble Lord, Lord Patten. It was answered by the then Education Minister, my noble friend Lady Blackstone. Not much has changed in 25 years, but I believe it should. Assemblies are important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, to strengthen the school community and teach children morals. That is a good reason to make school assemblies inclusive for all, with no religious worship. Replacing collective worship will reform and revitalise school assemblies. This, I believe, will enhance pupils’ freedom of religion or belief while enabling schools to foster a shared sense of belonging.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, this is a Bill whose time has come. I agree, and I wish it well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, on securing a Second Reading for her Bill, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. As we have heard this morning, when the Bill was considered in 2021, it did not pass through the Commons due to lack of time. But, at that time, the Conservative Government were unable to support it, and I am afraid—I guess this will not surprise the noble Baroness—our position has not changed. I will briefly outline my concerns, some of which were much more eloquently represented by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme.

The first point, which other noble Lords have made, is that collective worship is important and gives children in school a time to learn and to reflect but to do that with a sense of community, and religion allows children to learn some of the essential values of life. Many of the topics that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, cited as possible topics for secular collective worship are part of Christianity and often already form part of the collective worship that happens in our schools every day. As the House is aware, there are already curriculum requirements for the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education of pupils through the PSHE curriculum. As we know, the Government have asked Professor Becky Francis to lead a review of the curriculum and make an assessment, and I am sure that if any changes are required she will bring them to the Government’s attention.

As the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, both pointed out, the existing legislation is flexible, and I feel that it is unjust to describe it as an imposition or a coercion of children or their parents. As noble Lords know, it is already possible for children or indeed whole schools to be exempted from this practice. Therefore, we believe that this legislation is unnecessary. That of course includes schools where the principal religion is not Christianity.

I was interested to hear the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Weir, about removing parents’ right to remove their children if they were unhappy with a new collective worship or reflection—I am not sure what we would call it, but collective assembly—and the risk that it would exclude important commemorations. Obviously, we accept that social attitudes are changing, but one can also then make the argument that it is more important than ever that we have some common core that children understand and learn from, because they are unlikely to learn it elsewhere in modern society, other than possibly at home. The Judeo-Christian principles, which I am sure we could have many good debates about, underpin our culture and have withstood the test of time. We unravel at our peril that understanding and shared sense of who we are as a community, and the commonality across religions of some of those principles.

I was struck by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, very cunningly—in a good way—finding a Question from 25 years ago. I wonder whether he agrees with me that the question might be the same, but I do not think what we would see in the classroom or school hall would be the same. That is an important point in all this. Our teachers are absolutely aware of how our society is changing; they are aware of the diversity in their communities, and they have the skill and sensitivity to make sure that it is translated every morning to the collective worship—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Just in response to the noble Baroness, I understand what she is saying about teachers reflecting the current situation in classroom. That is why I support the Bill—because things have moved on from the time of that 1999 Question to which I referred. To some extent, that is the whole point of the Bill; that was then and this is now.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I think that equally plays into the argument that the Bill is not needed. If our system is naturally evolving with a strong core, the argument is made for the Bill being unnecessary. As I listened to some of the moral questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the right reverend Prelate posed, I thought that in some way many of those moral questions are exactly the same. We are achieving that in a gradual and evolutionary way in responding to those issues in our schools. Therefore, while I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the Bill to the House, I am afraid I cannot support it.

School Accountability and Intervention

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The quality of the inspections that Ofsted carries out is important, as is the capacity and training of Ofsted inspectors to provide that. That, of course, is the responsibility of the chief inspector and the structures in Ofsted, but I am sure that everybody takes the noble Viscount’s point that there needs to be quality in those who are inspecting our schools, as well as the expected quality in those who are directly delivering education.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Further to the comments by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Berridge, about the need for forced academisation, does my noble friend agree that there is no evidence that the only help available to an underperforming school is for it to become an academy? Support is available in the maintained sector—an issue we will come to in more detail when the schools Bill is developed—but it is a fallacy to suggest that that is the only hope for underperforming schools.

It is appropriate that the two consultations published this week were published on the same day, and that the consultation periods ended on the same date. However, I am a bit concerned about the Ofsted proposals. I know that the report is based on the Big Listen, but as I understand it, some aspects of it are already being trialled in certain schools. Does it not bring into question just how accurate it is to describe the document as a consultation, if, as it seems, some people have made decisions already?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I can assure my noble friend that, in both cases, they are genuine consultations. The objective of ensuring that all our children are in good schools is shared not just across this House but by parents, teachers, inspectors, school leaders and many others involved in the education sector, and that is why I can assure my noble friend that this is a genuine consultation. Here, trialling can sometimes be part of the consultation, to determine whether things are running successfully. Personally, I think it is possible to trial and pilot, and to consult, to get the broadest input into ensuring that the right decisions are made after that.

Children and Young People: Literacy

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the National Literacy Trust’s 2024 annual literacy survey showing that children and young people’s reading for enjoyment has fallen over the past year to an all-time low, and of the link between this and the fall in the number of secondary schools with a designated onsite library area.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, reading for pleasure is hugely important and has many benefits. The department has implemented a range of measures to support reading for enjoyment, including through the English hubs programme and the reading framework. Head teachers have the autonomy to decide how best to spend their core schools funding, including how best to provide a library service for their pupils. Given this autonomy, the department does not collect information on the number of secondary school libraries.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer but, notwithstanding it, reading levels among school age children have plummeted recently. That is not just because of the prominence of mobile phones, because comparable-aged children in comparable EU states have higher reading levels. I believe it is very much the case that the closure of school libraries has an important impact on that. While school leaders do indeed have the right to decide the best delivery of library services, as my noble friend said, for whatever reason it is not working. I suggest to my noble friend that, if figures are not collected on school librarians and libraries, they ought to be, and that school leaders need to be reminded of their role in encouraging reading for pleasure, to assist with children’s development and literacy and oracy skills.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I share my noble friend’s view about the importance and contribution of school libraries. Perhaps the additional core school funding being provided, or the quite particular advice that is now available in the reading framework—on things such as how to organise a school library, book corner or book stock to make reading accessible and attractive to readers—may well help to ensure that the opportunity is available for more children, as he rightly argues for.

Qualifications Reform Review

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that, when faced with a positive phalanx—I do not know what the collective noun is for former Education Ministers—it is probably wise to realise that there is some wisdom there. That has been demonstrated by the results of the review that we have undertaken.

I agree with the noble Lord that T-levels and A-levels would be an insufficient option on their own for all students. To reiterate, where T-levels exist in a route, they are the most appropriate large qualification. One of the other things that we have done is to remove the previously proposed rules of combination, which would have prevented colleges building appropriate courses for their students, in consultation with those students and others. That will provide more flexibility.

I will write to the noble Lord specifically about the cost of T-level placements, but it is right when introducing a new qualification that, as we have done, there is an uplift in revenue funding for T-level students, as well as some capital provision. Any new qualification will need a period of time to scale itself to a position where the normal level of revenue funding would be adequate to deliver it.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I too very much welcome the Government’s Statement. I say that on behalf of my noble friends Lord Blunkett, Lady Blower and Lord Knight, who, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, have been campaigning for some time, as my noble friend the Minister knows, to halt the process instigated by the previous Government, who were ditching in a reckless manner far too many other qualifications in favour of T-levels. I am glad to see that it is a Labour Government who have supported BTEC and AGQ students in a way that will not constrain the rollout of T-Levels but will open up more pathways for learners.

I found it rather ironic to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, say that this Statement has been broadly welcomed by the sector. That is not something that could have been said about the proposals she made when she was in government. This goes right back to the time of the skills Bill, as noble Lords on the opposite Benches will recall. We did think that we had had some assurances from the Minister, which subsequently did not materialise, to our considerable annoyance. Many of the applied general qualifications in BTECs, the ending of which was proposed, will now be extended. Those of us who have campaigned to defend rather than defund those qualifications will take some solace from that and welcome the actions of the Government.

The Government’s curriculum and assessment review, led by Becky Francis, is under way and will report shortly. Can my noble friend the Minister say a bit about the way in which the level 3 qualifications set out in the Statement will dovetail with the curriculum and assessment review next year?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. He is right that there is something very arresting for a new Member of the House of Lords and a returned Education Minister to attend a meeting with my noble friends Lord Blunkett, Lady Morris, Lady Blower and Lord Knight, all of whom are very expert in this area. I am glad that he thinks I at least listened and understood what they said to me.

My noble friend is right that of the qualifications that we started looking at, of which about 460 were due for defunding by 2026, about 200 had very low enrolments: 100 or fewer students. We have largely managed to remove those from the qualifications landscape. It is probably still the case that that landscape is overly complex for students to be able to work their way through, but we kept 157 of the qualifications that were previously proposed to be defunded.

On the point about the curriculum and assessment review, as I touched on earlier, that review has within its remit the consideration of the assessment routes for 16 to 19 year-olds, and—responding to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, which perhaps I did not address previously—a particular emphasis on ensuring that our curriculum and assessment routes enable everybody to succeed, including those who are disadvantaged and those with special educational needs and disabilities. For that reason, it will focus carefully on bringing forward recommendations about what the assessment route should look like for students post 16, and we will reflect on those and use them as the basis for further decisions about how to ensure that our qualifications for 16 to 19 year-olds are suitably rigorous, suitably accessible and provide appropriate choice for students.