Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill contains a first step, possible underreach, possible overreach and, I think, a bonus.

Clause 11 is a good first step as it brings about 1,000 vulnerable young people who are deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the courts into a statutory framework. High Court DoLS, as they are referred to, have developed when there is no secure children’s home place under Section 25 of the Children Act, or that is not an appropriate placement for them. However, that section will still refer to only looked-after children and the report by the Children’s Commissioner on this vulnerable group makes it clear that it is not only looked-after children who are under this regime. Could the Minister clarify whether the inherent jurisdiction will still have to be used for those children? Before statutory instruments are laid, can we have some more details about the definition of “relevant accommodation”?

On the underreach, it seems that under Clause 32 a preliminary school attendance order can be made only when a child is under a Section 47 Children Act inquiry, not for a child in need or a child protection plan. It is my understanding that Sara Sharif was actually a child in need, so could we actually have bizarre underreach in that we have not covered the main mischief, the main sad case, under these provisions?

The overreach, as noble Lords have said, is in relation to special educational needs and disabilities. For many of those parents, this is not elective home education; it is sadly withdrawing your children when mainstream education has failed. I implore the Minister to have another go at stakeholder engagement with the many groups. There are fears, founded or unfounded, of local authorities coming through your front door and asking you probing questions about your curriculum and how you are educating your children. It is important to recognise that this is a very different environment for education. I make the comparison with Ofsted, which is left with some of the smallest independent schools that are often small belief systems; it has developed particular expertise to inspect those schools while keeping engagement with the parents and school leaders. It seems that that is going to be required of many local authority employees, and it is a difficult task to get right.

At this moment, I sidestep to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, about whether the day has come for ISI. It is clearly a historical accident. Imagine if your BUPA private hospital could join an association that then gave it access to its own inspection regime. We would all be worried if our healthcare were not all inspected by the CQC. I hope we will come back to this matter in Committee.

The bonus is, I think, for those with children with complex needs. Clause 30 says you need local authority consent to remove your child from, basically, special schools. Section 61 of the Children and Families Act 2014 contains the acronym EOTAS, meaning “education other than at school”. That is not elective home education; it is where the local authority has responsibility to provide education outside school. Surely, if the local authority has consented to you removing your child from a special school, it is much more likely now that you are going to pass the test that school is an inappropriate venue for the education of your child, and therefore you will be able to have the EOTAS regime for your child with complex needs.

I greatly respect DfE officials and I hope the Minister will give parents a bonus and quash the rumours that officials are pressing local authorities not to grant EOTAS as it is saying that children can be educated at home rather than in an institution. I hope she will give that bonus to those parents today.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

I have two reservations. In public law cases, they should not in any way hold up urgent applications for interim orders, particularly when the local authority may not have had time or opportunity to learn more about the family structure or dynamics. Secondly—and here I am anticipating Amendment 4—I do not consider these meetings to be necessary in private law cases. Disputes between parents, some of which are relatively minor, short-lived and easy to resolve, can be left to Cafcass and to the court at the preliminary dispute resolution hearing, which always takes place in a private law case. All too often I have found myself conducting a dispute resolution hearing and making inquiries about what help can be provided by the wider family, and it usually, if not invariably, sorts the thing out.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I speak in support of this amendment and wish the Government to explore whether it is possible at an earlier stage for these meetings to be considered.

My noble friend referred to the delay, with parents saying that there was going to be a meeting and not turning up to it. As I read the amendment, it includes

“parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child”,

who must be offered the meeting. There may be circumstances in which the court has previously made a special guardianship order that leaves the parents with only aspects of parental responsibility, which are to be told of a name change or to be told that the child will be leaving the jurisdiction. That is a very limited amount of parental responsibility. If for whatever reason—often due to illness of the special guardian—the risks rematerialise and you are back into care proceedings, is it envisaged that such parents, who may not have heard anything for a number of years because the child has not left the jurisdiction and not had their name changed, will be included in the mandatory duty to be offered to be part of this decision-making process? If that is the case, if the logic is correct, you are stacking the cards for the situation that my noble friend has mentioned where parents are suddenly back involved and then delay the meeting. How would this provision sit with an existing special guardianship order that has that effect on parental responsibility?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Good. I mean that it is good that we are now into the detail of what it is that we are here to consider. I am very pleased at the support and welcome for the process of family group decision-making, which I know is behind all the amendments and contributions that have been made today.

This measure places a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents, or any other person with parental responsibility for the child, before an application for a care or supervision order is made. This Government want to help more families to stay together by mandating the offer of a family group decision-making meeting for every family at the point before it is necessary to initiate care proceedings for a child. I very much appreciate the intentions of the amendments that have been tabled, which tally with the Government’s aim to maximise the impact of family group decision-making. But I hope, therefore, that I can reassure noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary to achieve that.

I know that the amendments seek to balance the provision of family group decision-making with the need to avoid delay to child arrangements proceedings or permanent arrangements. I think we have been supported in this consideration today by the considerable expertise of noble, and noble and learned, Lords, but we believe that this balance is already provided by the existing statutory frameworks and guidance.

I agree very much with the noble Baroness that all family networks should have the chance to benefit from the transformative family group decision-making process at multiple points in their journeys with children’s services. I think the argument being used is that if this is as effective as it is, should families not have the opportunity to benefit at different stages? The Government wholeheartedly agree with that. Indeed, in relation to Amendment 2, the Working Together statutory safeguarding guidance makes this clear and sets out the activities that a local authority and its partners should undertake where there are child protection concerns under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. This includes the use of family group decision-making as part of child protection planning.

I understand the points made by noble Lords that using this as early as possible in the child’s journey and repeating it as necessary is important: that is in fact what local authorities are encouraged to do. Again, on the point about the evidence, the £45 million Families First for Children pathfinder and the Family Network pilot aim to make greater use of family networks, involving them in decision-making at an earlier stage and providing practical and financial support via family network support packages to help keep children safe at home. There is, as noble Lords have mentioned, robust evidence from research which shows that children can be diverted from care when family group decision-making is offered at the pre-proceedings stage.

I come to the reason that the legislation focuses the duty at the point it does. The new duty for family group decision-making to be made at the pre-proceedings stage ensures that every parent is given the offer at this critical stage before care proceedings are initiated. This voluntary process enables a family network to come together and make a family-led plan in response to concerns around a child’s safety and well-being. We are confident that the new duty, alongside the existing framework for child protection, is sufficient to support children to stay at home safely where this is possible.

The noble and learned Lord identified that there is a very clear message set by making the statutory duty in this legislation that there is an expectation at the point of the use of a family group decision-making process, but that is in order to emphasise at the point at which we believe, from the evidence, that it will certainly be able to prevent more children going through the process of being taken into care. That is not to say that it is not beneficial at other stages. I hope and believe that, both through the statutory guidance and through guidance that already exists, we be able to make that very clear to local authorities. There is robust evidence from research which shows that children can be diverted from care when family group decision-making is offered at the pre-proceedings stage.

Amendment 15 seeks to ensure that, in providing for family group decision-making, there is a child-centric approach that accounts for the best interests of children under two. I wholly understand the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the need to ensure the best interests of the child, particularly at such a young age. Of course, local authorities already have a duty to act in the best interests of the child, and that includes consideration of their age. Equally, if it is not in the child’s best interest for family group decision-making to take place, the offer should not be made to the family. This is an important point. We need to be clear that the offer is in the child’s best interests for it to be effective. Local authorities may also withdraw the offer of a meeting if it is no longer in the best interests of the child for the meeting to take place. I hope that that partially responds to the points made about delay and about others not being able to use the meeting process as a way of delaying or bringing other pressures to bear on the family environment.

On Amendment 16, the Government are committed to reducing unnecessary delay in the family courts and securing timely outcomes for children. However, as I have already identified, Clause 1 relates to a specific point before court proceedings are initiated, where robust evidence shows that strengthening the offer of family group decision-making will reduce family court applications and prevent children entering the care system. On some of the particular questions about delays, I can assure noble Lords, as was suggested, that these points about delay will be covered in statutory guidance. I think I have already made it clear that a local authority will be able to withdraw the offer of the meeting or the process if it believes that it is being used for delay, which would clearly not be in the best interests of the child. On the point about whether it will delay interim and emergency orders, I am pretty confident that it will not, but I am prepared, because it is an important point, to come back to noble Lords in writing.

We are therefore confident that no provisions in Clause 1 would result in an extension to the 26-week limit for care proceedings, which starts, of course, when an application for a care order is made—in other words, after the point at which the family group decision-making process is used. I hope that I have managed to reassure noble Lords about what would happen if other things were to cause delay in the proceedings and reassure them that we believe in, and have evidence for, the efficacy of this process. That is why, although this is a statutory duty at one point in the process, we are very clear and will continue to encourage and develop, through the Families First programme, the use of family group decision-making at all stages of the process, because of its effectiveness. I hope that has reassured all noble Lords and that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I would be grateful if she would outline the response—maybe she needs to write to me—on the specific situation that I raised in relation to special guardianship orders. I recognise that there is a best-interest test, but, as the main clause of the Bill reads at the moment, parents with that limited parental responsibility are covered by the duty and it would be good to have some clarification.

[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.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to build on the point just made by my noble friend Lady Barran and add my support for Amendments 39 and 40. I wonder whether, in her response, the Minister could explain how this approach in the current Bill aligns with the move to combine mayoral authorities. It seems as if the devolution agenda is actually encouraging regions and areas to work more closely together, which seems to slightly jar with the approach currently set out in the Bill. I would appreciate the Minister putting it in that broader context when she responds.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 40 and flag—similarly to my noble friend Lady Evans—a pragmatic timing issue, which I have previously mentioned in your Lordships’ House.

Clause 3 is not a political matter. It is a well-intentioned response, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, outlined, to the tragic cases of Arthur and Star that led to the MacAlister review. I would be grateful, as would the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to know whether these changes will in fact solve the problem highlighted in those two cases that led to the review.

Of course, any new Government will bring in operational and structural changes, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that local authorities are dealing with the integrated care board situations at the moment and of course are preparing for perhaps the biggest local government reorganisation since that of Ted Heath.

In terms of timing, I ask the Minister why it is necessary at the moment to do the structural changes to child protection arrangements when the local authorities are dealing with other changes at the time. Many local authorities, even in times of very restricted finance, have shown that they have prioritised children’s social care, and overall, England’s local authorities are on an improvement journey, in that the “good” and “outstanding” Ofsted inspections are increasing.

Why not wait to do any further structural changes until the new devolution arrangements and local authority boundaries are in place and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, stated, when there is more evidence that such organisational changes in Clause 3 will improve matters, rather than inadvertently potentially making matters worse?

I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, in relation to the culture that might be changed here. If the family help teams do not see that child protection is part of their role, it risks the cultural embedding that has been happening over decades that is similar to a school, where what you need to embed is that safeguarding is everybody’s responsibility. You might then end up with them thinking, “It’s not my responsibility”: it is kind of like the blue light service over there, which is the child protection team. We could lose inadvertently. No one is deliberately trying to make our child protection arrangements less effective, but I do worry about the cultural loss of everybody seeing it as their responsibility, in the family help team and through into the social workers. So I ask the Minister: why not wait until you have done your local government reorganisation and do this afterwards, or maybe do it at the same time, because for the staff this is an awful lot of change in various departments of our local authorities?

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 36 and 40 and respectfully agree with almost everything that has been said so far.

Amendment 40 concerns cases which cross local authority borders, which can present practical problems and sometimes jurisdictional problems. Families, both parents and children, move around and do not conveniently live together at the same time in the same local authority area. Sometimes, as has been suggested, they move to avoid attention, and there needs to be clarification of how and by whom these situations are to be dealt with.

Amendment 36 seems to be more fundamental. There are, of course, existing established arrangements focusing on children in need. Since at least the Children Act 1989, these can involve child protection conferences and child protection plans, which identify risks and assign responsibilities and expectations. It is perhaps not surprising that there are now operational concerns about the new clauses—in particular, whether they will unnecessarily duplicate or even disrupt workable and working existing arrangements.

In particular, we need to know whether the new teams provided for in these clauses will require the introduction of new personnel in a way that will deprive the family of the continuity and familiarity established by the original social work team. It takes time for a social worker to build a relationship with a child and family, and that should not be jeopardised. Changes bewilder the children and frustrate the parents. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, referred to consistency and ownership. Those are not just clichés, they are important and should, wherever possible, be preserved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 33 aims to leave discretion about the qualifications of those involved in the multi-agency child protection team to the relevant agency responsible. It also aims for clarity about where the Secretary of State might lift the requirement for qualifications in this work. My previous contributions have sought flexibility for those statutorily responsible for the safety of our young people, and this amendment follows that theme. The Minister, thankfully, gave us some reassurances earlier, and I hope this will continue.

Life changes, and the areas will not all be the same. It will need some local discretion, so one would hope that it would not be too prescriptive. In addition to considering the local needs of those responsible, we need to consider what already exists and, if change needs to happen, from what base will it happen? There needs to be flexibility for those who are part of the processes. It is also possible that this being one size fits all risks undermining local innovation, which we all know is important, as well as stunting workforce development.

Consideration will also need to be given to the relative qualifications of all members of the teams and those in other agencies. If it is to be the responsibility of a local area to arrange its child protection services, it will need to consider who is part of the multi-agency child protection team and their qualifications. I beg to move.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments, particularly the clause stand part notice. I have known the Minister to be a listener and Committee is entirely the time to listen. The noble Baroness mentioned that we need to solve the lack of joint working. I think nobody would disagree, and no one would dare to say that multidisciplinary team working for child protection is not the way to do it. But there are, I believe, genuine concerns about whether the functions outlined in Clause 3 are the way to achieve that.

When I first read the review recommendation and the description of multi-agency child protection teams—I have not yet come up with an acronym that I can pronounce quickly enough—I thought that would be an oversight mechanism akin to the independent chair of child protection cases. But the understanding out there among certain practitioners seems to be that it could be an investigative/operational mechanism. I thought it was a mechanism about oversight where you pull together everybody involved in that particular case, to make sure that everyone in the room knows everything that they need to know and there are no gaps in the information.

However, the understanding that is out there and that has been communicated is that, in fact, what could be happening here is a duplication of the investigative function. With this new system, what is understood out there is that, when a social worker has maybe had a very sensitive disclosure made to them—usually after many months of knowing the child and gaining their confidence—there can be a transfer at that moment to a different social worker to take over the investigative role. Obviously, that would be a duplication of resource and it would potentially sever the relationship that the child has.

Currently, as I understand it, the multidisciplinary team investigation is basically built around a lead expert social worker, who then draws in—at casework level—health, benefits, housing and the police interview. There is oversight of that by the independent chair. Of course, if there is any kind of change of that function, a child who has already disclosed may decide, “No, I can’t disclose to somebody else”. There may be that loss of trust, adding to their trauma. So the arrangements that we put in place in Clause 3—which everyone is intending to aid the joint working of all the different agencies—could inadvertently open up new cracks in the system.

While we have seen and are aware of the tragic failings that have led to the MacAlister review, it is important to remember how foundational the Children Act is—that it has stood the test of time, is understood by practitioners and has been built on, particularly in 2004. Many of our outstanding local authorities are not just chosen to be pathfinder places; they are visited by people from many European countries to see how they have embedded over many decades child protection systems that are—I know we find it hard to believe—the envy of some other countries.

Where is the adequate evidence to support this change? Yes, there was a recommendation in the MacAlister review, but where is the adequate evidence that we have used previously to make changes to our child protection system? I know that the pathfinders will be publishing soon, but are these actually what we would usually understand to be operational pilots? Where is the rigorous academic research that has so often been the evidential basis for previous changes to our child protection system over many decades?

While Clause 3 may seem logical and that in principle it will work, could it actually open up different problems? Will the Minister agree—if she has not already done so, because she said that there is evidence out there to support these changes—to meet the director of children’s services who advised the MacAlister review, Eileen Munro and other concerned academics, and the DCSs from outstanding local authorities who are concerned? Those are the practitioners who will have to implement this. The Minister may need to talk to her colleague in the Department of Health, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, as this was precisely the issue with the Mental Health Bill—whether approved mental professionals were behind that change. Are the directors of children’s services behind this change? Although the honourable Member, Josh MacAlister, whom I have met, is passionate about looked-after children and adoption and fostering, the review was not chaired by somebody who was an expert in deciding child protection cases or operationally dealing with child protection cases. That is why I wish that the Minister could meet that type of expert and reassure your Lordships’ House that these practitioners support this.

Although everyone here intends Clause 3 to help, I have thought, as we are required to do, about what the situation would be if the experts who have concerns—it might not be every single expert—about unintended consequences are proved to be right. If a child discloses sexual harm then loses confidence, with a switch of social worker or the multi-agency team that comes in, and then will not talk, and the mum’s partner, as it often is, senses that something has changed with the child, as disclosure psychologically affects individuals, and that person then harms the child to shut them up, what kind of report will come back from the local authority’s child safeguarding panel to the Department for Education? It will not be the responsibility of the DCS that the systems were not working. If the concerns are valid, the report that comes back could very well be, “We advised you not to make this kind of statutory change and you did, and this is what has happened”. I would not want anybody to be in that situation—that inadvertently, while trying to improve the system, with experts advising that there could be unintended consequences, we do not take time to pause and make sure that this recommendation is supported by adequate evidence before it is implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I am grateful for that clarification. Let me assure the Minister on what this concern is born out of, as I hope I explained. We can all pick off one or two experts in a group of people, but there are sector bodies such as the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. I mentioned a particular individual because there was particular engagement in the independent review we are all relying on. I assure the Minister that if she comes back at Report with support from those organisations, saying, “We support this; we understand; we have engaged”, these problems will fall away. She has a busy diary—obviously, I do not want to suggest how she allocates her diary—but if she comes back with the support of those representative practitioner bodies, with that assurance, the concerns will melt away.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am not sure that picking off experts is the way the department has engaged in consultation or engagement so far, nor will it do in the future. I am realistic: over my time in both Houses, this is probably my 12th Bill, and frankly, I have never done a Bill about which absolutely everybody was content. I am not going to accept that the only way we can progress this legislation is if every single expert, representative and professional body supports it.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 69A in this group. It speaks for itself. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 66, having spoken on the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill. I also gave evidence to the independent inquiry. If I remember correctly, I believe that the Government’s position at that time was that this recommendation from IICSA was under consideration, so I am grateful to see that it is being taken forward, as well as the recommendation for a child protection agency, which is the subject matter of a later amendment.

I wish to make two brief points. First, it is important to remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, that disciplinary processes already exist in some settings, such as large institutions, but many of the organisations outlined in proposed new Schedule 1A are probably more appropriately called out-of-school settings, which are often not even incorporated charities. Even if they are a charity, the only obligations and duties are those of the trustees and they can be stand-alone charities that are not part of any wider network. It is important to put this mandatory reporting obligation on those involved in an increasing number of charities, which do excellent work but sometimes stand in a very vulnerable governance situation.

My second point, which is connected to that, is that there have been previous discussions in your Lordships’ House, I think with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, on a suggestion that has been floated over the years of some kind of confessional exemption in the context of religious institutions. I think the days when we could nail down which religious institutions those are—maybe some synagogues, a few nonconformist churches and the Catholic Church—are long gone. I hope we can hit this on the head: how can we have any confessional-type exemption if we have such a wide variety of institutions nowadays?

Increasingly within the Christian community, although the Catholic Church is seeing a resurgence, young people are going to independent churches that may not be a member of any network. I do not see how practically that can work nowadays. I would hate for any confusion around that to halt an important amendment that is way overdue.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, when I was a vicar in Tulse Hill in the early 1980s, five young women came to see me. Four had been abused by their fathers. The youngest was eight at the time it happened. Working with them, listening to them, finding help that would restore who they truly were was a very long journey, but I am glad to say that all of them have now taken on professions that I did not think were possible. One of them has had the courage to report her father, who is now doing a quite a long sentence. I come originally from Uganda. I never imagined that a father could abuse an eight year-old girl. I just thought in terms of culture that that was just outrageous, but I listened, and we had to find a way of helping them.

Most abuse of young children happens in the home by family or friends. We need to work hard to make the message quite clear. I am reminded of those wonderful words by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard; noble Lords have heard him speak about the Soham murders. He did an inquiry into the Soham murders. One of his wonderful phrases in that report, which has sustained me in my work dealing with people who have been abused, was that we will never succeed in preventing child sexual abuse, but we can make it very difficult for abusers to do it.

For me, mandatory reporting is an important reality. When I appeared before IICSA, I was asked a question, and I said mandatory reporting must happen, because the only way that we are going to make it difficult for those who want to carry out their heinous crimes is if they know that it will not remain hidden. As most of it is in the home—at least in my experience—we have got to find a message that can remind a perpetrator of that, even though they may be behind closed doors in an apparently loving home where people’s lives have been blighted. I support Amendment 66. I hope the Minister will say something that can capture the imagination of this nation. We must not look at just the big organisations, but at what happens in the home.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 82 would provide further opportunities for children in kinship care to have access to boarding school places where appropriate. The Government should be applauded for their commitment to raising the profile of kinship care as a vital part of the ecosystem for children from broken families. As we heard earlier in the week from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, there are more than 150,000 children in kinship care in England. Kinship carers are unsung heroes, without whom it would be almost inevitable that the care system would buckle.

For most of Part 1 of the Bill, I have taken a back seat as I do not have direct expertise in the many complex areas that it seeks to tackle. However, for this proposal I was the Minister responsible for boarding schools, both state and private, when at the DfE. Noble Lords participating in the Bill will know what a huge task confronts kinship carers when taking on children, more often than not from broken homes and carrying the emotional scars of the unhappiness that has emanated from this breakdown. We have heard how the level of support for kinship carers is patchy at best and often almost non-existent. For many potential kinship carers the prospect will simply be too daunting, even if they might be the best solution in a given set of circumstances.

That is why I am so keen to give much more oxygen to the prospect of offering boarding school places to children in kinship care. Where it works for the child—and, of course, this is not always the case—it can provide a vital partnership to the carer in the upbringing of the child. At the simplest level, the day-to-day caring responsibilities for the kinship carer are reduced to around 16 weeks a year from 52 when boarding school is providing a home for the balance of the time.

I believe it is a dramatically underutilised resource. There is an unexplained squeamishness across many directors of children’s services to use it more. However, when I was the Minister in the area in 2018, we published a small longitudinal report showing just how impactful it could be. By coincidence, it was work led by Norfolk County Council, where I live, and the results were remarkable. We at the DfE then jointly published the report—it is no longer available on the DfE website, which is a shame. I urge the Minister to not only read it—I can send her a copy—but ask officials to put it back up again.

In essence, it tracked 52 vulnerable young people for between two and five years. Over that time, 33 of these young people were able to come off the risk register completely following placement in boarding school. Dr Claire Maxwell, who contributed to the report, then a reader in the sociology of education at UCL, highlighted three specific benefits. First, the setting can provide amelioration from risky emotional and physically stressful situations—for example, a circuit breaker from a local gang culture. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, a moment ago about the number of children from care ending up in prison—it is appalling. Secondly, there is improvement of educational outcomes. Thirdly, it is a more cost-effective solution than other forms of care intervention. Dr Maxwell’s view, and that of charities in the sector, was that successful boarding placements can help strengthen families experiencing significant difficulties. The longer school day that is part and parcel of boarding school life can provide a form of round-the-clock care and is part of the reason for the improved emotional and educational outcomes.

In this study, the 52 children were placed in 11 different boarding settings, a mixture of state and private provision. Some 21% of these children achieved a formal GCSE qualification in maths and English—above grade C, in old money. This compared with a national looked-after children pass rate in that year of 17.5%. These are not dramatic differences, but put alongside the substantial reduction in the numbers being removed from the risk register, it makes for a very positive story. This study also compared costs against more institutional forms of care beyond kinship. At the time of writing the report, the Norfolk Boarding School Partnership had an average cost between £11,000 and £35,000 a year, compared with £56,000 for a looked-after child in a normal or more standard setting. This translated into a saving of £1.6 million over four years for this group.

Obviously, kinship care is more affordable because carers get less support, but my argument is that if boarding was offered to potential kinship carers, the take-up would be much higher, therefore reducing local looked-after children costs. Today, the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation offers bursaries for looked-after children attending private boarding schools. We know that the educational outcomes for looked-after children remain way below the national average, and this is not a silver bullet—but, combined with the other benefits, as I have outlined, I believe it is a vital additional tool in the box to support these vulnerable children who never chose this harsh route into life. I hope the Minister will support me by agreeing to my amendment to provide more awareness of these opportunities.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I was pleased to be asked to speak to Amendment 82 by my noble friend Lord Farmer, who is unfortunately not able to be here today. As well as the evidence I will refer to, I was in your Lordships’ House back in 2014 when my noble friend gave his maiden speech. A Conservative Party treasurer perhaps brings a certain stereotype to mind. However, you could have heard a pin drop, as a globally successful metals trader spoke of being a young teenager in a chaotic home with an alcoholic single mother. But he went to the boarding house at the state-run Wantage Grammar School. It rescued him.

It made me reflect on the role of boarding schools. I was born and bred in Oakham and I have had to deal for many years with the annoyance of, “You’re from Oakham? So you went to Oakham School, then?” “No”, I reply, “there is a state comprehensive as well in the town, called Catmose College”—which was rated “outstanding” in every category in an Ofsted inspection in 2024, if noble Lords will forgive the shoutout for my state school.

This testimony by my noble friend is supported by the 2023 study by the University of Nottingham’s School of Education, commissioned by the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation, which found that children in or on the edge of care who attend state boarding or independent schools experience significant educational and financial benefits. They are four times more likely to achieve good GCSE passes in English and maths and five times more likely to pursue and succeed in A-levels, leading often to higher education. The study estimates that, for every 100 children attending boarding schools, lower social care costs and increased future earnings mean there is an economic return on investment of approximately £2.75 million. The report stated that, when vulnerable children in boarding schools were interviewed, they said such opportunities were life-changing.

This amendment would also make it significantly easier, as my noble friend Lord Agnew outlined, for kinship carers to step forward to offer a home to a child who might otherwise enter the state care system. Not every family will want or be able to house the child 24/7, 365 days a year. That can be a daunting task. They know of course that their own children will be greatly affected, and their house might not be big enough for that extra child. Kin altruism can be greatly aided and encouraged when a child can be educated in this way in the state boarding sector, giving the carer breathing space to attend to all their other responsibilities, while knowing that the child is safe and cared for in the state boarding sector. I hope the Minister will look at the evidence carefully in relation to this matter.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we have no amendments in this group, but we are very sympathetic to them. When you look at all the statistics for children in care, your heart goes out to those young people, and we should do everything humanly possible to help them, develop them, encourage them—and any other adjective you can think of.

I will deal with a few of the amendments. First, I want to deal with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. He may not know Liverpool College, but it is a very successful independent school with a dynamic head teacher, a Dutch American who came to England and did two things. First, he made Liverpool College an academy, and then he decided to make a boarding facility available. He came to an agreement with the local authority that he would offer a percentage of the places to children in care. The results have been spectacular. It is a model that should not be shunned for party-political reasons—“We are not in favour of independent schools or boarding schools”—but should be welcomed, embraced and encouraged.

Secondly, I want to make a point about Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. Again from personal experience, not only did we create a virtual school in Liverpool, but the then director of education, Colin Hilton, said, “I am going to be the virtual parent of these children”. He set up a steering committee of children in care in the local authority and he met with them once a month to hear their issues and their problems. Some might think this was flag waving, but, by taking on that role, he nailed his colours and the colours of the local authority to the mast, and again the results were amazing.

I am in favour of all sorts of information being made available, because it is only by getting information that you know what you have to do and how you can achieve it. Surprisingly, I am the chair of Liverpool’s education, employment and training scrutiny committee; the Labour authority has made a Lib Dem the chair of two of its select committees. The local authority sets a series of targets, and for education those are obviously training, employment and so on. In each quarter, we look at the results next to the targets we hoped to achieve, and I was surprised that children in care were not separated in those figures. I asked for the figures to be separated and that has now happened, so you can track the progress that those children in care are making.

So all these amendments, in one way or another, can only help to further the support that we as a nation want to give to those children in care. On the question of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, again, why not? All these issues are important, so I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to them.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, Amendment 131, in my name, appears in this group. I will not quite say that it is a pleasure to follow the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, but it was a terribly important contribution, and I can only very much agree with what she said. The issues that she has outlined—about children as young as seven, with two-thirds continuing still at six months—are hugely disturbing.

My amendment seeks to address a particular issue concerning children subject to deprivation of liberty orders and children in care in general. As I said to the Ministers when they very kindly had a briefing on the Bill, this arises from a campaign that I encountered in 2023, called Hope Instead of Handcuffs. This campaign came from a small group of people—a single operator of the provision of secure transport for children—who were calling for a ban on the automatic use of handcuffs. Yes, I did say the automatic use of handcuffs, which some privatised providers of secure transport were using on children who were subject to deprivation of liberty orders—or who, as it was described, were on the edges of care. They were being put in handcuffs to be transported. These are not children who have been accused of any crime; these are simply children—very vulnerable children, obviously—who have been subjected to something that I think any of us would find traumatic and disturbing.

This reflects testimony that was given in 2021 to the inquiry of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on protecting rights in care settings. Serenity Welfare testified that, as I have just said, many providers of secure transportation services for children who were on the edge of care were using handcuffs as standard. I quote from its testimony:

“The practice is unregulated and unmonitored, as there is no obligation on these providers to report any instances of handcuffing to the appropriate authority”.


As a result of that campaign in 2023, I and a number of other Members of both Houses wrote to the Government inquiring what was happening. The response we got was, “We will look into it”. To the best of my knowledge, none of this has progressed since then, so I particularly wanted to put down this probing amendment to draw attention to the issue.

I have not addressed just transport, because I want to know what is happening in other settings for these children as well, which is why I have included them in the amendment. This is perhaps a much more limited issue than the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was outlining, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government are planning to do something about it if, as I have no reason to doubt, it is still continuing, and to stop it.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 126, in my name, is in this group. This amendment relates to a discreet issue for children who are under a High Court deprivation of liberty order but who are not also looked-after children under the Children Act. Approximately 96% of those children under a High Court deprivation of liberty order are also looked-after children under the Children Act, but then they end up at the High Court, as there is a shortage of Section 25 secure accommodation. Only in Section 25 accommodation under the Children Act can a looked-after child be restricted of their liberty—that currently means a secure children’s home—so they are also put under a High Court DoL so that the local authority can deprive them of their liberty in non-Section-25-type accommodation. It seems that by the move to the phrasing “relevant accommodation” the Bill will regularise in law their situation, which is that 96% of these young people are currently under that inherent jurisdiction deprivation of liberty order. However, there are currently 4% of children under a High Court deprivation of liberty order who are not also looked-after children under the Children Act.

I want to thank the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane. I believe that it was his work that brought in the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, when High Court DoLS—as we would call them—began to be used as a jurisdiction. It is due only to that work that we know that, within that group, we have this little group—the 4%—who are not also looked-after children. Even an amended Section 25 of the Children Act refers only to looked-after children having their liberty being restricted in what would now be known as “relevant accommodation”. They would still be left under the High Court jurisdiction, with fewer safeguards. The whole purpose of Clause 11 is to bring from the inherent jurisdiction these children under a statutory system of protection, safeguards and reviews.

This 4% of around 1,280 children last year are often children coming out of the mental health estate. They have been taken into hospital for their own protection and for treatment; then they are discharged but, for health reasons, their home is no longer suitable. In my view, they are not going to pass the threshold test under the Children Act 1989 to be a looked-after child, because the threshold test—philosophically and in practice—is about harm by the care or neglect of the adult who should be caring for them or the fact of their being out of control. Neither of those circumstances seem in most cases to apply to a young person who has gone into the mental health estate and then been discharged.

While I recognise the imperfections of the current drafting of Amendment 126—for instance, it might trigger other provisions of the Children Act if we deem these children to be looked after-children—I chose that mechanism to try to bring them under the safeguards that we will have for children under Section 25 who are looked-after children, and not leave them still to be under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. I hope that that serves to be a mechanism for the Minister to explain what the situation is for that small group of children.

I imagine it was envisaged by Sir Andrew McFarlane that he would get the data through the Nuffield work, so that we would come to Parliament, legislate and take this into statute law, out of the inherent jurisdiction. It seems to me, from Amendment 126, that unless we do something for this small group of children, he is going to have to continue needing Nuffield, because there will be a need for this type of deprivation of liberty order under the inherent jurisdiction for the group of children I have just outlined.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

As the noble Baroness said, Nuffield research found that 96.6% of children on a deprivation of liberty order under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court were already in care at the time of the application. Where the child is not in care, they may have significant disabilities that mean a deprivation of liberty order is needed to keep them safe. In those cases, seeking to consider these children looked after may not be needed or appropriate. Furthermore, the Children Act 1989 is clear that the court’s inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised if the same result can be achieved through existing statutory frameworks. Deeming a child looked after due to a deprivation of liberty order being made under the inherent jurisdiction would bypass existing legal frameworks that enable a child to become looked after. However, I am not wholly sure that I have fully addressed the detail of the points made by the noble Baroness in her contribution, and I will therefore look again at what she said and undertake to write to her.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I thank the Minister. Can she simply confirm in the letter that the position may be that we are left with a residual group of children who will still need the inherent jurisdiction? It might be that the legislation just does not reach quite far enough at the moment.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will clarify that in the letter.

On Amendment 131 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the important matter of the use of restraint on children in care and subject to deprivation of liberty orders, it is vital that children are safe and that restraint is used only where appropriate, including when they are moving between settings and services. We take these concerns very seriously. We will consider guidance on restraint in due course.

However, the question about children being handcuffed remains, and I will endeavour to get more detail about that and to come back to the noble Baroness. Providers, in conjunction with placing authorities, are under an obligation to use the minimum appropriate restriction to keep a child safe.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 160 to this important Bill. Amendment 159 relates to the establishment of a child protection authority and is also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. These amendments, grounded in the belief that every child, no matter where they live and what challenges they face, should be guaranteed a basic level of protection. Amendment 159 proposes the creation of a child protection authority, in direct response to one of the most urgent and widely endorsed recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Amendment 160 seeks to establish national thresholds for children in need support under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Neither of these proposals is theoretical. Both are urgent responses to real-world system failures that we have seen repeated with devastating consequences across our country.

Amendment 159 calls for the creation of the child protection authority, as recommended by the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. That inquiry, after seven years, 325 days of public hearings, and testimony from over 7,000 victims and survivors, concluded that existing child protection mechanisms are fragmented, inconsistent and insufficiently accountable. Among the 20 recommendations, the establishment of the independent child protection authority was second only to mandatory reporting.

This body would have four core responsibilities: to improve child protection practices across public and private institutions; to provide expert advice to the Government and the sector; to conduct inspections of institutions and systems where safeguarding concerns are raised; and to monitor the implementation of the recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other major safeguarding inquiries. Critically, this authority would be independent and established as a non-departmental public body, similar to the structure of the National Crime Agency. Its independence would give it the mandate and credibility to act across departmental and institutional silos.

We cannot ignore the repeated failures of the current framework. The names of Sara Sharif, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson will remain etched in our nation’s conscience for years to come. Each of those children was known to professionals and each was failed by a system that saw the risk but lacked the clarity, co-ordination and accountability to prevent harm. The Government’s response has been to strengthen existing structures rather than create a new body. Although that is understandable, it risks reinforcing the very fragmentation that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse warned about. We must be bolder, take a systematic view and act decisively.

Amendment 160 is on national standards for children in need support. Let us begin with the children in need framework. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 empowers local authorities to offer services to children whose health or development would suffer without additional support. Yet, in the absence of a national threshold or quality standards, this power is deployed deeply inconsistently. In her 2022 report, the Children’s Commissioner for England uncovered stark regional disparities of how children in need plans are used. For example, in Knowsley and in Blackpool more than 60% of children known to social care were supported through a child in need plan, in stark contrast with Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, where the figure is less than 20%.

Let us be clear: this variation cannot be explained by demographics or the level of need alone; it is a result of fragmented local practice in the absence of national guidance. That creates a system in which access to help is determined not by a child’s vulnerability but by their postcode. The situation is compounded by variations in the quality of those plans. Many are vague, lack time-bound goals and fail to specify what support a child will actually receive. Social workers have expressed frustration with a system that burdens them with process but does not enable them to deliver change.

This amendment seeks to fix that. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake a national review of how Section 17 is currently implemented, including an analysis of demographic variations and effectiveness; to issue statutory guidance establishing clear minimum thresholds for child eligibility and a template for high-quality planning; and to use automatic referral triggers, such as a parent entering prison, in-patient mental health care or a child being arrested, to ensure early intervention where risk is identifiable. This is not about removing local flexibility; it is about setting a national baseline of protection so that a child’s right to support is not dependent on what they have.

This Bill is an opportunity to do more than pass yet another set of well-intentioned clauses. It is a chance to confront two crucial, long-standing failures: the lack of consistent, enforceable thresholds for when and how a child receives support under Section 17—on that note, I add that the Children’s Commissioner has today come out in support of my Amendment 160—and the absence of a single, independent body tasked with improving, inspecting and co-ordinating our child protection infrastructure. We often speak in this Chamber about opportunity, fairness and levelling up. These amendments are a test of whether we mean what we say because, for children growing up in hardship and at risk of harm, fairness begins with visibility and opportunity begins with protection. Let us give these children more than words; let us give them a system that supports them and keeps them safe where they live. I urge noble Lords to support my amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling Amendment 159, to which I added my name. It is a probing amendment, so I hope the Minister has not been equipped with various intricacies on the drafting. I believe that His Majesty’s Government intend to consult on child protection.

As the noble Lord outlined, this is a recommendation from IICSA, which envisaged the child protection authority having an inspection function of certain settings within its purposes. However, there was another recommendation from the independent inquiry, which said:

“All religious organisations should have a child protection policy and supporting procedures, which should include advice and guidance on responding to disclosures of abuse and the needs of victims and survivors. The policy and procedures should be updated regularly, with professional child protection advice, and all organisations should have regular compulsory training for those in leadership positions and those who work with children and young people”.


Although the child protection agency will be led by the Home Office and the honourable Member Jess Phillips, this second recommendation sounds like a description not only of charities but of out-of-school settings. I am aware that, since the amendment was laid, a call for evidence went out from the Department for Education on safeguarding for out-of-school settings, but how are they intended to fit together?

In addition to religious organisations, sports clubs, informal educational settings, summer clubs and private tutors seem not to be within a regulatory framework at the moment. Is this not what the independent inquiry envisaged that the work of a child protection authority would be, or could be? Those organisations are outside Ofsted and, despite the excellent work of the Charity Commission—many of them will be charities but not all of them—the threshold for intervention by the Charity Commission on the grounds of safeguarding is statutorily very high. It is not an inspectorate, it seems, or an accreditor of safeguarding training.

If one looks momentarily at the scrutiny function that the Church of England is trying to set up, that function, which should be independent, looks as if it should be inspection, audit, accreditation and an end of complaint process facility. In these informal settings, out-of-school settings or charities, who accredits the safeguarding? Who does the inspecting? Who holds low-level concerns regarding staff and volunteers? Many of those settings will be a single charity under no umbrella organisation—and I thank the safeguarding charity Thirtyone:eight for its excellent work on safeguarding. If you are the trustee of a stand-alone charity and you begin to have concerns about a volunteer or a staff member—the kind of low-level concerns that are that are dealt with in Keeping Children Safe in Education—where is the umbrella organisation that will keep track?

We have to keep one step ahead of people who have this intention to get access to children. They will disappear from one independent stand-alone charity and have the potential to pop up, maybe in a different place—a different church or sports club—but who is keeping track of those concerns? You might informally tell another charity such as thirtyone:eight, but who will be collating that information? Could the Minister consider arranging a meeting for any interested Peers at which we can talk about the scope of the child protection authority and the call for evidence for out of school settings?

The call for evidence is, I believe, like a survey that you fill in. I promise the Minister that I will fill out the survey and go through that facility. But could she also confirm to noble Lords that the child protection authority will go out for consultation? What will the scope be for that and how will it fit together with this large gap—or number of small gaps—we have with out of school settings? This is an important moment to finally cover the many loopholes that still exist in relation to child safeguarding, particularly in out of school settings.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I find these two amendments extremely interesting, and I very much support the spirit of them. But I am not at all happy, I have to say, about exactly how they are put forward. I think it is important that the Government reflect on Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and the extent to which it could be updated and improved. I am delighted that the Government are taking steps to find out rather more about it.

I was extremely interested in the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, but I am not sure that they come into either Amendments 159 or 160. It does not mean that it is any less important. This is a wider issue of some real importance. I am not quite sure where it should come, but it certainly needs to be regarded .

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I am grateful to be able to respond, as this is Committee. With the child protection authority, the question is about what scope that will have. If it is to have an inspectorate function, which is what was recommended by IICSA, will it have a role to inspect out of school settings? That is the way that, I would say, it comes within the scope of the amendment. But I accept it is a probing amendment. We need to make sure that we put the DfE and Home Office together to keep children safe .

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, on his powerful speech. I listened to his maiden speech, and this is the second time I have heard him speak. I see that he will be an important addition to the expertise in your Lordships’ House.

In relation to his Amendment 159, I am slightly puzzled and look forward to the Minister’s response. As the noble Lord said, the Government have accepted the recommendations of IICSA to create a child protection authority and this will initially, as I understand it, form part of the child safeguarding practice review panel. My noble friend Lady Berridge made good points about out of school settings although, in general, I worry about the extent of regulation that might fall on very small organisations and the impact that might have. I remember thinking about this when in office. One of the organisations we met with said there were no incentives in the system today to encourage organisations to do the right thing; there are just penalties if you get it wrong. Maybe that is a constructive path for the Government to consider.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest: I am now a member of the Northern Ireland Curriculum Taskforce Advisory Committee. I support amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran, and I support and echo some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, my noble friend Lord Young and others.

To put it in context, we are one of the most permissive countries in the world on home education. We have a strong default presumption that parents should be able to home-educate if they choose and no expectation of tight supervision of that. When I was chief inspector, my counterparts in other countries were often astonished at the degree of freedom that parents in this country have. There are countries where home education is simply illegal, and there are many countries where there are quite significant controls on quality.

To take just one example, in Belgium, I recently talked to the Flanders chief inspector. Parents must have their child do the end of primary school test. If they fail, they have one further opportunity; if they do not pass either time, they must be registered in a school. Similarly, there are provisions that if parents repeatedly refuse to allow a local authority employee to visit them at home, the child must be registered at school. I am not advocating these things specifically, simply putting it in context.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, made a important point that this is not a single community. People have referred a number of times to communities. There are communities of what you might characterise as the archetypal home-schoolers, many of them excellent, which include many parents of children with special educational needs of various kinds. They are strongly represented in forums, support groups and lobbying, and they are valuable and important people. There are also many parents who do not take part in these kinds of forums. They are the parents of children in illegal schools where children are nominally home-educated but actually in illegal institutions. They are parents of children who have been essentially forced out of school and off-rolled, who typically have substantial behavioural problems and often significant educational needs, whose parents are disproportionately unlikely to be able to give them a suitable education. There are parents who have simply withdrawn their children to avoid prosecution for non-attendance, and there will always be a few sad exceptional cases, but I will not go into that.

My Ofsted work made me strongly supportive of a register, and I spoke regularly about this over many years, but it is important to be clear about a couple of things. My understanding is that this is not reversing that historic presumption that parents are free to home-educate. So, if we draw out the questions that a register helps local authorities to answer, they are, first: “Is there any reason to think that this child will not be getting a suitable education?” It is not microassuring that, yes, it is definitely suitable; it is slightly the other way. Secondly and similarly, it is not aiming to provide absolute certainty around safeguarding; it is asking, “Are there warnings or flags that suggest that some more work might be needed?” Thirdly, it is about gathering some of the administrative data that central and local government need in order to understand what they need to provide and where rules and incentives need to change.

Quite a lot of what we have heard today has been on the assumption that this is about completely reversing that presumption and moving to microjudgment of the quality of what every parent is doing at every stage. I do not think that that is there, but it would be helpful for it to be explicit that that is not the case. It is important that this does not become just a register of concerns. The requests for exemptions are, sadly, a little misguided because they would narrow this down to being a register of concern. Broadly, it is much clearer if it is simply an objective that the register of children in school plus the register of children not in school adds up to the totality.

I started today intending to support the pragmatic amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran around limiting the information that has to be collected to the things that genuinely support those purposes. What I have heard has led me to think that there is a simplification that the Government might consider that would help to draw together and streamline the thrust of the points that have been made on carers, for example, and those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. It is that if it is information that we would normally expect to be collected in the administrative data section of a school register, it should also be in the not in school register. We are perhaps over- complicating it.

On what is collected about the education itself, I have another point. It is important not to push this too far. To the extent that this register contains subjective information about how children are being educated and about how much time children who are being educated with flexible models spend on maths, English or whatever it might be, it will not work well. Different parents will interpret it very differently. It is the kind of information that it is hard to do well even when constructing a research study. I suggest that there is room to take this back a bit in the light of the purposes I outlined and to commission research studies and sample studies where appropriate.

Similarly, lovely as it would be, the register will never provide all the information that a social work department might need to decide that an investigation is necessary. We need to think about what is straightforward to collect and not subjective to answer and what will help to create the join-up we expect, while not creating an administrative monster with information that turns out to have relatively little value in practice.

That is all I wanted to say. I support this register strongly, as I said, but one iteration further could be done with these provisions to make the register as clean, effective and supportive as it should be.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to follow on; in fact, my noble friend has given an introduction to the comments that I wanted to make in relation to Amendment 260 in the names of my noble friend Lady Barran and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. She mentioned phrases such as “not push it too far” or “take a step back from this”, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, outlined on a previous group that this should be proportionate reporting and information collection, which is really important.

On Amendment 260, we get down to the clauses— I am a lawyer by training and have been in government as a Minister, and I know that government loves such clauses—which require the collection, if it is reasonable to obtain it, of

“any other information about the child’s characteristics, circumstances”

or needs. The only caveat to that is that those should be included in the register

“for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education or welfare of children”.

My first point in relation to that is that that is new paragraph (m), so we have already asked for an awful lot of information before we have our lovely “scoop it all up” clause. But is “characteristics” limited to protected characteristics? That is a separate paragraph in Clause 31, so I suspect it is not. What kinds of characteristics will be asked of families in relation to their children, what kinds of circumstances and what limit on that or on their needs? Obviously, we are not talking about special educational needs because that, again, is somewhere else. It is an enormously wide power for them to be able to reasonably obtain this information.

The only limit on it is

“for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education or welfare of children”.

Part of that limitation is well known. It apes the Children Act, which says that we are there to promote and protect the safeguarding of the welfare of children. But here it is about the safeguarding of education, a slightly new concept that is there as a key limitation, in the way the paragraph is put together, on what local authorities can ask of families.

So I strongly support Amendment 260 on that kind of “scoop it all up” information about parents in these circumstances, particularly parents who may have, for good reason, withdrawn their children. I can see all kinds of headlines and problems if this kind of information, on such a broad basis, is asked of parents by the local authority. I think that there will be legal challenges to define such a broad clause that the Government seem to want, and that it will be the subject of complaints of intrusion. Although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, obviously this is not to take back that presumption that it is the parents’ right, but such a wide clause that gives the local authority such extensive powers to ask for basically any other information risks changing that presumption, or at the very least it creates a perception for parents that it has been changed.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I strongly support Amendment 427C and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who made the two opening speeches. All the speeches today have shone a light on what many people in the country are not aware of.

I was a councillor in Hackney many years ago and I knew this community. What was most interesting to me in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, was that he was able to explain how much effort has gone into improving the whole question of safeguarding. That must be something that we are all concerned about in any school.

For me, this is very clearly about the fact that the yeshivas are not schools. They are no more a school than the Sunday school that I went to for many years as a youngster. That was nothing to do with the church—it was a separate Sunday school, set up by some very nice people in the countryside, and I went every Sunday afternoon for many years. It was not a school in the sense of education; it was about religion and understanding the history of Christianity and all those kinds of things. I can see exactly what the yeshivas are doing.

We might think that Governments cannot possibly be misled, but it seems that, under Clause 35 of the Bill, yeshivas will be regulated as if they are schools. That is wrong. We have heard about what goes on there. We know that it is a place for young men to engage with their heritage and build their spiritual and ethical character. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, mentioned some of the young men she had spoken to who were unhappy about what is happening. I am sure that if we went around many of our schools and spoke to young men about what was going on in their school, we would always find somebody who has a real problem, but that does not mean that there is anything wrong with what is happening overall.

It seems to me—maybe the Minister can tell me I am wrong—that there has been very little engagement prior to the drafting of the Bill with the community about the central role that the yeshivas play in the communities. Was there any real discussion? It seems to me, having listened to what people are saying, that we have underlying support for safeguarding. Surely, if the department had spent time talking to the community to know what was going on in those schools, and talking to the local authority, this could have been solved without such an amendment and without having to go through this whole debate. It could have been solved by a bit of common sense and good will, with people sitting around a table.

I hope that that might still happen, and we can find a sensible and practical solution that would allow the yeshiva schools to stay open. I am calling them schools but I am not implying that they are schools; as I said earlier, they are not schools in the sense that we all know what a school is. We could then address remaining concerns about safeguarding and the links between home education and yeshivas. We must try to settle this; otherwise, we will see them all closing and we will be left with a much more difficult situation to handle.

Recognising just how many people feel strongly about this, I urge the Minister to look at this again and come back on Report with wording that may be slightly different and more satisfactory to the department. This really needs to be looked at.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I had not anticipated speaking until the next group. I declare an interest as a senior research fellow at Regent’s Park College, Oxford, which is researching freedom of religion or belief in the UK. A number of Peers have entered into talking about this human right without, I think, fully appreciating its impact.

In relation to the “institution”, as it is referred to in the amendment, if this amendment were accepted, can the Minister outline where it would sit with the other out-of-school settings work that is going on, because I think it would sit as an out-of-school setting? I do not think that they are charities, otherwise they would already have safeguarding responsibilities. Could there, in some respects, be good unintended consequences of the amendment, in that we take an out-of-school setting and bring it into the safeguarding world, with DBS checks, et cetera?

Freedom of religion or belief is not an absolute right. It is sometimes put into a debate as if it cannot be curtailed. It is important to remember that the children to whom we have been referring also have the right to freedom of religion or belief. Parents have the right to bring up their children in the faith that they wish them to have, but that does not mean an immersive experience that does not allow a child to exercise their right to know, through a broad and balanced curriculum, about the world and nation that they are growing up in and about other faiths and humanist and other belief systems. This is a very difficult world—not just in the Jewish context but in the context of Christianity, other faiths and some atheistic traditions—in which to try to shield a child from knowledge so that they never choose a different type of Jewishness or a different religion for themselves.

I hope that, whatever situation we end up in with regard to these schools, we bear in mind that these children have freedom of religion or belief and should have an education that enables them to exercise that right fully. I hope that that will be part of the considerations and the engagement with the community, as we come to a position on these institutions. It is accepted in the amendment that they are institutions of some category, not some kind of faith space.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I was head of a Church of England primary school and my daughter went to a Jewish school. I am conscious that, in my home city of Liverpool, one-third of the schools are faith schools. I want to reflect on what various noble Lords have said, and I want to speak very carefully because I am still considering everything that has been said. I have found it, at times, quite challenging.

Let me deal with an issue that I do not find challenging, which is my Amendment 451. Children who are suspended from school are the responsibility of the school, while pupils who are permanently excluded from school are the responsibility of the local authority. Secondary schools that have pupil referral units, called PRUs, are often able to put suspended students into the referral unit. I have visited many of them and been astounded and impressed by how they have supported students. Instances of expulsion—permanent exclusions, as we now say—are very limited.

Let us remember that young people who are permanently excluded from school often have severe behavioural issues, which perhaps could have been picked up when they were younger and perhaps could have been supported in a different way. Many of them have severe behavioural problems.

Many—quite a high percentage, I think, and certainly over 80%—have special needs. They are the very young people who should not be excluded from school; they should be in school but, clearly, schools have a right to teach, and pupils have a right to learn. When they are excluded from school, local authorities may put them into what we call alternative provision. There are two types of alternative provision. There is alternative provision that is registered, which means that it is inspected from time to time by Ofsted. I have visited two alternative providers and been incredibly impressed by what I have seen. Many local authorities choose to put permanently excluded pupils not into a registered provider but into an unregistered one. Why? Because it is much, much cheaper. That is no way to treat a young person, no way at all.

Some of those unregistered providers do not keep a register. The young person comes and goes. There are no proper qualifications among the so-called teaching staff, et cetera, et cetera. As I have mentioned in debates in this Chamber, that is not to say that some unregistered providers are not very good, but it is still no way to treat a young person. This amendment is very simple. All it says is that any alternative provider—those schools or units, because when we talk about a school, we are probably talking about a school of 20 pupils—should be registered. We should know that there are qualified staff, qualified support and quality learning for those pupils. We should know that all the things we expect take place and that there will be, from time to time, Ofsted reports on those schools. I have looked at many of those Ofsted reports and been incredibly impressed by the work those alternative providers do. That is the simple request: that we should not allow the most vulnerable children and young people in our society to be treated in this way. They have the right to go to a proper institution—a proper school.

I now come to the other amendments. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris—it used to be “I agree with Nick.” I am sorry, I am not comparing the noble Baroness with Nick Clegg. I want children—young people—to have an education, whether in a school or, in some cases, at home, which is broad and balanced, which equips them for life, which they enjoy and which brings out their best qualities. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, does not mind me mentioning this, but I remember that several years ago, she came to me in a discussion about a particular faith school—a Christian school, actually—where the pupils were treated in quite a challenging way. One boy, for example, happened to tell the school that he was gay, so he was pushed into a cupboard and locked in there until he came out and announced that he was not gay. I am not going to mention the school, but I think it employed its own inspection regimes. Because it was in charge of its own inspection regimes, that company—

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I am not sure that the noble Lord is remembering the situation accurately, so it would be best in future to consult before referring to something that I think was many years ago. I say that with no disrespect to the noble Lord’s comments.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

This amendment would be innovative and evidence-driven, with broad drivers of well-being such as physical activity, nutrition and access to arts and culture. These are all important components for building resilience and purpose, and this proposal ensures that data is shared meaningfully with schools and public bodies, leading to action and not analysis. If we want healthier and happier children, we need this national framework, and this amendment would deliver it, so I hope we can make some progress on driving this initiative forward today.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 502YG and pass on the apologies of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, who has had to go but had agreed to introduce the amendment on behalf of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, who cannot take part on the Bill. In summary, the amendment is to improve allergy safety in schools, but it marks the culmination of a long campaign in conjunction with the inspirational Helen Blythe, following the tragic death of her son Benedict in 2021, when he was only five. An inquest last month concluded that Benedict’s death was avoidable and caused by the accidental ingestion of cows’ milk after his school failed to follow the processes and procedures in place to protect him.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, outlined, almost 20% of all allergic reactions take place in schools and, sadly, we now know that not only do they not necessarily have the EpiPens but they do not necessarily have a plan or training in place. Only putting these protective measures on a statutory footing will ensure that adequate protections are there for the two children in every classroom with allergies. Helen has worked tirelessly to establish the safety measures necessary to ensure that no child is ever lost again in such a tragic and avoidable way. I also pay tribute to the work of Alicia Kearns in the other place, MP for Rutland and Stamford, with which I am connected. Helen Blythe is her constituent.

The current government guidelines do not even mention allergies. There is only one line on food and one link to an anaphylaxis charity. The key aim is of course spare EpiPens, trained staff and a proper policy. The Government would prefer any change to be by way of guidance, but that just does not give the guarantees necessary—hence tonight’s amendment.

Between 1998 and 2018, 66 children died from allergic reactions. There are 680,000 pupils in England’s schools who have allergies—that is one or two per classroom, according to the Benedict Blythe Foundation’s REACT report of March 2024. At a time when the Department for Education is rightly focused on the attendance crisis, children miss half a million days of education due to allergy each year. These adrenaline auto-injections are life-savers, and the Benedict Blythe Foundation estimates that it would cost only £5 million for the rollout in English schools, plus the training. I remember a similar campaign to put defibrillators into every school; that was done, so why not put these EpiPens, and proper training and policy, in place? I welcome the department’s engagement, but the time for action is now.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I want to underline, in respect of Amendment 462, the importance of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about reducing the pressures on CAMHS. The family courts are being frustrated, as I know from recent experience, and impeded in reaching necessary long-term decisions about the future for children. They are told, week by week, that they are waiting for an appointment with CAMHS and then that they are waiting for an assessment report from CAMHS—and then that they are waiting for the recommended treatment to take place. If Amendment 462 serves to help with those tasks, children, their parents and the courts will benefit. The courts are being criticised for the delays in reaching decisions, and certainly the problems with CAMHS contribute to those delays.