Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to— (a) improve the safety and wellbeing of children;(b) improve the regulation of children’s homes, fostering agencies and other settings where looked after children are accommodated;(c) improve safety and standards and remove barriers to opportunity in schools in England and Wales;(d) make provision regarding children not in school.”

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 in my name seeks to clarify the purposes of the Bill. While the Government’s intentions, to improve children’s safety, well-being and education, have widespread support, I tabled this amendment because I believe there is currently an unbridgeable gap between these aims and several of the provisions within the Bill.

I must express profound concerns regarding both parts of the Bill. There is a troubling pattern throughout it of an unclear definition of the problem it seeks to solve, insufficient evidence for the proposed solutions, a lack of successful piloting to give us confidence these changes will achieve their intended outcomes, no clear implementation plan, insufficient resources to implement and important gaps in areas including children’s well-being, special educational needs and disabilities, smartphones, social media and more. So, our job across this House, as the scrutinising Chamber, is to do just that, and to ensure that the Bill leaves this House stronger and in a state where we can all feel confident that it will work in practice and not just on paper.

In recent weeks, I have spoken to a number of directors of children’s services and practitioners, who have all, unprompted, raised serious concerns about Part 1, particularly around the reforms to family help, children in need and child protection. The most alarming concerns came yesterday from Professor Eileen Munro, author of the 2011 review into child protection, who stated in a letter in the Times:

“The government's proposed reforms of children’s social care risk dismantling a system that has steadily improved, without clear evidence that the replacement will work. While the ambition to expand early help is welcome — indeed, my own review called for this — the plan lacks realism, rigour and a clear safety framework”.


She continued:

“These reforms radically restructure a complex system of professionals and safeguarding arrangements. Yet the Department for Education is altering or removing key processes without asking why they exist or how they interact with other checks and balances. What looks tidy on paper (neatly divided ‘pillars’ of reform) may create dangerous, unpredictable consequences in practice as they interact”.


These are concerns from one of the greatest experts on child protection in the country, and we should take them very seriously. Her letter closes with the hope that, as this Bill passes through your Lordships’ House,

“the government will use this opportunity to listen, pause and revise its plan”.

I hope that, when she responds, the Minister, who has great and much-respected experience in this area, will be able to offer some encouragement, in contrast to the tone of the Government’s response in the Times yesterday. As Professor Munro wrote yesterday:

“Reforms must strengthen child protection, not weaken it”.


So why are the professor and other senior leaders in the sector so worried? In simple terms, I believe it is because these early clauses have not been properly tested. Indeed, there are reports that the initial pathfinder sites are encountering significant implementation problems that need to be resolved before a wider rollout. Surely the Government should publish the evaluation first and then adapt their approach depending on what it shows. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm when that evaluation will be published.

Equally concerning is the inadequate funding to implement these extensive changes, particularly in relation to children’s social care. The £290 million allocated for one year falls dramatically short of the £2 billion-plus estimated by the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care as necessary to make early help effective. Without proper resources, we risk creating a system that cannot deliver on its promises.

More broadly, Part 1 is quietly unambitious. It fails to offer a vision of how to expand the reach of well- tested approaches, such as family group decision-making, or to present a convincing approach to grow capacity to support looked-after children in their communities and avoid unnecessary placements in children’s homes or, worse, in unregistered provision. I cannot overstate our collective responsibility, as a House, to address these issues thoroughly and carefully in the interests of those children. This is not a matter for party politics; we have a duty to get this right, or children will be harmed.

As was evident at Second Reading, there are also serious concerns about Part 2. The proposed changes to academy freedoms are both puzzling and troubling. Among the most egregious is the delay in introducing effective interventions for schools to be judged in special measures or inadequate, which was described by the Children’s Commissioner as something that will leave children

“spending longer in failing schools”.

The Bill removes trusts’ discretion to use their professional judgment regarding curriculum and teacher pay and conditions. The new power of the Secretary of State to intervene when they judge that a trust is likely to breach its funding agreement and direct the remedy. The Bill’s own impact assessment says that the limitations on pupil admission numbers will

“limit the ability of popular schools to grow”.

For decades, parents have voted with their feet when it comes to schools, and this will erode parental choice and drive down standards.

Regarding home education, the proposed register misses both ends of the spectrum. At one end, the scheme, as drafted, will not adequately protect the most vulnerable children. At the other, it is unnecessarily intrusive, requiring disproportionate detail from parents who pose minimal risk to their children. Most critically, it fails to address the needs of parents who never intended to home educate but feel they have no choice due to inadequate provision for their child with special educational needs. We will be putting forward amendments to address these shortcomings.

The Bill presents a critical opportunity to shape the next decade of school improvement in England. On these Benches, we would support an effort that builds on what has been learned from the academisation journey thus far. The first phase of academisation addressed entrenched underperformance in a small number of schools. The second phase saw some multi-academy trusts use their autonomy to innovate and raise standards. Now, we need to scale the best practice of the most effective trusts and the most effective local authority schools to deliver better outcomes for pupils, more opportunities for staff, greater choice for parents and a more resilient school system.

Surely, we need a system where the lowest performing trusts and local authorities feel the same level of oversight that is currently felt by the headteacher of an under- performing school. This means evaluating not just results but the value that responsible bodies add. Thought needs to be given where another body could improve outcomes for pupils to what the mechanisms might be that could facilitate that change so that autonomy and accountability are aligned and the interests of children are kept paramount.

There is a tremendous opportunity to bring forward measures in the Bill that will deliver for children, staff and parents. I hope the Minister will consider concerns expressed across the House, and indeed outside it, in the spirit in which they are offered and be open to amending the Bill to achieve much more. If we do not make these changes, or at least give them the chance for honest and detailed consideration, we face four unacceptable risks.

The first is we end up with a rather ineffective, overly bureaucratic regulatory regime for residential care and independent fostering agencies. The second is we get a set of rules in relation to home education that neither keep the vulnerable few safe nor respect the rights of the majority. But it is the most serious risks that need spelling out. In relation to our schools, we face at best stagnation and at worst a steady decline in standards. In relation to children’s social care, we face an increase in the number of children suffering avoidable harm. I know this is not what the Government, and particularly neither of the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench today, want to see happen—they do not want that anymore than the coalition Government wanted to create some of the problems we see today in relation to the SEN system when we passed the Children and Families Act. Introducing major structural reform, in this case in both children’s social care and schools, without proper preparation, evidence and funding is irresponsible and puts the cart before the horse at a time when we already have wholesale reform in our local authorities, integrated care boards, curriculum, inspection regime and more.

I absolutely commit to both Ministers to engage in the Bill in the most constructive spirit possible, and I hope that they feel the amendments in my name are practical and constructive. I also owe both of the Ministers my honesty in setting out the degree of concern, even though, standing here right now, warm words might feel easier to say. The stakes—the safety, well-being and the future of our children—could not be higher.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that, in outlining the purposes of the Bill, I have satisfied noble Lords that Amendment 1 is neither required nor, in fact, would achieve anything. The Bill does not need an amendment to clarify its purpose—that is clear from the content of the legislation and the accompanying documents. It is clear from the ambition and the action of this Government. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment so that we can progress to considering the detail of the Bill and the important amendments tabled by noble Lords.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this amendment. It feels curious that the Minister started her remarks by questioning my integrity in tabling the amendment, suggesting that it is a delaying tactic. I think I raised extremely serious concerns that are being put forward. She does not need to believe me, but I respectfully suggest that she should listen to those with the greatest expertise in this area. I said, and I commit to this again, that I will approach this Bill in absolute good faith and, particularly regarding Part 1, there should be nothing political in it. I hope we can build a bridge to make positive change in the Bill.

I would also just like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that we did not in any sense intend to overturn any of the powers held by the Senedd. I am sure, if the purpose clause had intended to remove the devolution of education powers in Wales, that would have deserved at least one bullet point in the amendment.

This debate was also a reminder of the expertise in this House. I would like to mention a few of the points that were made and invite the Government to think about drafting their own purpose clause if they do not like my drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, made a very important point about the need to focus on outcomes. If we do not know where we are going, we definitely will not get there. I know the Minister set out the aims, but very valid concerns were raised.

My noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham, echoed my concerns about the capacity to implement these changes at a time of significant other restructuring across local authorities—health and others. There were practical solutions with a real call for focus from the noble Lady, Baroness Cass, and she spoke of the important inclusion of public health in children’s well-being. There were also calls on where not to focus, including from my noble friend Lord Agnew. My noble friend Lord Lucas and others made the point about the helpfulness of some sort of public-facing language at the beginning of the Bill.

I say again that there are experts on both parts of the Bill who are flagging serious concerns. I do not question for one second the Government’s good intentions in this Bill; I question the ability to achieve that without some reflection. I was interested to learn that the evaluation of the pathfinders is due to be published in spring 2025. I guess we are on special government time, as we are in May.

As I close my remarks, I hope that the Government will adopt the constructive tone they have suggested they will as we get into individual amendments, and perhaps they will look again at Hansard to see some of the very valid points that would help us all achieve the goals of this Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

2: Clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert—
“(1) When a local authority starts formal child protection proceedings in relation to a child, the authority must offer a family group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the offer of a family group decision making meeting when formal child protection proceedings are initiated and / or when the child protection plan is failing to protect the child instead of before the local authority makes an application for a care and supervision order as the trigger for offering the meeting.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 2, 15, and 16, which concern the mandatory implementation of family group decision-making processes. While I broadly support the intention behind these provisions, there are several important issues which need to be considered carefully if we are to achieve the best outcomes for vulnerable children.

First, I will place this proposal in context. As the Minister knows, most local authorities already implement some form of family group conferencing—in old language—or “decision-making” processes in the Bill. That is set out in the statutory guidance to the Children Act 1989, which says that, where there are court orders and in pre-proceedings, children’s services should consider making a referral for a family group conference

“if they believe there is a possibility the child may not be able to remain with their parents … unless this would be a risk to the child”.

I want to understand why the Government think this needs to be mandatory, perhaps rather than other approaches. Is there a specific problem that the Government want to solve by doing that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I cannot answer that today, but I certainly undertake to write to noble Lords on that important point and that juxtaposition in relationship.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. It is a privilege to have the experience of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others around the House on this. In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on our drafting, I feel I need to make a general plea for noble Lords to listen to the intent of what we are trying to do rather than focus on the specific wording. We were not intending to change the spirit of the Bill on pre- proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We recognise that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is an important thread, but that does not necessarily mean that it can be used as a trump card on every future occasion, which I am sure my noble friend would not choose to do. I think I clearly said that the rights and voice of the child have to be absolutely at the heart not only of the Bill but of the way in which it is implemented throughout children’s social care.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I just wonder whether the Minister was referring to my Amendment 17, rather than my Amendment 19, in her response. She talked about not making an assumption that a child would need a child protection plan if they were going into kinship care, which is linked more to Amendment 17. Amendment 19 is about the plan not being dropped for a child under five who is already on a child protection plan and goes into care proceedings. I am very happy for her to pick that up in another group, if we are allowed, but I wonder whether there has been some confusion.