Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, this is obviously an important issue to us. Although we welcome the Bill’s placing on a statutory footing the extension of virtual school head support to a wider group of children in kinship care, the positive impact of this will be significantly limited due to a lack of accompanying facilities and funding to support the VSH in discharging this duty. In particular, the continued restriction of pupil premium plus funding to only those kinship children currently or previously looked after, in effect, removes one of the most useful tools available to virtual schools to improve educational attainment and progress for groups of vulnerable learners.

In the halcyon days of local government funding and finance, our corporate head of children in care was the director of education, a remarkable man called Colin Hilton. He worked in Knowsley, a borough that neighbours mine, and he came to Liverpool in his role as director. Because money was plentiful, he had a pot of money that he could spend on the children in care as the corporate parent. That was life-changing for those children: they could go on trips and visits, and they could do all sorts of things that they cannot do now because money is still quite tight in local government.

In trying to see how to unlock that opportunity for young children, we looked at the pupil premium in schools and how it has, again, given opportunities to children and young people that perhaps would not have been available otherwise—head teachers and other teachers have that money to use. If we have a virtual school, we have to ask: what is the difference between that and a physical school?

Responding to similar recommendations made by the Education Committee last year, the Government confirmed that they have no plans to extend the pupil premium plus eligibility, because

“there is limited evidence to support such a change and no national data on the number or location of children in informal arrangements”

However, they committed to

“exploring the feasibility of collecting this data through the school census to build a stronger evidence base for future policy development”.

The evidence suggests that the needs and experience of children in all forms of kinship care are more similar than they are different. There are broadly comparable levels of special needs children and other children’s social care groups that are less likely to receive support through an education, health and care plan. Current support continues to undermine the common need, even if it is extended only to those in receipt of VSH support—namely, not to all children in informal kinship care. This amendment would help to harmonise the existing patchwork of support for kinship care children, based on the type of arrangement and journey into kinship care.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we welcome government Amendment 29.

As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said about his Amendment 44, there is a gap where the Government have extended the role of virtual school heads but not extended pupil premium plus to children in kinship care. As a minimum movement on this, I wonder whether the Government would consider extending it to kinship children brought within the ambit of the virtual school head, so that children in care have consistent entitlements—that is currently not the case. I assume that the noble Lord will not press Amendment 45 in his name, so I will not speak to that.

I signed the noble Lord’s Amendment 48, on kinship care leave. As the Minister knows, employers are starting to move in this direction. I would be grateful if she could set out what the Government’s plans are here. If any of us were to care for a child of a member of our extended family, expecting comparable leave to be able to settle that child in, just as if one was adopting or fostering, seems only reasonable. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 48. As an ex-kinship carer, I know that there are times when it is incredibly stressful, such as when you are dealing with bereavements and all sorts of issues. You will be dealing children who have gone through this and might well have issues, all the way through to learning difficulties. It is incredibly difficult. If we want kinship carers, we need this kind of leave.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

31: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Requirements for kinship care approval: disapplicationIn regulation 26 of the Fostering Services (England) Regulations 2011 (S.I. 2011/581), after paragraph (9) insert—“(10) This regulation does not apply to kinship carers.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This removes the requirement for kinship carers who have been approved by the Director of Children’s Services, including after a Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) process, to be reassessed by the foster panel.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I open by thanking the Minister for those final remarks, particularly in relation to kinship leave and the school census.

The Government have acknowledged that the kinship rules need reviewing and updating. The amendments in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who brings real experience as a now ex-kinship carer to this debate, seek to do the following things.

First, they aim to recognise the advantages, from the perspective of a child, of being cared for by a member of one’s extended family by easing the regulatory framework. In a world where a kinship carer could be approved by a family group decision-making meeting or the family group decision-making process ultimately leads to the appointment of kinship carers if the original plan with birth parents breaks down, we believe it is not reasonable to then go through the whole mainstream foster carer approval process. That underpins my Amendment 31.

I made that point in Committee and the Minister in her response said that

“we recognise that there is room for improvement in how these assessments are carried out”.

She went on to say that in such cases

“the local authority has an obligation to complete a robust safeguarding assessment”.—[Official Report, 9/6/26; col. 1165.]

I would have thought that would have already happened when the family group decision-making meeting had been held. We are talking about cases that are about to go into care proceedings, so the risks would be well understood.

The Minister rightly pointed out that the guidance gives some small flexibility, but ultimately the kinship carer has to meet the minimum standards and, unless she can tell me otherwise, my understanding is that it is rare that this flexibility is used. Maybe that was acceptable in the past, but we are moving to a time where the use of kinship carers is rightly being actively encouraged by the Government, so numbers should increase and the Bill is an opportunity to streamline the process.

Alongside this, as we debated earlier, our Amendment 5, had it been accepted, would have provided a wider package of support, but I accept that the Government aim to achieve that in a different way.

The aim of Amendment 32 is to expedite the review currently being undertaken by the Law Commission. We all know that it could take many years to complete and for its recommendations to appear on the statute book. Amendment 32 would put pace on this and permit the introduction of regulations that would address the issues that have been identified as barriers to increasing the number of kinship foster carers. Following the changes made to the kinship care statutory guidance around the application of the national minimum standards to kinship foster carers in October 2024, surely it would make sense to review their impact, take further steps to ensure that fostering approval and assessment processes work well for this group, and consider their specific needs, strengths and circumstances.

Fourteen months on from the change, we argue that it would be sensible for the Government to review the impact to understand whether it has been effective in improving practice within local authority fostering and kinship teams. A review would also be able to identify whether greater numbers of family and friends have since been approved as kinship foster carers against expected benchmarks. The number and proportion of children who start to be looked after in kinship care each year—around 5,500—have remained stable in recent years. We would expect to see this increase following the change in guidance and an increasing policy and practice focus on prioritising kinship care options for children.

Last year, the Welsh Government proposed to amend their fostering regulations to create a separate kinship foster carer category, separate from mainstream foster carers. This intends to allow more discretion in the assessment and approval process for kinship foster carers, supporting panels and decision-makers to take a more flexible approach to suitability and to consider areas that are relevant only to a kinship care arrangement. In England, although Standard 30 of the fostering national minimum standards describes expectations around family and friends as kinship foster carers, it is clear that,

“where family and friends are approved as foster carers the other standards apply as they do for other foster carers”.

A review, as proposed by the amendment, would offer an opportunity to consider whether a different approach might be needed, including one that mirrors the Welsh Government’s proposal of a distinct kinship foster carer category, with a separate accompanying schedule of requirements. It is genuinely disappointing that there has not been more movement from the Government in this area. It would involve no cost and would address many of the issues that the Government have identified and that are certainly of concern to children’s services leads around the country. If the Government really want to see the number of successful kinship placements increase, they should expedite this review as quickly as possible. I beg to move.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I preface my remarks by noting how much support the Government have given to the whole area of carers, as indeed did the previous Government. I look at my party and Ed Davey’s experience as a carer. I do not think you can imagine what it must be like for children who are in care. All the figures still suggest that there are real issues and real problems. I think we all get the Local Government Information Unit’s daily briefing. Yesterday, it reported a large survey of 100,000-plus children in care. One in four of them admitted to considering suicide, which is frightening.

Children in kinship care have all sorts of issues and problems, but we know that there is probably a much more stable situation and a more stable relationship. If that is successful, then we should be getting on with it. I hope that the Minister will say that in her reply. If this is a way of supporting those children even more and we can increase the numbers, let us not hang around; let us get on with it. I hope the Minister, in her reply, will tell us how quickly we are going to achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I cannot give that exact information, other than to say that the consultation is starting, which means that it is going at pace. I understand the frustration and the need to get on with this. We all want to get on with this: it is an important piece in our overall ambition to make sure that we do the best for children and young people in this country.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for asking that question as it was the one I was going to start with, so that was perfect, and I thank the Minister again for her remarks. I absolutely accept her point that we need a holistic review of the kinship care regulatory and legal framework. With that, I accept that, on its own, Amendment 31 does not stand up. However, I am less convinced about the Minister’s pushback on the timing. Had she responded to the noble Lord by saying it would be within a particular time period, that would have given the House much more confidence.

The Minister rightly speaks about having a well-rounded, thorough and comprehensive review, but, as she knows far better than I do, local authorities are under massive strain financially and practically in terms of placing children in, as she said, horrifically expensive children’s homes. I think those were her words. It would take tiny numbers of additional kinship and foster carers in every local authority to tip that balance.

Set against the pressure of having a rounded and comprehensive review is also the pressure of timing. If we stepped back and thought, “Could we review in a really high-quality way the kinship regulations in a year?”, I think we would have volunteers around the House and we could do a pretty decent job. I would put my hand up to help with that. So I do intend to test the opinion of the House. What we are suggesting in Amendment 32 is a review similar to the one that the Government have commissioned from the Law Commission but with a 12-month timescale. Children and local authorities need that.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I have received information that we are hoping for completion by summer 2027, which is not quite a year but is not far off.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I appreciate that, but hoping is hoping. I seem to remember that, even when we were in government, one or two deadlines were not met, and even then we still have to find legislative time. It is important, for the reasons that I have set out, that we test the opinion of the House on that issue. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 31.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

32: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Kinship care report and regulations(1) The Secretary of State must, with 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, carry out a review assessing the effectiveness of the current pathways for approval of kinship carers.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the review before Parliament.(3) Following the publication of the report required by subsection (1), the Secretary of State must introduce regulations regarding the approval of kinship carers.(4) These regulations must seek to—(a) improve the safety and wellbeing of children in kinship care,(b) reduce barriers to becoming to a kinship carer,(c) establish a requirement for a kinship support plan which is monitored by the local authority for a minimum period and until the arrangements for the child are judged to be safe and the welfare of the child is being promoted, and(d) reduce the burden for local authorities and the family courts.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review and update the approval requirements for kinship carers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I beg to move.