Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) A family group decision-making meeting must be offered by the relevant local authority when a family is going through private law proceedings.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to reduce the conflict in private law proceedings by offering a family group decision making meeting, allow other family members to support the child as well as to identify where there are significant safeguarding risks to the child/children. It seeks to strengthen the intention that mediation and reconciliation out of court are better for the child.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 4, 6 and 17, which are in my name. They present a more ambitious use of family group decision-making processes. I am keen to understand whether the Government have considered these at all and, if so, why on balance they were excluded from the Bill. If they have not considered them, perhaps there is room to reconsider. For many children, being able to live with another family member, even if they still require support, is a better outcome that going into stranger foster care or a children’s home. This group aims to test the Government’s appetite to expand the scope of family group decision-making further.

Amendment 4 would extend family group decision-making process to private law cases, which is something the noble Lord, Lord Meston, questioned in his earlier remarks. I think the Minister will be aware that this was raised as a recommendation in evidence in the Public Bill Committee in the other place by the chief executive of Cafcass. Two-thirds of Cafcass cases are private law proceedings. The Minister knows just how acrimonious these can be; indeed, we heard about that from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. That includes, of course, cases of domestic violence and abuse.

My amendment would move these cases into scope. I understand that this would extend the scope of family group decision-making significantly and there are resourcing implications, but I would like to understand the Government’s logic in using this approach with some cases with material safeguarding concerns but not others that share many of the same characteristics about the risks posed to children. We know that, tragically, a number of child deaths have happened after family proceedings rather than proceedings in public law or child protection.

I have not put down a specific amendment on this point, but, in a similar spirit, I wondered what consideration the Government have given to a situation where a Section 7 welfare report is requested by the court. As the Minister will know, a Section 7 report is a court-order document, prepared under Section 7 of the Children Act 1989, and is ordered when parents cannot agree on arrangements for their children’s care, usually only if there are any aspects of the children’s welfare that require further investigation. My question is: could this also be an area where family group decision-making might apply? If the Government have not considered these options, can the Minister, as a minimum, commit to considering them and working out the practical implications? This is exactly the kind of situation where the wider family could help but where the involvement of child protection professionals is needed.

I am optimistic—although my optimism might be waning—that the Minister might look favourably on my Amendment 6, because it makes so much sense for children. It addresses another current gap, when a child is reunited with their parents after a period of being in care. Reunification is the most common way for children to leave care, with 27% of those leaving care returning home in 2022-23. However, the number of children who then re-enter the care system is far too high, with 12% of those children re-entering within three months and more than a third within six years. Of course, we all want reunification to have the best chance of success. The statistics on those breakdowns are pretty stark, but the human cost for those children is far starker.

Finally, my Amendment 17, which I think the noble Baroness was starting to talk about on an earlier group—but maybe not—seeks to give a continuing role to the local authority in safeguarding a child in kinship care. With this amendment, I seek to probe what safeguards are in place around kinship care. So, if I have understood correctly, if the public law outline for care proceedings has started or the child has been made subject to a child protection plan—both of which would be the case when a family group decision-making process starts, as per this legislation—the significant harm threshold has been met. New carers may not be able to address all the risks that a child faces; they may well be the right place for that child to be, but they might need additional support.

For example, from my work prior to coming into your Lordships’ House, I know of a number of cases where a child’s parents coerced the kinship carer into allowing them to have unsupervised contact with their children—which we can all understand, on a human level, may be very hard to resist. I appreciate that this is a very delicate balance that needs to be struck, but this amendment aims to give the local authority the ability, where needed, to create something like a kinship protection plan, rather than a child protection plan, until it is confident that the arrangements are safe and in the child’s best interests, or until a child arrangement order or special guardianship order is made by the family court. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on these amendments, which would significantly improve the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, unusually, I entirely disagree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has put forward by way of an amendment. It is not just overambitious—in my view, it is plainly wrong, for two reasons.

Although there is—thank goodness—a minority of almost insoluble family cases, there are other ways in which to deal with mediation. Some of the work, although not all of them do, and I do not think that a local authority should interfere in private law cases. Perhaps more importantly, there is a brilliant system started by the then Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, and the present President of the Family Division; I think it is called Pathfinder, but I am not entirely sure. It has been rolled out in four places. When a family starts contentious divorce proceedings, all those involved with the family—the local authority specifically, Cafcass, the police, local health people and anybody else who may be involved with the family—meet to decide whether it is a domestic abuse case, in which case it goes through a longer channel, or a case in which the parties are behaving properly but cannot agree.

In the majority of cases, as the President of the Family Division has told me—he also gave evidence to one of the Select Committees in the House of Commons on this, perhaps the Home Affairs Committee—he or other family judges get rid of the case within two hours; they are completed. It would be unnecessary and unsuitable to have a family meeting of the sort proposed. There are real dangers to it in the other cases, particularly since there are other systems. So unusually, as I very often agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on this occasion I think that she is wrong and very much hope that the Government take no notice of her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Given those explanations and assurances, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able not to press her amendments.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for their comments on this group. Obviously, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have day-to-day experience of this area. This amendment was raised in Committee in the other place, and I will read briefly from the oral evidence given by the chief executive of Cafcass:

“We see 140,000 children through proceedings every year. The Bill tends to focus on those who are in public law proceedings. Two thirds of the children we work with are in private law proceedings, where there are family disputes about who children spend their time with and where they live. Very often, those children are in families where conflict is very intense. There are risks to them; there is domestic abuse. The Bill is silent on children in private law proceedings, and I think there is an opportunity for that to be different”.


This is a real concern. Maybe there are different ways of approaching it, but the concern about harm to a minority of children in private law proceedings is a valid one.

On Amendment 6, my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park put it extremely well when she said that this is a relatively small and discrete group. The work has been done on what it would cost to offer this. I hear what the Minister said, and I probably often said similar things when I was on the other side of the House. However, the fact that it is not mandated in a world where resources are understandably tight risks it not happening. If we really are going to focus on such things in the Bill, this is a small group, and this amendment could make a real difference to the stability of their return home. I hope the Minister might think on it a little bit more.

To be clear about Amendment 17, we were not assuming that the local authority would need to have a child protection plan for a child in kinship care, but, again, in real life we hear that it is difficult for the local authority to get right the balance between keeping eyes on the child to make sure that everything is okay, and supporting the family without being overly intrusive and behaving like the heavy hand of the state. It is a real issue that practitioners are worried about, so I hope that, together with colleagues in the department, the Minister will consider it some more. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Earl of Effingham]

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) The family group decision-making meeting, or meetings, must follow an evidence based approach including the appointment of an independent and suitably trained coordinator, including in relation to domestic abuse.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that family group decision-making meetings follow an evidence based approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, we should pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, in his promotion of family hubs. They are places where families can be offered a range of services and integrated support and information. In my assessment, they have transformed the picture of family law and family practice. They are increasingly widespread and have an important role in the modern functioning of childcare. To that extent, I support the noble Lord’s amendments.

I have a boring technical legal point. A hub is a place, not a person, which uses volunteers and community workers, as well as professionals. If the noble Lord’s Amendment 21 were to be accepted, we would need some clarity on who exactly, under the legislation, would have responsibility on behalf of the hub.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, before addressing the amendments in my name in this group, I echo the appreciation expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for my noble friend Lord Farmer’s tireless work on family hubs. It is fantastic to hear that they are making a real difference on the ground.

My Amendment 26 seeks to find a way through the difficulty in the degree of statutory involvement—the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is not going to like my language—of education and childcare agencies in safeguarding. It requires the Secretary of State to produce a report to Parliament two years after the implementation of the clause which sets out the impact on the resources and costs for education and childcare agencies from their new duties. It could look more widely at the impact on safeguarding and whether there is a need to follow the recommendations of many of the children’s charities and the Children’s Commissioner in making it a full statutory safeguarding partner.

Page 34 of the Government’s impact assessment is studiously vague. It talks about

“possible costs and time implications on LAs to set up new infrastructure”

and

“time implications on some education leaders to engage with systems that they may not have previously been involved in”.

I am not sure how these impact assessments get written, but this feels like it is bordering on the naive. Of course, there will be direct costs for schools and childcare agencies, in both time and money, and we need to understand the extent of them. My amendment seeks to achieve this.

We need to know what this approach will mean in practice for education and childcare agencies, which already have considerable safeguarding duties. Presumably, they will need to put in additional processes and checks; if this is just making the status quo statutory, I do not really understand why it is necessary. Perhaps the Minister could explain in her closing remarks.

My Amendments 27 and 28 are probing amendments, again trying to find out the Government’s thinking on how this will work in practice. The hesitation on the part of the Government in this area, which I think is reasonable, reflects the difficulty in implementation, given the number of organisations involved in education and childcare. My amendment suggests that it would help to have a single point of contact both within the local authority and within the education and childcare sector. Can the Minister confirm whether the assumption is that education and childcare providers can all contact the LADO in their local authority with any safeguarding concerns, and is she confident that the LADOs around the country will have capacity for this? Similarly, is the local authority expected to contact every organisation directly, or is there a role for a single point of contact who could perhaps advise on general queries?

Finally, I have given notice that I intend to oppose the proposition that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. To be clear, unlike some of my other clause stand part notices, this is purely probing. The policy summary produced by the DfE states:

“These arrangements enable education and childcare agencies to have representation”—


this is my emphasis, not that of the policy summary—

“at both the operational and strategic decision-making levels of these safeguarding arrangements”.

The summary continues:

“Practically, this may look like including the breadth of education settings: from early years and childcare to schools including academies, independent schools, alternative provision and further education in operational safeguarding boards, and”—


again, this is my emphasis—

“having representation for their views at executive boards so that they can influence decisions being made about safeguarding in their local area”.

Interestingly, there is no mention of special schools in that list. I am not clear why, because I would have thought that safeguarding would be a particular priority. I think we all have a sense of what this looks like at an operational level, but the policy summary talks about involvement at a strategic level. Will the Minister explain who is going to be able to represent all agencies in an area, what representation of their views at executive boards will look like in real life, and how this will be resourced? Clause 2 is an area where there is broad support for the Government’s approach, but we need more clarity on how they intend to implement these duties and how they will be funded.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has done us a favour by bringing the education organisation into this. It has the most contact, and it is a logical point. I cannot fault him on that. I also had a great deal of fellow feeling when he described his experience of watching the appropriate amendment being concocted. The idea of sitting there looking puppy-like and saying, “Please, this is what I’m trying to say. Will you help?” is something I think we can all empathise with at some point in the Bill.

It sounds eminently sensible that, where you are seeing a young person outside the family and very regularly, that fits the logic and the approach here. As for family hubs, yes, they are good things—they remind me a bit of Sure Start but, hey, that is history. If we are going through the other technical amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran—who, let us face it, we all know knows her way around the system and the department—it would be interesting to see the technical answers to those, because it will definitely colour the way this discussion takes place in later stages.