Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for putting this amendment down. We can talk in parliamentary language, but it is when we hear the example that my noble friend Lady Benjamin told us about that we know the appalling effects that child abuse has on children and young people. They often carry that for the rest of their lives, and they carry it in silence. Somebody said, and I think it is absolutely right, that this is about changing the culture, where the responsibility is not to sort of pretend “I’m title-tattling” or “I’m not sure” or “It’s a friend of mine” or “I shouldn’t say this”; if you suspect that child abuse is happening, you have to do something about it.

Recently, we have heard about all the problems that the Church of England has faced, and we have heard various clergy say, “Well, I didn’t think it was that important”, or “I did do so and so”. If we had had this in law, those prominent clergy would have had a responsibility in law to speak out and those abuses over many decades of young people, not at school but in various holiday camps, I understand, would not have taken place.

We think that, by ticking the box on CRB checks, or now on the data-barring service, it is all sorted in schools. It is not. When we come to the schools part of the Bill and look at unregistered schools—particularly, I have to say, religious unregistered schools—it is worth noting that examples have come to light of children who have been abused in unregistered settings. Again, people will say, “I don’t think this has really happened; I’d better not blow the whistle on this”, but it is the case, and various Members of this House know that.

This is a very important amendment. I do not care which Bill it comes in, but we need to make sure that it passes into law.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, made a predictably powerful case for the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse and highlighted its terrible scale, impact and extent. I do not disagree with them when they say that the system is currently failing the victims. My noble friend Lord Moynihan also gave very powerful examples from the world of sport.

In my experience, this is one of the most difficult areas in which both to legislate and to implement legislation effectively. We know from a range of terrible cases, including, of course, the rape gang scandals of recent years, that even when a disclosure is made—whether by a child or when a professional makes the disclosure directly to the police or local authority—it is not always listened to. We also know from international research that mandatory reporting has led to enormous increases in recorded incidents. That may be an important contributor to the culture change that, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly identified, is so badly needed; but there is still, of course, an enormous gap between recorded incidents and the prosecution of the offenders concerned.

I have a couple of concerns about the amendment. One is volunteers, who play an important role, and the amendment perhaps affecting their willingness to take on voluntary and unpaid activity. Perhaps most importantly, we should think through the issues where there are suspicions rather than disclosures. As we have heard, the majority of child sexual abuse happens within families. We need to think through how suspicion is handled in practice, and the implications of children being taken into care while allegations are made against a parent or step-parent, or a sibling or step-sibling. I am not saying that, where abuse has happened, that is not important to do, but we need—and the Government need—to think through very carefully the implications and the disruption and fracturing of important relationships in children’s lives.

I note that, through the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government plan to introduce mandatory reporting where there is a disclosure or where abuse has been observed. I have some sympathy with that as a starting point, but I hope very much that we can keep a lens on this terrible issue. My noble friend Lord Moynihan says that he has been working on this issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for over 20 years. I have the greatest respect for their tenacity and patience on such a difficult subject.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I rise slightly nervously to respond to this debate, which follows and covers a number of very important and thorny issues. But one of the reasons I am anxious—I double-checked, hence my looking at my telephone— is I felt that, at points, the Committee was talking about slightly different things.

I accept absolutely the very valid point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that in every terrible serious case review of child death at the hands of their parents the issue has started with a single hit, but she would also accept that, thank goodness, those are very much the exception rather than the rule, and that the overwhelming majority of parents who may or may not smack or use physical discipline towards their child do not end up anywhere near those kinds of tragedies.

The reason I pulled out my phone was just to check that I had understood correctly. The reasonable chastisement defence applies only in cases of common assault and battery since the Review of Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 and the implementation of that review in October 2007. With the leave of the Committee, I will read a couple of sentences from the advice produced by the department in October 2007:

“Therefore any injury sustained by a child which is serious enough to warrant a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm cannot be considered to be as the result of reasonable punishment. Section 58 and the amended Charging Standard mean that for any injury to a child caused by a parent or person acting in loco parentis which amounts to more than a temporary reddening of the skin, and where the injury is more that transient and trifling, the defence of reasonable punishment is not available”.


So, I am sorry for whatever having to listen to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough has done to the brain of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, but I think my noble friend made a very fair point. Noble Lords and parents around the country may or may not agree, but this advice is absolutely clear that where chastisement amounts to more than a temporary reddening of the skin, or where the injury is more than transient or trifling, the defence is not available. It is fair to ask—and it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who I know has thought about this long and hard—that we understand what difference this is going to make to the kinds of cases that have been cited in the Committee this afternoon.

My other concern is about non-physical chastisement. I spent the first six years of my time in your Lordships’ House never mentioning domestic abuse, and I do not think I have stopped talking about it since we started the Bill. We know that in many abusive relationships—and this applies to children as well as adults—you do not need to use physical violence; coercion and fear and control are incredibly harmful. Figures were cited about the harm of physical violence, and I do not question those for a second, but I wonder where the law then goes. If we were to adopt the noble Baroness’s amendment, which obviously has significant support in both Houses, where do we then go in dealing with what, I would argue, is perhaps much more toxic and damaging for a child’s mental health and their physical health, given what we know about the links between the two in terms of emotional abuse and psychological harm to children? I look forward to noble Lords’ comments on that.

We also need to address—as ever, I am surrounded by people who know much more about this than I do—the reality that, if a parent is accused of smacking, hitting or slapping a child, not the kind of severe physical violence that was cited but the violence that would fit under the defence of reasonable chastisement, they may enter a slow, stressful and ultimately quite harmful criminal justice process, during which time they may be prevented from having contact with their child and that child might be removed into care. We need to balance the impact of the kind of chastisement as set out in Section 58 with the kind of harm that that process would bring to children. In no way do I endorse violence—

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will excuse me for picking up one point that she has just made. The law, as it stands, is extremely confusing and unhelpful to parents. For example, she talked about reddening of the skin. I do not know about the noble Baroness, but if I was going to hit a child, I would not know what level of pressure was going to raise a red mark on that child’s skin and which would not. How can a parent possibly know? So, the law is confusing and unhelpful. It is certainly discriminatory; as has been mentioned, you cannot as easily tell when a bruise is arising on a skin of colour as on a paler skin. Those are just a couple of examples where the law is confusing and it needs clarifying.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Baroness on the spirit of the law. It talks about “trifling”—where the chastisement is of a trivial nature—and, while different parents might interpret that in a different way, the kinds of abuse that were cited in the debate that we have just listened to were not trifling; there was no question that they were trifling.

I will turn now to Amendment 173 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, which seeks to introduce a national strategy to address neglect of children. As we heard the noble Baroness explain—from her own professional experience, she brings great expertise on this matter—neglect is too common a feature in too many children’s lives. I commend her for bringing this to the attention of the Committee, and I would support her assertion that many practitioners lack confidence in how to respond to neglect. The approach set out in the amendment is practical in terms of sharing best practice and supporting both professionals and parents to understand and address neglect. My question to the noble Baroness, and potentially to the Minister, is whether it is wise to try to separate neglect from abuse, since we know that in most cases they will coexist, and therefore I imagine one would want practitioners to go in with their eyes open to both.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are putting children at the heart of everything we do. This is evident in the far-reaching child protection and safeguarding measures in the Bill.

The amendments in this group were tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Tyler. They relate to the defence of reasonable punishment and what the Government are doing about neglect.

I will speak first to Amendments 67 and 505, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on removing the defence of reasonable punishment in legislation, which has been the basis of most of the contributions in this group. Let me be completely clear: the Government do not condone violence or abuse of children, and there are laws in place to protect children from this. Violence against children is not only unacceptable but illegal. The Crown Prosecution Service guidance referenced during the course of this debate is very clear that only the mildest form of physical punishment can be used to justify discipline. Child protection agencies and the police treat allegations of abuse very seriously; they will investigate and take appropriate action, including prosecution, where there is evidence of an offence having been committed. Local authorities, police and healthcare professionals have a clear duty to act immediately to protect children if they are concerned that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, identified terrible cases that we must all take note of. Much of Part 1 of the Bill aims to address precisely these types of cases. But it is important to emphasise that cases where children have been abused or murdered by their parents—children, in fact, who experienced abuse far short of the terrible cases she identified—even in cases where their parents claimed to have been legally disciplining them, would not be covered by the reasonable punishment defence. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong. I am not convinced that it really was simply a reasonable punishment that led to the terrible outcomes in those cases; I think it was something far more profound, dangerous and worthy of attention—in fact, attention would be legally required.

We have heard that other countries have made these changes. We are looking closely at changes in Scotland and Wales and continue to build our evidence base, but we do not want to take this important decision yet. Wales will publish its report at the end of the year, looking at the impact that the change in legislation has had.

It is important that, in making any decisions, we consider all voices, including those of the child, trusted stakeholders and those who might be disproportionately affected by removing the defence. I certainly accept some of the examples used by noble Lords about the support that there is for removing this defence. I do not think it is quite as straightforward and completely categorically clear as some noble Lords have suggested.

Most parents want what is best for their children and they should be supported. It is right that we protect all children who are at risk of harm, but it is also right that we do not intervene in family life when children are safe, loved and well supported. This is why I agree with noble Lords who identified the need to find more positive ways to parent. I do not think that most parents who resorted at some point or another to a smack feel that that is the most positive way they could parent their children.

That is why we are rolling out national reforms to multi-agency family help and child protection—backed, as we have said previously, by over £500 million of funding—and, importantly, providing parenting support in 75 local authorities through family hubs. Parenting is difficult. Any of us who has done it understands the challenges of choosing the right ways to promote the positive development of our children. The recent publication of our practice guide for parenting services for parents of zero to 10 year-olds is a positive way to help parents identify how to do that very difficult job most effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 172, to which I added my name. My noble friend Lord Meston and my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss have said it far better than I possibly could. I know the amazing work of Pause and I commend its work to the Committee. I have full faith that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will say anything that is missing.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 169 and 172 in my name and to comment on the other amendments in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Farmer for their support on Amendment 169, and the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Meston, for their support on Amendment 172. As has been noted, they seek to do similar things.

Amendment 169 is a narrower version, focusing on support for mothers who have had a baby removed into care at birth. Like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I prefer Amendment 172, which is broader and would create an obligation for local authorities to offer an evidence-based programme, such as the Pause programme, to mothers who have had a child removed from their care and who, as we have heard, very often immediately get pregnant again. From a human point of view, one can absolutely understand why, after all the attention that they may have received from children’s services prior to the child being removed and then the deafening silence that surrounds them once the child is gone. Very often, that void is filled by another pregnancy. I prefer Amendment 172 because it is a real issue and is broader, but the evidence for Amendment 169 is crystal clear. Almost half of newborns subject to care proceedings are born to mothers who had previously had a child—an older sibling to the newborn—removed through those proceedings. The near inevitability of that seems very powerful.

I am not sure whether it is on my register of interest, but I did a period of volunteering for Pause before I joined your Lordships’ House, so I have seen the quality of its work first hand. Since 2013, over 2,000 women have completed the Pause programme who, prior to working with Pause, collectively had had more than 6,200 children removed from their care—that is just over three children per woman. This is not a competition for how many children a woman has had removed, but Pause was founded by a social worker, Sophie Humphreys, and a district judge, Nick Crichton, after they worked together on a case where a 14th child was removed from the same woman. It is grounded very much in the experience of women.

I suggest to the Minister that this amendment is similar in spirit to Clause 1, which puts family group decision-making processes on a statutory footing, in the sense that some local authorities offer these programmes and some do not. The delivery is inconsistent and patchy and, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, the funding for it is not always available. Also in the spirit of the Bill, which seeks to support those in the care system, we know that 40% of women who have taken part in the Pause programmes were themselves in care.

The Minister will know that the DfE’s own evaluation of this work saw significantly improved outcomes for mothers, reduced rates of infant care entry and very significant savings to children’s social care, with the department’s evaluation suggesting that every £1 spent on the Pause programme resulted in a saving to children’s social care of £4.50 over four years and £7.61—that seems remarkably accurate—over 18 years. I am not sure whether that is the net present value of £7.61, but anyway—that is a 7:1 return. From the point of view of the mother and the children, and from the financial perspective, these amendments deserve the Minister’s serious attention.

More broadly, this group has been focused on the important subject of support for families, both at a relatively early stage and at crisis points, such as when a child is removed into care. The purpose behind Amendment 68, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Farmer, is to ensure that there is universal provision of family support services. There is no question that such services are valued by the families who use them and can make a great difference to the lives of children and to their parents. We support the spirit of the amendment, which keeps universal services separate from those that are voluntary but targeted to more vulnerable families, as the noble Baroness knows from our earlier debates on Clause 3.

Amendments 68A and 68B seek to introduce the concept of earned autonomy for family support services, which is again something that we are very sympathetic to. I have the greatest respect for my noble friend Lord Farmer for his extensive work in this area, particularly in relation to family hubs. I look forward to hearing what the Minister might say about the expansion of family hubs, which the Government have described as

“a non-stigmatising gateway to targeted whole-family support”.

In normal-speak, I think that is a good thing.

Amendment 167, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, would require local authorities to report annually on early intervention services for children and families in their area. As the noble Baroness acknowledged, local authorities have annual reporting requirements, including in relation to their multi-agency safeguarding work. As I understand it, this amendment would make that more explicit in relation to early help. I just wondered whether this would not naturally fit as an update to the Working Together to Safeguard Children statutory guidance, as opposed to being in the Bill.

It is hard to argue with the spirit of Amendment 171, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I was sad to hear of her loss and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I am sure that, across the Committee, we are very grateful to those charities that offer great support to children, and their families, who have been bereaved. When I was in the department, I remember meeting the team at the Ruth Strauss Foundation—indeed, I went on to recommend it to extended family members, who benefited from its support. In some cases, when perhaps a parent has cancer, the death can be anticipated and support can happen pre bereavement as well as post bereavement, if the family wishes, but in other cases, such as cases of domestic homicide, the child in effect loses both parents—one parent has been killed and the other parent is in prison. Effective support in all these cases is to be encouraged. If accepted, this amendment would make the task of finding the right support so much easier for bereaved or soon-to-be-bereaved children.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for highlighting in this debate very important issues aimed at ensuring that children and families can get the support that they need at the right time. That is an enormously important theme of the Government’s reforms to children’s social care. In doing that, we are already taking forward recommendations from the independent review of children’s social care, mentioned by several people today, particularly the aim to rebalance the children’s social care system towards earlier intervention and supporting more children to stay safely with their families.

I shall speak first to Amendment 68, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, which raises the important issue of family support services. I appreciate the noble Lords’ intention with this amendment and confirm that the Government are already investing in the provision of family support nationally. I also accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that there is a need to ensure that there is that investment. The noble Baroness outlined the fall in investment since 2010; for example, in the Sure Start programme. It took me back to one of the very last interventions that I made in the other place before I came starkly up against the electorate in 2010. I expressed concern that a different Government might not continue to support the development of family support services and Sure Start in a way in which that Government had. There was heckling and jeering, as tends to be more the case at the other end of the building than here, but I am afraid that what we saw in the intervening years was a reduction in support for precisely the sort of services that noble Lords today are, quite rightly, pushing the Government to ensure that we both develop and fund. That is why, as we have frequently referenced—I do so again—that this Government have provided over £500 million to local authorities to roll out the national Families First Partnership programme, which aims to prioritise earlier intervention and ensure that families can access the right support sooner.

To turn to some of the more detailed points, I note the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, regarding earned autonomy status for local authorities to not follow prescriptive criteria in determining the services to be delivered. This is a challenge: how do we enable local authorities to have the autonomy to build and link the services in a way that makes sense to them in their circumstances, while also ensuring that additional investment placed into preventive services is spent on that? I have considerable sympathy for the idea that there needs to be that flexibility. That is why the Government are not mandating the delivery of specific family support services by any local authorities through the programme. They all have flexibility to respond to need in their areas, taking account of available resources, and they are supported in thinking about what might be appropriate and what would work best by reference, for example, to the programme guide that the Government have issued and the work of foundations that are developing information about what is most effective and working well. It is of course important, as I say, that we are clear that the additional money allocated for this work is spent on it. Grant funding is therefore ring-fenced to ensure that it is spent on a range of preventive services. Within that ring-fence, there should be—and there is—flexibility for local authorities to think about the nature and combination of the services that they are providing.

Before I move on, I want to respond to the point that the noble Lord made not only about flexibility, as we have talked about, but about combining funding pots. It is an important point. While local authorities funded through the family hubs and Start for Life programme have the flexibility, as I have said, to tailor services to meet programme expectations and address local needs, combining funding is also an important bit of that flexibility. Many local authorities are combining funding with other funding sources to enhance support for families. It is important that they are enabled to do that, notwithstanding the accountability point that I have made.

--- Later in debate ---

We are also already investing in services that support families through pregnancy and early childhood, including family hubs and Start for Life programmes. The work of Pause certainly sounds enormously important in leading the way in this area. It is clear that it is doing important work to improve the lives of women who have had or are at risk of having children removed from their care. My ministerial colleague Janet Daby met Pause earlier this year and the department is keen to continue working with Pause to support the work it is doing and to learn more broadly how we can support women in these situations and, of course, their babies as well. I think the ability to use family group decision-making in these cases may well also be something that could support much better outcomes than we are seeing at the moment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to go back and talk to her ministerial colleagues about this again. She is absolutely right that some of the effective targeted help and Section 17 types of help that she was talking about, set out in the Families First pathfinders, can be useful to some families, but these cases where a woman has already had multiple removals do not typically fit into that bracket; they go straight to care proceedings. The case load, if I remember rightly, is that each full-time Pause practitioner works with three women, so it is super-intensive and I think is complementary to this. I would just be grateful if she did not close the door on that as an option, particularly as I know that her noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, previously put this down as an amendment—I feel strengthened in that knowledge.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have been persuaded in the course of this debate about the significance of this issue. I had some experience in previous work that I did in children’s social care about this, so I will certainly undertake to go back and talk to my colleagues about some more specificity around the particular requirements in these cases. Perhaps I can return to the noble Baroness with a bit more detail about that.

Amendment 171 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to establish a duty on local authorities to improve access to bereavement support services for children. Like others, I recognise and respect the noble Baroness for talking about her own experience of bereavement, as we also heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, identifying the enormous pressure that falls on families and particularly other children at the point at which they are bereaved. It is for this reason that the Government continue to consider how to improve access to existing bereavement support. There is a cross-government bereavement group, chaired by the Department of Health and Social Care and attended by officials from the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office, continuing to look at how we can improve access to support.

Following discussion by this group of opportunities to improve signposting of support—and as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, I would have appreciated being signposted to some support outside the family—we have recently added links to bereavement support specifically for children and young people on GOV.UK. Schools increasingly talk to their pupils about mental health and where to access further support, both as part of the curriculum and through their wider pastoral duties. The relationships and sex education statutory guidance specifies that teachers should be aware of common adverse childhood experiences, including bereavement. I hope that, bringing those things together, we are enabling an improvement in the support that we provide for children who have suffered bereavement. I hope that this, along with the continued investment in services for children and family support, reassures noble Lords that we are taking action on that.

In all these areas, I hope that I have provided, after a useful and important debate, some reassurance about the acceptance by the Government of all the issues identified during the course of the debate, but also about the action that the Government are taking to commit to and invest in improving outcomes for children and their families through effective support services. I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press these amendments, but I will certainly come back on the specific points and reflect on the case made in what I think has been a very important and helpful group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to oppose Amendment 69AB, well-intentioned though it clearly is. I have several levels of concerns about the imposition of yet another duty. I believe that the expectations for looked-after children are generally well understood—whether they are actually carried out in practice is another matter. This particular amendment has some obvious holes. For example, there are kinds of intimacy in normal, healthy parent-child relationships that absolutely would not be appropriate between local authority staff and children.

More generally, there has been a proliferation of duties in legislation in recent years. For example, I became chair of Ofqual 14 years ago. After a particular duty was raised in my first board meeting, I asked my legal director for a session to talk me through all the duties that applied. To my astonishment, I discovered that we already had 28 duties, with a handful more in the pipeline; I am sure it is a lot more since then.

This imposition of duties as the go-to solution has several problems. First, it creates problems of overload. Normal human beings simply cannot hold so many different duties in their thinking simultaneously. Secondly, they get imposed in isolation. They are usually added without reference to previous duties, with which they often overlap but sometimes push in different directions. How do you reconcile them? They can lead to skimping. If duties that have been imposed need resource but are not funded, you can end up with everything being done less well—not only the thing that the duty is aimed at but all the other functions—which reduces the quality at the receiving end. It takes away the ability of public services to prioritise intelligently. It can divert resource away from the main purpose that the duty is intended to protect and towards the kinds of activities that demonstrate compliance with the activity.

Finally, if there is a surplus of duties and an impossibility of giving full effect to them all, a sort of cynicism builds up that can corrupt an organisation’s culture. When everybody knows that they are really only paying lip service to an enormous list, people stop believing in the ability of the organisation to fulfil its real purposes.

Tempting as it is to think that another duty is the great solution that will protect children from all the awful harms that have been talked about today—they are a great salve to all our consciences—we need to resist and make sure that we get to the essence of the things that will do the most to help children.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, again reminded the Committee that vulnerable children in the care of a local authority do not always receive the care that they deserve. We should never lose sight that that should be our goal. My noble friend Lady Spielman put it very well in her remarks and I will pick up on what she said. Local authorities understand their duties in this area. The noble Lord himself cited some of the legislation and guidance on the spirit of their responsibilities. The question, as ever, is around implementation, and I share my noble friend’s concerns about adding yet another duty to local authorities.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the single amendment in this group, Amendment 69AB, in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie. I reflect the concern that has been expressed about the care and support that some of the most vulnerable children receive. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, acknowledged that too many children have been let down over the years, and I believe that this Bill is a real opportunity to set things on a more constructive path.

I recognise that the amendment has been tabled to add a legislative requirement to ensure that the nature and level of parental care that families strive to provide for their own children is provided by local authorities for looked-after children. A local authority is a corporate parent in two senses: first, it has corporate parenting duties; and, secondly, it stands in the parents’ shoes, having parental responsibility for the children in its care.

As I said, I wholeheartedly agree with the amendment’s goal, and we want to ensure that our looked-after children received the highest possible quality support. However, existing legislative and regulatory frameworks mean that local authorities should already care for looked-after children as good parents would. Sections 22 and 22A of the Children Act 1989 already set out the duties owed by a local authority to any child who is looked after by it. These include duties to provide accommodation for the child, to safeguard and promote their welfare, to promote their educational achievement and to help them access a range of services. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, is giving me a look, but I did check that that is indeed the case.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

73: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Removal of unregistered status for approved kinship carersNotwithstanding the provisions of the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/959) and the Children Act 1989, no placement of a child with a kinship carer that is approved by the Director of Children’s Services, shall be considered an unregistered placement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow local authorities to place a child with a kinship carer without needing to meet the fostering placement standards, where it is judged by the local authority to be in the best interests of the child, as a registered placement, including for the purposes of Ofsted inspection.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 73, 74, 75, 76 and 76A in my name, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for adding his name to these amendments. I apologise to those waiting for the regret Motion, but my speaking notes are quite lengthy on this group, because it is quite complicated and important. These amendments all seek to update the approach to the approval of kinship carers, which currently broadly mirrors that for stranger foster carers—I apologise if that is the wrong term. These amendments have been prompted by conversations I have had with leaders in local authorities and the family justice system. I put on record my thanks to the charity Kinship for its advice and explanation of the current position of kinship carers.

My amendments aim to recognise that placing a child with someone other than their birth parents requires balancing a number of risks and safeguards. Kinship carers have the obvious strength of a long-standing, usually lifelong, relationship with a child in the way that a stranger foster carer, however compassionate, does not. However, they may not meet the full standards required by a foster panel in order to be formally approved as the permanent home for a child.

Currently, there is no ability to balance these considerations. In a world where the Government understandably want to see an increase in the use of kinship care, including through family group conferencing, this could be unhelpful at best and potentially damaging for the child at worst.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I appreciate noble Lords’ concerns about ensuring that children grow up in safe, stable and loving homes within their family network. I reaffirm that the Government are firmly committed to enabling children to remain safely with their family whenever it is in their best interest, and, alongside that, to removing unnecessary barriers that may prevent this from happening. I recognise the assessment of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, of the contribution of kinship carers, which adds to our debates earlier in Committee.

I turn to amendments relating to the removal of unregistered status and requirements under fostering regulations for kinship carers: Amendments 73, 75 and 76A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. We agree with the noble Baroness that we must tackle the barriers that currently make it harder for people to become kinship carers. We fully appreciate that that process of becoming a formal kinship carer can feel intrusive or burdensome at times, and we recognise that there is room for improvement in how these assessments are carried out. It is vital that they are conducted in a way that is supportive, respectful and sensitive to the unique circumstances of kinship families. At the same time, these assessments play a crucial role in ensuring that children are placed in safe, stable and nurturing environments. They also help local authorities identify the right support for carers so that they are not left to manage alone. Getting this balance right is essential.

Whenever a child can no longer live safely at home with their parents or anyone else with parental responsibility, the local authority has an obligation to complete a robust safeguarding assessment. The approach to doing this is set out in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 and the Fostering Services (England) Regulations 2011. Removing these assessments, as suggested by Amendments 73 and 75, risks undermining the assurance of the safety and well-being of children moving into kinship care arrangements.

However—to address some of the concerns that have been raised—the kinship care statutory guidance makes it clear that fostering panels should not make negative recommendations solely based on prospective kinship foster carers not meeting the fostering national minimum standards during the assessment. If the placement aligns with the child’s best interests, the prospective kinship foster carer should still be considered for approval to foster the child and then supported by the fostering service to attain the standards. Statutory guidance recognises that the assessment of kinship foster carers may differ from that of mainstream foster carers. Local authorities are permitted to adopt a tailored approach in presenting assessment reports for kinship carers, taking into account the unique dynamics of family relationships, safeguarding considerations, accommodation suitability and any relevant criminal history. Additionally, fostering panels reviewing kinship care applications are expected to include members with specific expertise in kinship care to ensure informed decision-making.

Regarding Amendment 76A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, specifically, the requirement for temporary kinship foster carers to be fully assessed as a foster carer is not a barrier but an important safeguard. It ensures that the placement is not only safe in the short term but sustainable and well supported in the long term. Under Regulation 24 of the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, local authorities may grant temporary approval for a connected person to care for a looked-after child for up to 16 weeks, where it is necessary to place the child urgently and the carer has not yet been fully assessed. This provision allows for flexibility in emergencies, but it is time-limited by law to protect the child’s welfare.

Temporary approvals are intended to facilitate urgent placements but must be followed by a full assessment to ensure that the child’s needs are met and the carer is properly supported. This includes a thorough evaluation of the carer’s capacity to meet the child’s needs in the long term; ensuring that the carer receives the same entitlements as mainstream foster carers, including financial support, training and an allocated social worker; and establishing a clear and stable care plan for meeting the future needs of the child. Removing this requirement unnecessarily increases the chances of a breakdown in the kinship placement. This is because it removes important safeguard checks for children placed with a kinship foster carer and removes an opportunity for the services to build a clear understanding of the kinship foster carer’s strengths for tailoring the right support—resources that are vital to enable carers to provide safe and effective care.

It is important to recognise that kinship foster care is not the only route to kinship care. Many children are successfully supported through other legal arrangements, such as special guardianship orders or child arrangements orders, which can offer greater stability and permanence outside the care system. These routes can be less stigmatising and more empowering for families, and we are committed to ensuring that all kinship carers, regardless of legal status, receive the support that they need.

On this basis, and reflecting on the comments that have been made, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I must say that I was a bit more optimistic about the noble Baroness’s response because none of these amendments would cost the Government any money. They simply seek to improve the system that, as we have heard from practitioners and others—including my noble friend Lady O’Neill, who deals with this on a daily basis—is not working as well as it could. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, rightly raised in his remarks the position of the Law Commission review. There is no reason that one could not sunset these clauses if, in however many years’ time, the Law Commission comes forward with a more coherent plan.

Forgive me if I missed it, but I was not sure that I heard responses to my Amendments 74 and 76. Maybe the noble Baroness and I can both look at Hansard and double-check.

On Amendments 73, 75 and 76A, the noble Baroness said that these need to feel like supportive assessments for foster carers. The point really is about finding the balance between the familiarity and security of someone you have known all your life versus any shortcomings that they might have personally, where they live, or any of the points I raised earlier.

In reality, we know that directors of children’s services are having to make choices today to leave children with a kinship carer where they judge that the fostering panel would not exercise the discretion that the noble Baroness outlined, thereby putting themselves in a pretty impossible position vis-à-vis Ofsted. No director of children’s services wants to be in that position.

In relation to Amendment 75, we need to take great care over approval, but the point of Amendment 75 is that the family group decision-making process has already agreed that the kinship family or the member of the child’s extended family is suitable to care for them. The question is why we have to do that twice.

I will go away and reread what the noble Baroness said about temporary placements—I think that that may have been more reassuring. I did not pick up, and forgive me if I missed them, her remarks on the other two amendments, particularly Amendment 74, but we can follow that up separately.

The only other thing I would challenge, with respect—I know that the noble Baroness has enormous experience from her previous roles—is that I do not think one can describe either a child arrangements order or a special guardianship order as more secure and more stable, certainly in relation to parental responsibility. They are not as secure or stable as other alternatives.

We all want the same thing. I thought that these amendments were a simple, constructive way of taking steps forward on some of the things that have been flagged as the most problematic from the point of view of practitioners and leaders. I hope that the noble Baroness will go away and reflect on that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 73 withdrawn.