Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I lend my support to these amendments, particularly Amendments 103, 104 and 146 in the name of my noble friend Lord Storey. As we have heard, it has been a very interesting group about the role that kinship care is playing. Okay, the number is somewhere between 100,000 and 142,000 or 153,000: it is an awful lot of children who, because they are in kinship care, are not going into the care system, with all the costs that we know that can bring with it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, said in her very interesting and insightful contribution, kinship carers are often doing this at great sacrifice to themselves. Very often—most times—they are doing it out of love, but they are stepping up at a time of crisis to provide that love and care to children who would otherwise be in the care system.

I just want to underline the point that the period when the child moves in can be incredibly difficult and require a lot of support. Often the kinship carer, who would not have planned to have taken on parental responsibilities for one or more children, would have to spend time attending meetings with children’s services, be involved in court proceedings, maybe find a nursery, make arrangements with the children’s school, the GP or whatever. The list just goes on. They are all things that tend to need to be done during the day, during working hours, and they all take time and money, which is why I feel that a kinship care allowance and extending the pupil premium is so important and, most particularly, an entitlement for an individual to be absent from work on care leave at the moment when those arrangements are being set up is critical.

When I was looking at the very helpful briefing that I have been sent, I was reminded that a right to paid employment leave for kinship carers was recommended by the cross-party Parliamentary Taskforce on Kinship Care, the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, which we have heard about this afternoon, and indeed by the House of Lords Select Committee doing post-legislative scrutiny on the Children and Families Act, which I actually chaired. I remember that we came forward with that recommendation, and I think it is incredibly important that we take this opportunity to do something about it.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I start by saying how touched I am, and I really want to welcome the comments that have been made about kinship care in the Chamber this evening. It is such an important area, and I think we all have to put our hand on our heart and say that it is a set of relationships that has not been given its due recognition. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, talked about areas of good practice. I think we could all add areas where we know that places are getting it right. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sanderson and Lady O’Neill, talked about the general background and trying to imagine the situation when you know that a family member is getting into difficulties. As they quite rightly say, this becomes a moment of crisis when the risk to the children we are talking about is at its absolute highest.

The recognition of the importance of focusing on the outcomes for children and young people is to be welcomed and needs to be at the forefront of everything that we do. From a local authority perspective, we know that too many children are going into care. As we have heard tonight, this can have a detrimental effect on their prospects and outcomes over a long period. It also has an enormous impact on the budgets of councils, in particular where money could be invested into setting up more support networks in this area.

We are talking about supporting children to stay within their family and friend network, where that is safe and right for them. This is a priority for this Government. There is a general recognition that the support that kinship families have received to date has not been sufficient. We are working hard to address this. It is quite extraordinary that, until now, there has been no legal definition of kinship care. Changing that is something that we can all come together to welcome. As we have heard, access to information for the families involved can be a postcode lottery. Clause 5 is a significant step towards ensuring greater parity in information on the support that is available to kinship carers by requiring local authorities to publish a kinship offer.

Amendment 69B, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, seeks to ensure that information on support for kinship families, and not just children and carers, is included in the duty to publish a kinship local offer. I reassure the noble Earl that there is mention in the Bill of a review. New Section 22H(7), to be inserted by Clause 5, states that local authorities “must review” and keep up to date their kinship information. We agree that a whole-family approach is absolutely vital, but amending Clause 5 as proposed is not necessary. The list of information about services that can be included in a kinship local offer under Clause 5 is non-exhaustive. This has been done for a reason, and it already includes services relating to relationships which will assist kinship families more broadly.

The kinship care statutory guidance states that local authorities should empower families by prioritising family-led solutions, working collaboratively with family networks to support parents or carers to make and sustain positive changes, leading, we hope, to de-escalation of need or no further involvement with statutory services. Local authorities should engage with family networks, from early help and at every point through the children’s social care system, as set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023.

There are other policies dedicated to families in need of support, which we have heard about already this evening, such as the family help programme, which aims to improve children’s outcomes and respond to needs and the circumstances of the family as early as possible to enable children to thrive and families to remain together. With a stress on family help, multi-agency child protection family group decision-making reforms are being rolled out across England through the Families First Partnership programme, with over £500 million of direct funding for preventive support for children and families.

Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is on the categories of information listed under Clause 5. We agree that it is important that a kinship local offer should encompass information about the full range of support that is available in the local area. However, amending Clause 5 as proposed is not necessary, for the reasons that I have outlined. Clause 1 already sets out that family group decision-making will be offered, so to add it here would be unnecessary. As I have mentioned before, the listed categories of information about services for the kinship local offer are non-exhaustive and broad, meaning that local authorities can respond to their local strengths and local circumstances, and bring in services available in their area.

The kinship care statutory guidance sets out the expectation that a kinship local offer should set out the legal support that may be available to kinship carers and potential kinship carers, including the eligibility and extent of that support. This involves local relationships—the power of place—and health providers working with local authorities, bringing together all the possible solutions to a particular situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has suggested, practical emotional support is absolutely key. We know that there is more work to be done. We need to look at the areas that are doing it well, learn from their experience, and make sure that it is taken up and expanded in every local authority area around the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I welcome an awful lot of what the Minister said and what His Majesty’s Government are trying to do. My heart sank slightly when I heard the piece about relying on statutory guidance, which was obviously written for her beforehand. I have worked very closely on a variety of Bills over the past four or five years with the Children’s Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. If the Minister were to sit down with each or all of them and ask them about the experience they had of overreliance on statutory guidance, she would get some very mixed messages.

Statutory guidance is effective only if the degree to which it is complied with is monitored; it is of no use whatever if the organisations that are meant to carry it out know that nobody is looking over their shoulder or calling them to book if they do not comply. This again comes back to the variation in practice across the country. So I ask the Minister, her colleagues and the department to talk to some of those commissioners, to understand the historical and the live experience they have in dealing with some of the statutory guidance we have put into some of the legislation that has come through the House in the past three or four years, to see how effective it is and what we can learn from it.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his contribution and reassure him that I was not just reading out a script. I have put a lot of thought into this. I have been in the place of delivering on this agenda, so I do have the experience.

We have to be careful that we are not too prescriptive at every level, because that can absolutely confound and take up more resource. But I do acknowledge that statutory guidance has to be adhered to, monitored and dealt with with the same seriousness across the piece and, where it has not been adhered to, it has to be called out. The most important thing that all of us can do is make sure that there is an awareness of the rights and responsibilities of the different organisations involved and that they live up to them and, as we have said all the way through, put the needs of some of the most vulnerable children in our communities at the heart of everything we do.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who made valuable contributions to this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, talked about improving the visibility of kinship care, and he is absolutely right. My noble friend Lady Sanderson talked about acknowledging the role of the whole family in terms of kinship families and gave us three live, worked examples of why this group is so important. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, reminded your Lordships’ Committee that there are 153,000 children in kinship care and that we are so lucky to have kinship carers—which I believe all noble Lords would agree with and which emphasises again why this group is critical. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to kinship carers as a priceless asset and he is entirely correct. I believe several of these issues merit further discussion on Report, but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I will be even briefer, because much of what I intended to say has already been said. Obviously, I deal with this pretty much on a daily basis, back at the base in Bexley. As explained earlier, kinship care tends to have to be done much more quickly than a foster care placement. A foster care placement can go through a due process that will take much longer and will be very thorough, but kinship care tends to have to be much quicker.

There are things that you might need to look at for a kinship care placement that you would not for foster care. Obviously, the kinship carer is seeking to look after a child they know. They are not looking to foster any child, which would mean that they would have to have a wide range of experience and therefore, no doubt, training to go with it. They may already be in a home that they will take the child or children into, so the accommodation might not meet the needs that a foster care panel might want it to. They may have a job, as has been said, and that will need to be worked around. They will not necessarily have made arrangements to take on a child, especially if it is a grandparent at an older age. All these things need to be considered.

Frankly, kinship care and fostering arrangements are very different, which is why I support these amendments. This really needs to be looked at in a different way. I promised brevity, so I will now sit down.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 79, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and Amendment 80, in the name of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. While we are of course positive towards efforts that support children with a social worker, those currently and previously looked after and those in kinship care, we question why adopted children are excluded from His Majesty’s Government’s plans to strengthen the role of the virtual school head.

Our Amendment 79 would clarify the role of the virtual school head to ensure that those children in the care of the local authority who are then adopted receive the same support as children with a social worker or those in kinship care. Section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989 puts a duty on local authorities to

“make advice and information available in accordance with this section for the purpose of promoting the educational achievement of each relevant child educated in their area”.

Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a duty on a local authority to take

“such steps as it considers appropriate”,

which is a much broader role but one that currently does not appear to include adopted children.

As the helpful briefing from Adoption UK sets out, almost half of adoptive parents surveyed for its 2024 Adoption Barometer had sought advice from their local virtual school in the preceding year. The report highlighted the variability in support that they received and the value they placed on the advocacy that a virtual school head could provide with their child’s school. Their exclusion from the Bill appears inconsistent, and we would be grateful if the Minister could confirm either that adopted children will be included or, if they will not be, why not.

Amendment 80 seeks to include career and employment opportunities for children as part of educational achievement. The number of young people who are unable to find employment or further training when they finish their education is alarmingly high. The ONS estimates that 923,000 individuals aged 16 to 24—12.5%—were not in education, employment or training in the period January to March 2025. Although that is down on the previous quarter, I think all noble Lords would agree that the number is way too high and we must act to reduce it.

Amendments 78 and 81, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to require that authorities publish the steps they have taken to promote the process undertaken that has resulted in the educational achievement of the children in need or in kinship care, and that the Secretary of State may specify how this is reported. It is important for successful practices to be shared, and the amendment would ensure that performance can be more accurately measured.

Amendment 82, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Farmer, seeks to provide boarding school places to children in kinship care. The noble Lords raise a most interesting point. It clearly worked very well for the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Where it works for a child—and that is obviously critically important—it can be a hugely positive experience. That child may have the ability to immerse themselves in education, sports, arts or drama, away from the distractions or dangers that they have previously experienced in their outside school life. It would lessen the time pressures on kinship carers, who we know do an amazing job but often find there are simply not enough hours in the day. We would welcome the opportunity to learn more about the work done by Norfolk County Council, the issues it encountered and how it addressed them. We look forward to discussing this further, and hope the Minister will do so also.

Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, seeks to review virtual school heads and their role in improving educational outcomes for previously looked-after children. There is not yet sufficient evidence to fully analyse the extent of the improvement from the introduction of virtual school heads. As such, this review would certainly help to understand the impact that virtual school heads have had before full implementation. We very much look forward to hearing from the Minister.

In line with what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, these all seem entirely sensible and well thought out amendments.

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

I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important area of the Bill. I think, hand on heart, we all know that children who need a social worker and children in kinship care experience significant difficulties. Many of them have poorer educational outcomes than their peers as a result, across all key stages. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is absolutely right that it is important that everyone shares their experience. In Leeds, we always made sure that the scrutiny of children’s services was held by an opposition member; that seems to make absolute sense. We all want the best for these young people, and we must make sure that every area is fully scrutinised.

Clause 6 aims to confer statutory duties on local authorities to promote the educational achievement of such children, increasing their visibility, as we have heard from many noble Lords, and ensuring that they receive consistent expert support to improve their outcomes. In practice, these duties will be discharged by the virtual school head, who will have strategic oversight of the outcomes of these children, raising awareness and improving visibility of their needs—for example, through the delivery of training to schools in effective strategies for improving outcomes. We have just received more information about why this information is so important. For example, it will mean having a real understanding of the numbers of young people who experience school instability, placement instability or social work instability—all of which contribute to their experience in learning and their ability to achieve going forward. As well as this, virtual school heads will have a duty to provide information and advice, upon request, to kinship carers with special guardianship or child arrangements orders, regardless of whether their child spent time in care. We know that virtual heads were first introduced on a non-statutory basis, and we recognise the need for a much stronger basis. I echo the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about the importance of local authorities in making sure that this moves forward successfully.

As I say, I welcome the spirit of the amendments tabled, which would ensure that virtual school heads work on behalf of all children, while ensuring that local authorities are rightly held accountable for the delivery of their duties. They would also ensure that previously looked-after children adopted from state care are not inadvertently disadvantaged as a result—I will come back to say more on that later. We are confident that the measures in this clause meet these aims and that, as a result, these amendments are not necessary. I will go into more detail later.

Amendment 77, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to enable discussion on which children are eligible for local authority support and how virtual school heads will promote their educational outcomes. Providing clarity on the children to whom the virtual school head role is extended is important. New Section 23ZZZA(2), to be inserted by Clause 6, provides a clear definition of these children. Specifically, they are children for whom the local authority is

“providing or has provided services”

under Section 17(10)(a) or (b) of the Children Act 1989, as well as children

“in the authority’s area who live in kinship care”.

Amendments 78 and 81 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to place a statutory duty on local authorities to publish a report on how they perform in promoting the educational outcomes of these children, and to specify through regulations what local authorities must report on. Transparency and consistency in local authority support are essential for driving improvements, and for ensuring that decisions are made in the child’s best interests and that every child receives support, wherever they live or are educated.

Statutory guidance already requires virtual school heads to publish an annual report summarising strategies for supporting children in their care, while local authorities are held to account through inspections of local authority children’s services. It is vital that we continue to ensure local authorities are held accountable for all children they are responsible for, and that this support is transparent. We will reinforce this accountability by updating statutory guidance to include reporting on strategies for supporting educational outcomes of children in need and children in kinship care. This will ensure greater consistency across all local authorities, enabling continuous improvement in the support provided while allowing for local and regional variations. This Government are committed to ensuring that previously looked-after children who have left care through adoption are supported to succeed in education.

Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that children adopted from local authority care benefit from the same support that the clause extends to children in need and children in kinship care. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his statistics; it is always useful to have that level of granularity in our discussions.

To repeat, local authorities already have a statutory duty under Section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989 to promote the educational achievements of all previously looked-after children who have left care through adoption, special guardianship or child arrangements orders. I hope that satisfies the questions that the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, raised on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. In addition, subsection (3) of Section 23ZZA allows the local authority to

“do anything else that they consider appropriate with a view to promoting the educational achievement of relevant children educated in their area”.

I would suggest that that level of flexibility adds a great deal in the particular circumstances of each individual child.

The proposed amendment is therefore unnecessary, as the existing legislation sufficiently covers these children’s educational needs. However, we are committed to reviewing and revising the sections on promoting the educational outcomes of previously looked-after children in statutory guidance for virtual school heads. There is no room for complacency here; we have to keep revisiting, refreshing and relooking on behalf of all the children we are talking about. This will present an opportunity to further strengthen sections on support for adopted children, and we will work with the adoption sector on this, including by clarifying and reinforcing the interpretation of the duty and incorporating examples of good practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

I am very grateful for the comprehensive and courteous way that the Minister has responded to the amendments. Can she comment on the need, as I see it, for some sort of report back to Parliament?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

With all this work, I believe it is important that we focus on the job in hand through the route of accountability and the local authorities, and do not give virtual school heads yet another onerous task to do. I believe that enough safeguards are in place and enough ways that the outcomes can be reviewed, so I do not believe that this is necessary at this time.

I was going to say that I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments, based on the fact that this is work in progress. We all know the significance of this area and the contribution that so many people make to it. We are opening up an exciting new chapter to make sure that the work that happens is accountable and transparent, and that more people are aware of what needs to be done and how these young people can be helped going forward.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for what I thought was a really satisfactory set of responses to these amendments, and I thank her for that. Will she commit, when the evaluation and the statutory guidance are published, to giving a heads-up to those noble Lords who have expressed an interest in this area during this debate?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I have a feeling that I would not have any other option, given the comments I have received to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 85, 89, 92 and 93 in my name. Clause 7 introduces new requirements for local authorities in England to assess whether certain care leavers aged under 25 need Staying Close support; and when such support is deemed necessary, the local authority must provide it. This provision builds on the Staying Close pilot scheme, which gives care leavers safe and secure accommodation along with a trusted adult relationship for emotional and practical support. I am very grateful to the charity Become for sharing its expertise in this area with me. As the Minister knows, each year thousands of young people face what we might describe as a care cliff edge. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, vividly described, when they leave the system, they are expected to leave home at around 18—often abruptly but, I hope, not always as abruptly as in the case she described—losing vital relationships and support when they most need help transitioning to adulthood.

Research by Become shows that

“the transition from care to ‘independent living’ is often poorly planned and managed, and many young people feel unsupported”.

Evidence from the Staying Close pilots demonstrates

“improved outcomes for care-experienced young people … including better ‘independent living’ skills, increased happiness, better stability, increased participation in … education and employment; and a reduced risk of homelessness”,

and that extending Staying Close support to age 25 will benefit thousands of young people leaving care. We warmly welcome that.

However, we have concerns about the drafting of Clause 7, which could limit its impact. First, Clause 7(2) requires local authorities to assess whether Staying Close support serves the young person’s welfare, but without providing specified assessment criteria. We worry that this could lead to the rationing of support or a postcode lottery. Our Amendment 85 seeks to address that by explicitly setting out the factors the local authority must have due regard to, including the

“wishes and preferences … accommodation requirements … emotional and practical support needs … and existing support network”

of the young person. Our ever-optimistic Amendment 92 would give the local authority flexibility to offer additional support where it is judged to be appropriate.

The current wording defines Staying Close support merely as providing advice and information or making representations to help with accommodation and services. The Minister will know that “making representations” does not always translate into a service. That narrow definition does not reflect the comprehensive support that was offered in the pilots, so our worry is that it will not achieve the same positive outcomes that the pilot did.

Our Amendment 89 aims to strengthen the voice of young people and ensure that a record of their wishes is kept. The Bill does not reference young people’s wishes and preferences. We believe, and I know that the Minister agrees and has been a great leader in this, that young people’s input is vital when determining support.

Lastly, our Amendment 93 gives a strong legal entitlement to an opt-out for all care leavers, ensuring young people’s preferences guide decisions about their support and create consistent assessment criteria. I very much hope the Minister agrees that these are reasonable and practical amendments that the Government could turn into their own.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, very generously pointed out the response of the previous Government and put the case for extended Staying Put support extremely ably. I am sympathetic to the spirit of his amendments; indeed, he or another noble Lord mentioned that, when asked, 75% of children said that they would like to go on living with their foster parents beyond the current limitations. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that. I am also sympathetic to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 94. Having clarity and good performance-management data should always lead to better outcomes.

I feel rather mealy-mouthed not to be more enthusiastic about the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Amendment 164. I absolutely do not want to sound preachy, but I worry. Of course it is extremely important that information is accessible and easily accessible, but, as we often discuss in your Lordships’ House, some of that comes from the culture and the attitude to young people in care and the relationships that we have with them. I suppose my only hesitation is that information without relationships does not get us much further, but I know that all noble Lords know that.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, in responding to these amendments, I start by re-emphasising that we all know that care leavers have some of the worst long-term life outcomes in society and that many have not received the care and support that we would want and expect for them. We are committed to ensuring that young people leaving care have stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong, loving relationships, and are engaged in education, employment and training. The ongoing work and the measures in Clause 7 are geared to improving outcomes for those eligible and will help address any cliff edge of support they may face when leaving care.

On Amendments 84, 86 to 88, 90 and 91 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, I thank him for highlighting the issues and for going through the background so thoroughly, but also for highlighting the very positive measures that were announced in the spending review yesterday. We look forward to further detail on how this will feed through into supporting some of the most vulnerable children in our society.

These amendments together would require local authorities to provide former relevant children under the age of 25 with Staying Put support where their welfare requires it. They seek to probe why the Bill makes provision for Staying Close support to be offered to eligible care leavers up to the age of 25 when the Children Act 1989 puts duties on local authorities to support former relevant children and their former foster parents to maintain a Staying Put arrangement until the former relevant child reaches the age of 21.

I acknowledge the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett; of course, it would not be appropriate to comment on an individual case but I am sure that many of us in this Chamber could put our minds to similar extremely stressful and difficult examples that are based on the real experience of some young people. That is exactly why we have the Bill before us and what we are trying to achieve with it.

We fully recognise the importance of these duties and remain strongly committed to the Staying Put arrangements. But, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, as well as my noble friend Lord Watson, we believe at this moment that it is essential that we prioritise filling the gaps that exist in current support, in particular for young people transitioning into independent living, including those who may have been in residential care, who often have the most complex needs. It is difficult to have to prioritise and focus, but this is the place we are in at the moment.

We are doing this very positive work through the introduction of Clause 7, where all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those in or who have left a Staying Put arrangement, will be provided with Staying Close support where their welfare requires it. Staying Close support includes support to find and keep suitable accommodation, and support to access wraparound services.

On Amendments 85, 92 and 93, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I start by reassuring her that we agree with the sentiment of the amendments and that Clause 7 is already very much in that spirit. We are very keen, of course, to make sure that everything we do links and aligns with the different opportunities: for example, how we can bring pathway plans into the mix and make sure that there is a seamless direction of travel. There will be more to discuss on this as we go forward, as I understand she acknowledges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down, I asked about the fact that, apparently, 40% of 17-year-olds turning 18 are in unregulated or independent accommodation. Could the noble Baroness perhaps write to me about that?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I apologise: I knew that I had missed the noble Baroness’s question. Yes, of course I will write on that important point.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will have noticed the difference between the answer she gave on the last group and the answer she gave on my amendment in this one. Channelling the reporting through guidance to the virtual school head is doing something that would be immediate, current and present and would affect the day-to-day way in which a local authority and its team conduct their business; something that may or may not appear in the depths of an Ofsted report every three years is not at all as effective. I encourage the Minister, between now and Report, to consider whether it would not be much better for the continual improvement of the Staying Close services if they were reported on annually and personally by the team responsible for delivering them, so that it becomes much more visible and a much more current thing for them to keep improving, rather than something that they hope will get lost in whatever else Ofsted is saying about the local authority as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said that this was a wide-ranging group. As I was thinking about it, I thought that what pulls it together is that it is a kind of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. A lot of the amendments in it are the basic planks at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid; one of those planks is of course healthcare.

My Amendments 96 and 107A try to address some of the evidence, which noble Lords will be well aware of, that shows that care leavers face much more negative physical and mental health outcomes than their peers. These disparities stem from the trauma they have suffered, adverse childhood experiences and, sadly, in some cases, the inability of their carers to meet their healthcare needs.

In the general population, children and young people visit specialist clinics more frequently than adults, if they need them, and their growth and development necessitate regular adjustments to medication and treatments. In young adulthood, health needs typically stabilise. We expect adults to manage their own healthcare, work with GPs and other medical systems, and self-manage long-term health conditions. Parents in supportive family settings will guide their children, and maybe even grandchildren, through this transition, but care leavers do not have that support. They often struggle to recognise that they need help, they do not know how to seek it, and it can often be very difficult to navigate complex healthcare systems. As a result, care-experienced people have a very poor uptake of physical and mental health support but very great physical and mental health needs. These clear and practical points were raised with me by the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, to which I am extremely grateful for its briefing and advice, and for the time it has taken talking me through these issues.

My Amendment 96 would require local areas to set out clearly the transition arrangements for health and primary care for care leavers. It does not feel like it should be too much to expect this to be available. As importantly, my Amendment 107A would automatically schedule an extended GP appointment for care leavers who wish to use it; that is the simplest way to bridge this gap and empower them to talk about their health needs, and understand what local services are available to them and how to access them easily. Through this, they would receive support in navigating health systems—from booking appointments and requesting repeat prescriptions, to recognising when they need help. It seems a very small ask, and I hope the Minister will say yes.

There is a coherence to the other amendments in this group. They are the planks that all of us all too easily take for granted, such as having confidence in and transparency about how money works, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, so ably argued. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, cited the interesting example of the appetite for financial education of care leavers who are part of the universal basic income pilot.

I put the case for health and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, put the case for Staying Put—it was such a good idea that we have had it twice—and possibly the national offer. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham highlighted very simple human requests about how the housing system works for care leavers. The idea that a young person aged between 21 and 25 who has been through the care system has to yet again prove they are vulnerable is frankly shocking. I hope the Minister can say something encouraging about that.

We have a combination of the specific elements that would make a difference to care leavers’ lives: the reporting data that my noble friend Lord Lucas raised; the financial aspects highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Bird; and, crucially, as I mentioned on an earlier group, the importance of relationships, ably explained by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott on behalf of my noble friend Lord Farmer. I remember listening to the honourable Member for Whitehaven and Workington talking about this issue, and I think he said that every child is one or two relationships away from success or failure. Actually, in the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, of children going into gangs, they are seeking relationships. We would all do the same if we had no choice, but we want strong, positive relationships such as lifelong links has been proven to create, so I very much hope that, when the noble Baroness comes to sum up, she will come with good news.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I like the description of the hierarchy of needs and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I jump around a bit as well in my summing up. It has been a very rich set of contributions to an incredibly important part of the work that has been undertaken in bringing the Bill before your Lordships.

The first four amendments in this group seek to amend Clause 8, which will require local authorities to publish information on the support available to care leavers as they transition to independent living as part of their local offer for care leavers, set out in Section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. The remaining amendments seek to extend support for care leavers to address the poor outcomes they experience across so many aspects of their lives. Improving support for care leavers is something the Government are committed to doing through the measures in this Bill on Staying Close, local offer, corporate parenting and other programmes such as the care leaver covenant, and also by other initiatives that seek to work across government.

The fact that the Government have set up the care leaver ministerial board, chaired by Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson and for MHCLG Angela Rayner, shows absolutely top-level commitment to bringing all the relevant departments together so that they can most properly address the issues that have been raised here. It is probably beyond our ability through this Bill to address all the very important issues that have been raised and spoken to so eloquently from across the Committee.

Of course, the basic principle is that we want to ensure that young people are leaving care with stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong loving relationships, engaged in education, employment and training. In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that is exactly the reason this board has been set up: to bring everything together to address the complex needs of the young people we are addressing.

I assure noble Lords that we are funding a number of family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes. These help looked-after children and care leavers to identify and connect with important people in their lives and create safe, stable, loving relationships. The family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme is being evaluated, and this will help to inform decisions about the future of the programme. From personal experience, the school that two of my grandchildren go to works on the restorative practice model. If noble Lords have not come across it before, I suggest having a look at how it works and how young people can learn at the youngest age how to form relationships and how to express their needs in a coherent and structured way, which can then inform all the complex issues that they will reach going through their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness moves on, I am not clear about something. The specific recommendation from the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals is to have this extended GP appointment. The noble Baroness has now amended my amendment to make sure that it is at a convenient time. I just was not clear whether she said it would take time to produce the statutory guidance that will underpin all the corporate parenting responsibilities. However, as regards putting something—I am going to get the terminology wrong, so forgive me—into the kind of agreement with general practitioners, so that part of their contract is to offer this extended appointment as children young people leave local authority care, I was not clear whether the noble Baroness thought that was a realistic option, with the tweak of it being at a convenient time.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for picking me up on that commitment. This is quite a detailed ask, but it is absolutely realistic that this is a new departure going forward and there will need to be consultation and everyone coming together to make sure that the statutory guidance is deliverable and works. However, I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with more specific detail on that area as we move forward.

Amendment 130, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to extend the provision of Staying Put to age 25. We have discussed this at great length and I am no clearer as to why this is in this group of amendments rather than one of the others. So, without repeating the arguments, I will just say that the rationale is that we cannot commit off the top of our heads to effecting fostering arrangements without recognising that there will be a knock-on impact of change on the whole area of the foster care market, as it were. Any changes in this area are sensitive and have to be taken in the round.

However, the most important thing that we have to address is that too many young people who have come through the route into independent living from residential care, for example—who often, as I said earlier, have the most complex needs—will be a priority area in terms of addressing the support that they do not have because they have not entered the foster care route. So, we are keeping an eye on all of this through the introduction of statutory Staying Close duties, making sure that all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those who are still in a Staying Put arrangement, as well as those who have left it, will be provided with Staying Close support where their welfare requires it.

Amendment 153, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, would require public bodies, when carrying out equality assessments, to consider the needs of people who are or have been in local authority care. We know that looked-after children and care leavers face stigma and discrimination and we are determined to tackle this. There has been effective and passionate campaigning, with many local authorities taking positive action as a result.

Amendment 183A, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to enable care leavers to claim the higher over-25 rate of universal credit. Although he is not in his place, his amendment is an opportunity to revisit this: I was at the Dispatch Box at Second Reading of his PMB on this subject. Just to emphasise what we have already said, the Government recognise the considerable challenges that care leavers face and remain committed to supporting them. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.

The Government have recently announced the first sustained increase to the universal credit standard allowance, and, while under-25s receive a slightly lower rate, additional elements are available, including for housing costs, to help them to live independently, and towards their living costs. They may also be eligible for universal credit elements, including for children, childcare costs and disability. Under-35s who are single and renting in the private rented sector and claim either housing benefit or universal credit can receive help towards their rental costs via the shared accommodation rate of the local housing allowance. Single care leavers under 25 may qualify for the one-bedroom local housing allowance. Discretionary housing payments administered by local authorities can be paid to those entitled to housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit.

The Government have extended the household support fund by a further year, from 1 April 2025 until 31 March 2026. I would emphasise the work that the DWP is doing in this area: its objective to help care leavers into long-term employment is the key to supporting their independent living. This is why we are focusing on providing access to the right skills and opportunities for sustained employment and career progression. Therefore, with all of those considerations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, that was a really disappointing response to Amendment 98. We started with a response to Amendment 78 which was excellent, a continuing annual dialogue by someone who was really involved in what is going on. When we get to this amendment, I am not offered a review at all, it is just the menu: no content of what has been done, how it has been done and what the excitements and disappointments of the year have been. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, when she reviews this day and looks in general, will say, “Actually, my first answer was the better one”, and that that sort of relationship between a local authority and its duties and the public produces a much better response than just a local authority setting out what its offer is and making no comment whatever on how its performance has been, and offering no interaction to the public in general as to how that is going on. I will talk to my noble friend on the Front Bench about coming back to this on Report. It was a more general look at how local authorities should relate to their public about what has happened this year and what they hope to do next year.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

I close by congratulating and agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for sneaking in an amendment on Learn with the Lords, which I did not know was in the scope of the legislation, but which I put my name to.

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

My Lords, the amendments in this second group comprise new clauses on accommodation and capacity in children’s residential care, and seek to improve the capacity and, of course, most importantly, the quality of provision for children and young people. I really welcome this rich debate. Time constraints will be upon me, but a lot of excellent points have been made and I will try to pick out the main ones that hold the whole group together.

Amendment 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would prevent local authorities accommodating looked-after children in homes or hostels where young people over the age of 18 also live. The placement of children under 16 in settings other than children’s homes and foster care, or other limited, regulated settings, has, as we have heard, been banned since September 2021. In April 2023, regulations were introduced for supported accommodation for 16 and 17 year-olds, setting national standards and registration requirements for providers. These regulations have been put in place to ensure that 16 and 17 year-olds can be placed in Ofsted-regulated, good-quality accommodation. If a provider is registered, local authorities can accommodate these older children in that accommodation, which may also be used for over-18s. The local authority will consider this when deciding on the suitability of the accommodation for the child. Looked-after 16 to 17 year-olds will continue to reside in foster placements or children’s homes if this best meets their needs. I will come back to that point on further amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for tabling Amendment 119 on boarding school places. I recognise that he is determined to put more oxygen into this space—this is the second time in just a few days that we have discussed this. Of course the Government want to ensure that all children are given the best possible opportunities to succeed, and we recognise how transformational boarding schools have been for some young people and can be in the future, but we do not believe, as I laid out before, that they should be the default for all looked-after children. I stress again that stable educational placements are crucial to ensuring consistency, well-being and educational outcomes in children’s lives. It is critical that we treat children individually and listen to their views on what they would like to happen. We must minimise disruption. Having said that, where a boarding school placement is in the best interests of that child, we want to ensure that we have that opportunity.

I repeat that this is why the Government continue to support the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation’s broadening educational pathways programme, which provides placement matching and brokerage services to children in need and looked-after children in state boarding and independent schools. It is a discussion that I know we will continue to have, but I acknowledge the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Meacher, in particular, that for some young people this will not be appropriate. We have to make sure that we are honest in that assessment when we look at the best provision. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, did an honourable job in his absence on our last day in Committee.

Amendment 129, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to widen local authorities’ sufficiency duty to include consideration of placements that are near to, as well as within, their area. This was spoken to by the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Russell. This theme runs throughout the amendments in this group. The amendment’s implicit support of the Government’s focus on placement sufficiency, including regional collaboration, is welcome. However, the existing duties on local authorities when providing accommodation for looked-after children already include consideration of proximity to the child’s home, so an amendment for this purpose is not deemed to be necessary.

Additionally, ironically, the amendment could lead to increased use of out-of-area placements, because the duty to ensure sufficiency of placements is no longer focused on local authorities’ own areas. Of course, this would not align with local authorities’ duty to provide accommodation within their areas where this is consistent with the child’s welfare. Finally, as we heard in the previous group, the amendment is not necessary to facilitate greater collaborative partnership working or to improve local sufficiency and the Government’s reforms of regional care co-operatives. Establishing effective regional partnerships is going to be important, and of course, the aim is always to assist local authorities with their work in this area and to ensure that they keep working with individual children, reflecting their needs.

I turn to Amendment 144, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson. I have huge respect for his comments and for all the other contributions to the discussions this afternoon. We acknowledge that there are still inappropriate, unregulated placements out there and they are still being used. This is why the Government are so focused on investing in this area, and we have to make sure that we end these practices, which lead to so many unfavourable outcomes for young people. By way of trying to reassure, although we know that practice is not necessarily keeping up, placement of under-16s in formally unregulated accommodation was banned in September 2021. In 2023, regulations were introduced, as I have set out, setting national standards and registration requirements for supported accommodation, which is an option for 16 to 17 year- olds. All looked-after children under the age of 18 are now required to be in Ofsted-regulated or otherwise regulated accommodation. The majority of looked-after children continue to reside in foster placements, or children’s homes where this is the best option to meet their needs.

The amendment would actually remove the opportunity for 16 to 17 year-olds to develop their independence in a safe, supportive environment, and we do not believe that that is appropriate. I base those comments on talking to young people in my local authority area who came into the care system very late in their childhood. They believe that, where the accommodation is appropriate and regulated, this is the appropriate place for them to be. We need to respect that voice coming from young people themselves.

I stress that this is the basis of Clause 13: the belief that Ofsted needs additional enforcement powers and measures to help it bring this into being. Giving Ofsted the power to impose monetary penalties for breaches of the Care Standards Act, including for persons not registering their children’s social care establishment, is paramount. Registration is vital and ensures that children are safe, staff are checked and there is the right level of oversight through regular inspections. There are far too many vulnerable children living in settings where there is no oversight. Between April 2023 and March 2024, Ofsted investigated 1,000 unregistered settings, which tells us the scale of what we have to deal with. Ofsted can already prosecute people who run unregistered children’s services. However, this is a resource-intensive process and can take a very long time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I hope I can take it as good news that they are meeting next week with Minister Georgia Gould, so hopefully the purse strings will be loosened.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord may say that.

In my personal experience, there is no reason why local areas cannot put these arrangements in place. There have been circumstances with agencies in the past—I am sure this does not happen now—where police have gone into a situation of domestic violence, for example, and not even known that there were children hiding under the beds upstairs. That is the shocking result of a lack of joining up—of agencies not speaking to each other. Provisions in the Bill will go a long way to making sure that this becomes normal—a culture shift. It is normal to tell a school if one of its young people has a change of circumstances that could affect them in many different ways. I am delighted that Government Ministers are coming together, and we will await the outcome with interest.

Amendment 170 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, concerns the publication of a national capacity plan for children’s homes intended to highlight the issue of distance placements. I highlight the Government’s commitment to supporting local authorities to meet their sufficiency duty through a range of reforms that will boost system capacity and better meet the needs of children in their areas. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, and others added to the discussions on this amendment. While the amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual national capacity plan, it would also take significant local authority resource to collect, collate and submit additional information on an annual basis to inform the plan, all at a time when their resources for children’s services are rightly focused on implementing reforms to actively improve services. A range of complex contributing factors across the children’s social care system can lead to the use of distance placements, which the Government are addressing through reforms in the Bill and investment in fostering kinship care and local authority children’s homes. Paramount in these decisions is the issue of risk to the safety of the young person. Sadly, in some cases, distance is a necessary factor when considering placements.

Finally, Amendment 134B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, seeks to introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to carry out a review on the distinction in the planning regime between children’s homes and domestic dwelling-houses, and to consider whether it should be removed. I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government continue to work together in this important area. In the last two years it has been clarified via a joint Written Ministerial Statement that planning should not restrict the timely delivery of children’s homes, and we have changed the National Planning Policy Framework to make it explicit that planning authorities must plan to meet the needs of looked-after children.

As we said in Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, we will continue to make progress on further changes that support the delivery of children’s homes where they are needed. This includes data collection and an analysis to translate the data and work out how it needs to be used, which is often overlooked, I am sad to say. In my experience of dealing with an application for a small home in the ward I used to represent, we went out for intensive consultation with the residents living around the home. I am very pleased to say that, in the end, after some scepticism and reservation, when we went through it carefully and they met the people running the home and understood how many children would be there, it went through and was an enormous success. They came and asked how they could help to support the children in the home through their local connections. So there are reasons to be optimistic, but there is a great deal to do, which is why, as I have said before, we have this Bill before us. I thank everyone for their comments but, for the reasons I have outlined in these remarks, I hope the noble Lords will not press the amendments in their names.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, for that comprehensive reply. I think the most important amendment in this group was Amendment 144. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, we should not be looking at placing children in unregulated accommodation. We are taking powers in this Bill to deal with unregulated schools—quite rightly, and I hope a great deal better than we have in the past.

The idea that we are putting children into unregulated homes, or, as one of my amendments will address later, unregulated alternative provision, is really not acceptable. In Clause 30, we are giving power to the same local authorities that are making these placements to override parental judgment as to the best interests of their child. We really need to get our thinking straight in this area. Unregulated accommodation is not acceptable, particularly when we are talking about people charging at the level they are. We ought to be doing something clear about that in the Bill. I am glad that the Government say that they aim to end this practice, and that it should be done away with, but we need a stronger commitment than that.

I was glad to hear the support for boarding schools. I had a miserable time at my boarding school. I would rather have been on the barge of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, frankly, such was the quality of accommodation. But I have seen the hugely transformational effect it can have when it works well, so it is very much a matter of choosing the right child for the right school.

I hope my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton will pursue her campaign when it comes to the Planning Bill, because we need to be sharper than we are. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Russell, will pursue Amendment 165, which is so clearly achievable. If we are moving towards a consistent identifier for children, this is just the sort of thing that ought to be being done.

My noble friend Lady Cash was told that it would be a burden on local authorities to collect the data. I hope that the Department for Education will wander down the road to their friends at the science department and look at what they are doing with AI, because that sort of function of data collection is so much quicker, cheaper and easier if you design the right systems. It ought not to be a matter of cost; it ought to be a matter of course.

Lastly, I felt that that was a rather disappointing response to my amendment. I cannot see that it is ever going to be right to place a 17 year-old in an adult hostel. Children take a long time to grow up. A 17 year-old is not in a position to be with troubled 25 year-olds as their principal companions. I will look again at the Minister’s reply, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, listening to the noble Baroness introduce these amendments, I am remembering how many times, as a Minister, she batted me back with a question. As I interpret these amendments—if I have got it wrong, I am sure I will be told—they basically ask how this will work. Where are the levels of intervention when something does not work? How do we get through? It was a long and complicated series of questions, but that is what Committee is for. If we could get an idea of the answers, if the Minister has them or can tell us where we can find them, I think we would all feel a little more comfortable before the next stage.

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

My Lords, the amendments in this group are all in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Just taking the amendments as they are, the majority of residential settings are owned by provider groups—organisations that own the providers that run settings. The legislation refers to provider groups as “parent undertakings”. Provider groups have influence over how a setting is run, yet they are not accountable in legislation for the quality of the settings they own.

Clause 12 is intended to complement Ofsted’s existing powers. It will allow Ofsted to take action at scale and pace to improve the quality of care when it reasonably suspects that two or more of the provider group settings are not meeting regulatory requirements. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, together with Clause 13, which provides additional enforcement powers for Ofsted, it is part of this Government’s strategy to ensure the safety and well-being of vulnerable children in care.

Amendments 135 and 136 seek to give Ofsted the power to inspect provider groups. Inspection is not necessary at provider group level. Given the existing robust regime for the inspection of settings, the inspection of provider groups would not give Ofsted any additional information that it does not already have to ensure quality of care and the safeguarding of children’s settings, which is obviously the purpose of what we intend to do here.

The inspection of provider groups would add substantial burden to the public purse and would not result in improvements to the quality of care for children, as inspections would focus on provider group policies rather than on the lived experience of children. Additionally, they would not be effective in holding provider groups to account without establishing a burdensome inspection system. Given that there are over 400 provider groups, I think we understand the scale of the additional work that we are talking about.

The clause gives Ofsted the power to serve an improvement plan notice on a provider group to improve quality in two or more of its settings. This is vital, as it will ensure the quickest and most effective action to secure change at scale. Clause 13, which we will come to shortly, gives Ofsted powers to take action against the provider groups when they do not improve the quality of their settings. This amendment would not impose any requirements on the provider groups that Ofsted could enforce against.

Amendment 137 seeks to empower Ofsted to use the services of an independent person, as provided for by Regulation 44 of the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations, to carry out an unannounced visit to a children’s home for administrative breaches or minor concerns about the quality of care being provided. The amendment proposes that, after an independent person has inspected the children’s homes or home, the local authority may issue an improvement plan notice based on the findings.

Under current regulations, the registered person of a children’s home must ensure that an independent person visits the home at least once each month, and this visit may be unannounced. The independent person should have the skills and understanding necessary to form an impartial judgment about the quality of the home’s care. They must produce a report about their visit which sets out their opinion on whether children are effectively safeguarded and whether the home effectively promotes children’s well-being.

Ofsted, the placing authorities and the registered provider, registered manager and responsible individual must be given a copy of the report. The local authority where the home is located must also be given the report if it requests it. Ofsted uses these reports to inform whether further activity or inspection is necessary. They may be used to inform Ofsted decision-making around improvement plan notices to ensure its effective role as the regulator. Ofsted must be the only body responsible for issuing improvement plan notices. Giving local authorities the power to issue an improvement plan notice would mean duplication and would offer no protection additional to what is already in place.

Amendment 138 seeks to probe how an improvement plan might work in practice. Provider oversight has been designed to enable Ofsted to address poor-quality care at scale and at pace. For example, where Ofsted inspects two children’s homes and believes quality is being impacted by the provider group’s policies or management, it could reasonably suspect that those issues were in all homes owned by the provider group. It would be able to use the new powers to ensure that the provider group drove up standards in all its homes.

The provider group would be required to develop and implement an improvement plan to address the issues identified by Ofsted as being of concern. This plan will be approved by Ofsted, if it is satisfied that it will be effective in addressing the concerns. Ofsted can fine the provider group if it fails to submit or implement the improvement plan. When Ofsted is satisfied that improvements have been made, it will consider the plan completed. This will result in improvement in multiple settings simultaneously, which could not be achieved through inspection of provider groups, as would happen if Amendments 135 and 136 were adopted.

Finally, Amendments 138A, 138B and 138C seek to require Ofsted to notify the relevant local authority when an improvement plan notice has been served, cancelled or appealed. Ofsted is currently required to notify all local authorities where certain enforcement actions such as suspension or cancellation of registration are taken. Clause 13 amends these requirements to include a requirement for Ofsted to notify all local authorities where a provider group is issued with a monetary penalty for failing to prepare or implement an improvement plan. This is a more proportionate balance for ensuring local authorities are aware of problems arising and ensuring that children’s accommodation is not unnecessarily disrupted. Not only would additional notifications, as required by these amendments, require significant extra resources both from Ofsted and from local authorities, but the notifications would prove unnecessary where issues were resolved or successfully challenged.

It is important to stress that provider oversight will not be the only tool in Ofsted’s toolbox to tackle poor-quality care where it finds it; it will continue to have its existing powers to work with individual homes, including suspending or cancelling their registration, if it has serious concerns.

I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has asked some detailed questions, as it is her right to do. I am sure that she will understand that I do not have all the answers at my fingertips and that she will give me the space to look specifically at the issues that she has raised. I shall write to her and make sure the responses are shared with Members in the usual way.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Could we make sure that we are all copied in?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

As always. That was the point that I was making. For all the reasons given, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her very detailed reply and for her commitment to write; that is much appreciated.

To respond to the Minister’s remarks, the reason for tabling Amendments 135, 136 and 137 is that the improvement plan is for the parent company or parent undertaking, but it is for when there are concerns about two or more of their establishments or agencies, in the language of the Bill. I understood that to mean, given the severity—that Ofsted suspects that there are grounds for cancelling the undertakings registration—there could within that be concerns about the safety of children in those homes. So the spirit of Amendments 135, 136 and 137 was that we should have really experienced people, either inspectors or Regulation 44 visitors, going in, not to inspect the parent—I am sorry if my amendments were unclear in that regard—but to inspect the subsidiary undertakings. Maybe when the Minister comes to write, she could just reflect on that point.

In the reference to Regulation 44, the amendment should have stated that

“Ofsted may issue an improvement plan notice”,

not

“the local authority may issue an improvement plan notice”.

Of course, the Minister is absolutely right—the local authority cannot issue an improvement plan notice. But again, it was just trying to get at the idea that, if there was a variation in the levels of concern and the level of breach, for a lower-level breach, a Regulation 44 visitor could advise Ofsted. There is an urgency, if it is thought that an undertakings registration should be cancelled, which will not be met by the improvement plan approach on its own.

In relation to the Minister’s remarks about Amendments 138A, 138B and 138C, I think the answer is that, if the process works reasonably quickly, the proportionality that she set out is completely reasonable. If it gets bogged down, and it comes down to, “We sent you a plan, Ofsted doesn’t think the plan is fit for purpose”, and it goes back and forth and back and forth, we would not get the speed that might be needed to prevent other local authorities commissioning a provider when there are grave concerns, as set out in the Bill. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

There is a deafening silence. I turn to group six and the amendments, all in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which concern Clause 13: Amendments 138D, 138E and 139A. They seek to exclude natural persons from the provisions relating to the issue of monetary penalties. Clause 13, as drafted, gives Ofsted an additional power to issue monetary penalties to providers that have breached requirements set out in, or under, the Care Standards Act, including operating a children’s home without registering with Ofsted, which they could also prosecute as a criminal offence.

Ofsted will also be able to issue a monetary penalty to provider groups for failure to comply with new requirements set out in Clause 12 of the Bill. This measure will ensure Ofsted has a full range of enforcement powers so that it can act proportionately and at pace, which will act as a deterrent. This includes individuals who operate children’s homes, other establishments or agencies. It is difficult to see why a natural person running a children’s home, other establishment or agency should not be subject to the same enforcement powers as a partnership or organisation when they have breached the law, and where Ofsted could prosecute that natural person for the relevant breach.

Furthermore, based on data from Companies House, these amendments would result in Ofsted being unable to fine 10 individuals who currently operate children’s homes if they breached the law, compared with the 2,738 companies that operate children’s homes. Ofsted have told me directly that it strongly opposes any amendment that would exclude natural persons and limit who financial penalties can be imposed on for illegally operating children’s homes without being registered. Individuals will—and do—gain financially from illegally operating children’s homes without being registered, and should not be excluded from the potential consequences of doing so. All the discussions in Committee have been about protecting children and making sure that they are safe. We have to make sure that, in this area, in spite of the comments made by the noble Baroness, children and their safety are at the forefront of our minds. It is also worth noting that it is common in legislation for natural persons to be subject to financial penalties in the same way as operations and companies.

For example, the Tenant Fees Act 2019 enables fines to be imposed on landlords, who may be natural persons, for breaching the ban on letting fees being charged, and the Data Protection Act 2018 enables the Information Commissioner to impose fines on persons, including natural persons, who have failed to comply with various notices issued by the ICO.

I have already stated the reasons for the need and intent of these additional powers. However, I add that the clause ensures that Ofsted has an alternative to prosecution where that is currently the only enforcement action. Ofsted will not be able to impose a monetary penalty on a person for the same conduct where criminal proceedings have been brought against them in relation to that same conduct. Further, and importantly, to act as a deterrent and to ensure transparency for the public, the clause gives the Secretary of State the power by regulations to require Ofsted to publish details about the monetary penalties it has issued. Ofsted must also notify local authorities when a monetary penalty has been issued, as it is currently required to do in relation to other enforcement action it takes. A monetary penalty may be used by Ofsted as grounds for cancellation of registration.

I assume it will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness that I will have to write to her on the financial assessment and the other questions she raised on the specific requirements in place. I am more than happy to do that, and to share it with any interested parties. Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments and that the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister, and I will keep my remarks brief. It was very helpful of her to set out the examples of where natural persons are fined, as in data protection and with landlord and tenant. I did not quite follow, but I think she said there were 10 people who might escape this, which seemed like a small number in the totality. I suppose I would still argue that criminal proceedings could be brought, even if they could not be fined, but it was helpful to get those examples and I look forward to her letter. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the very compassionate comments that ran through their suggestions.

By way of background, the new corporate parenting measures in the Bill will, for the first time, impose a duty on a number of public bodies to be alert to matters that affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers. This means that every Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, schools, colleges, NHS England, integrated care boards, NHS trusts and foundation trusts, Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and the Youth Justice Board will be named as corporate parents and therefore will be required to take the needs and circumstances of looked-after children and care leavers into account when designing policies and delivering services that affect them.

There were powerful comments from all sides, which I hope to address in some more detail. But I start by emphasising that I believe all of us in the public sector or in a position to drive change have a responsibility and, indeed, a moral obligation to do this, levelling the playing field for looked-after children and care leavers, who, as we have heard, are among the most vulnerable groups in our society, have suffered the worst outcomes across a range of measures and deserve this attention to detail, care and understanding, which, quite frankly, is not presently evident in all areas.

We have had lots of figures, but I will add some more: some 26% of the homeless population are care experienced, around one-quarter of the adult prison population have been in care as a child and—as we have heard, but this is a slightly different take on it—care leavers aged 19 to 21 are more than three times more likely than their peers to be not in education, employment or training. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln referenced Terry Galloway, and it was my privilege to come into contact with Terry through my previous role before I came into this House. I do not think I have ever met anyone who is quite so determined, persistent and absolutely dedicated on behalf of other young people across the whole of the country, so I pay tribute to him from us all.

Government Amendments 148 to 150 in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith are minor and technical amendments simply to improve the drafting of the list of corporate parents in Schedule 1. Amendments 148 and 149 add clarity to the definition of integrated care boards and NHS foundation trusts. Amendment 150 clarifies that the reference to NHS trusts in the list of corporate parents applies only to NHS trusts in England.

Clause 21 sets out the responsibilities to be introduced for corporate parents, and the duty aims to drive a widespread culture change across the public sector, which will involve adapting services; increasing awareness of matters that adversely affect looked-after children and care leavers; importantly, tackling stigma and discrimination; and improving all aspects of their lives.

Clause 23 introduces a duty for new corporate parents and local authorities in England to work collaboratively when performing their respective corporate parenting duties. This would prevent silo working—we are all well aware of how damaging people working in their narrow fields can be, particularly in this very important area—and highlight where duplication of effort sometimes gets in the way and how we can make sure that the conversations happen between all relevant people, to help deliver targeted and timely support. Running through all this is a constant reminder of the importance of listening to young people themselves and making sure that their influence is heard and acted upon. We have experience at local authority level of making departments work with responsibility, picking up the corporate parenting responsibilities. That experience will help inform the work of the national institutions to show that it is not only the right thing to do but is empowering in its own right and changes behaviours in a very constructive and positive way.

I turn to Amendment 151, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—I want to continue to bring noble Lords together in their mutual admiration, and I would hate to get in the way of this. The amendment seeks to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of relevant authorities to which the corporate parenting duty applies. Of course, I recognise the passion for this area of work and, importantly, for the personnel who deliver the services. We know that the statistics are far from where they need to be, which is why this Government are absolutely determined to work in this space to make sure that the opportunities we create are available for all. That has to be a basic understanding. While agreeing with the noble Baroness that Jobcentre Plus plays the crucial role in supporting care leavers in making that difficult transition to parenthood, whether through training or a whole range of different skills, I am pleased to be able to reassure her that her amendment is not necessary, as Jobcentre Plus is part of the Department for Work and Pensions and therefore is already in scope of the measures by virtue of the inclusion of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We have several other examples of good practice in this space—

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, having an overall duty and having an access point to make sure that it happens are very often different—I mean, it just happens in government. If the Minister could write to us, telling us how the Government propose to implement that, it would remove certain anxieties on this.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I will consider whether that is necessary when I get to the end of my speaking notes.

To continue, the corporate parenting responsibilities will also apply to bodies that exercise functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, such as the Prison and Probation Service. Of course, there should be real overlap between the different services in this regard. This will be explained in statutory guidance. So that it can be rolled out properly, it is absolutely crucial that, as it is written, the statutory guidance is co-produced and everyone has an opportunity to put money in.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I have no desire to put pressure on the Minister, because I know what it is like to be there, responding to a debate. She is doing very well and giving us confidence. Can she tell the House when the statutory guidance might be available? Can she go back and talk to colleagues and see whether there is any clarification she could put in writing to add to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has just made and to the points in my contribution? Or could we have a cup of tea and talk about it? That might sound better to her; I see that she is smiling.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am from Yorkshire. A cup of tea and perhaps a piece of cake or a biscuit would be absolutely great.

This is a very important point. We want to reassure the House of the level of detail that is going to go into this. I cannot give a guarantee of exact timing, but I am happy to keep the conversations going. While we are on the same page, I think the noble Lord, Lord Storey, made a valid point about the risk of increasing burdens, but I want to reassure him that the responsibilities do not require corporate parents to provide new services or to make specific policy changes that are not compatible with their wider priorities or affordable within their existing budgets. The broad duties can be implemented in a way that reflects the nature and circumstances of the individual corporate parent. I made the point earlier that it is the culture change—the different way of approaching this— that is critical to make sure that this is picked up across the board and drives its way through.

I turn to Amendments 146B and 147A, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and brought to the House by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln—I thank him for doing that and for the way that he got over the points that I know from previous experience that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was concerned about. I have been involved in debates with him on these issues over the last few months and recognise his concern and passion for this area.

These amendments probe the extent to which the corporate parenting responsibilities will lead to action by corporate parents in removing or minimising the disadvantages suffered by looked-after children and care leavers, or in taking steps to avoid, reduce or otherwise mitigate any adverse impact of its policies and practices on them. I agree with the amendments’ intention, but I am satisfied that this is achieved through the duties set out in Clause 21 requiring corporate parents to be alert to matters which might negatively affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, to assess the availability and accessibility of their services, and to seek to provide opportunities to participate in activities which enhance their well-being or employment prospects. The right reverend Prelate is quite right to highlight the rhetoric that can be so damaging, which means that these areas of work are still necessary.

There are plenty of examples of action taken to minimise the disadvantages that care leavers face in the labour market, including the NHS Universal Family Programme, which has supported almost 200 care leavers to find jobs, and the Civil Service Care Leavers Internship Scheme, which has enabled more than 1,000 care leavers to take up opportunities in the Civil Service. The corporate parenting duty will mean that such best practice is shared, creating incremental improvements to care leaver outcomes. It is beholden on everyone who works in this space—and of course it is not just the public sector; the private sector has in many areas stepped up to the plate—to be alert to the range or cocktail of circumstances that contribute to poor lifetime outcomes. Educational disadvantage, financial vulnerability, loneliness, isolation, poor mental health, and the higher risk of exploitation and harm are all factors that we need to take into account.

We cannot repeat enough that the most effective way for corporate parents to understand these challenges is to engage directly with the young people looked after, care leavers and their representatives. We will appoint an expert external organisation to support this engagement so that it is taken forward with the utmost seriousness. We will set out in statutory guidance the examples of best practice to show how the duty can apply to particular corporate parents. We will also set out ways for corporate parents to mitigate the negative impacts of their policies on looked-after children and care leavers.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and, as I understand it, would complement the role of the independent child trafficking advocate in these cases with the right to an independent guardian. It would also expand their remit to include children who are separated from those with parental responsibility or the equivalent in their home country.

As the noble Baroness knows, probably better than anyone else in the Committee, there is existing statutory guidance for unaccompanied migrant children and child victims of modern slavery dating from 2017. It is clear that, in common with all looked-after children, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are entitled to independent advocacy support. The guidance stresses that this might particularly be the case for this group of children.

The Refugee Council has a very helpful flow chart on its website showing the asylum process and clearly highlighting the role of independent advice at two stages in the application process. As we heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the independent child trafficking advocates have only partially been implemented. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about full implementation.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for sharing the recent research from the LSE and the University of Bedfordshire with me. As she described very emotively, this paints a picture of real inconsistency in the response that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children receive. It makes a number of recommendations, including this one. However, as the noble Baroness knows, implementing independent legal guardians would require significant investment in training, establishing oversight and case management systems—although I acknowledge her cost-benefit point. I presume that there would also need to be some form of proper accountability and oversight of these guardians.

There is a case for making the existing law work as it was intended before amending it and introducing an alternative. I absolutely respect the noble Baroness’s deep and long-standing concern and work in relation to the welfare and rights of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, but there are profound questions to be asked about her amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

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

My Lords, Amendment 166 was tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and compliment her, as always, on the eloquent and moving way she described the plight of so many children and young people coming into this country. I know that she is a very passionate advocate in her own right and speaks to many people across the piece.

Specifically on the amendment, although other issues have been brought into the discussions today, it seeks to provide support, via independent child guardians, to all separated children. That would be in addition to trafficked and exploited children. It would also initiate the support on consideration of a referral, rather than when an initial decision has been made that a child has been potentially exploited. This amendment also sets out limited functions for the independent guardians but, crucially, it removes the ability to amend these functions through regulations or statutory guidance.

Currently, the existing independent child trafficking guardianship service is a specialist provision for trafficked and exploited children, operating in two-thirds of local authorities across England and Wales. We are moving forward towards a national contract, planned for tender in the summer of 2025, building on the work from the Modern Slavery Act and from the very first authorities that were brought into scope in 2017. As we have heard, this is currently funded by the Home Office but delivered by Barnardo’s. It is important to note that we will look at best practice all the way through the piece as we move forward. Modern slavery engagement forums are absolutely critical in this, and I will go on to speak about the Minister’s role as well.

As my noble friend Lady Lister is aware, the needs of trafficked and exploited children are complex, ever evolving and ever changing. Defining functions directly in the Bill would reduce the flexibility for the Secretary of State to adapt the role through the statutory guidance or regulations as it needs to evolve. We would not wish to limit the functions of guardians in this way and would instead continue to provide the detail for their role in statutory guidance or regulations. We believe that this is the best way we can move on and acknowledge changes in circumstances as we move forward.

I recognise my noble friend’s intentions in extending the independent guardian provision to all separated children, and I acknowledge the words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in this space as well. This would significantly expand the scope and, unfortunately therefore, strain resources, which could delay support for exploited or trafficked children who need urgent help. Separated children will not necessarily be trafficked, and there is a risk that this provision will overlap with the existing support, causing confusion or duplication in some places, as well as providing unsuitable services for some separated children.

The arrangement for unaccompanied asylum seeker children is, as we know, that they are looked after by local authorities in keeping with the arrangements for all children in the United Kingdom. Unaccompanied asylum seeker children are provided with a professional social worker and will also have an independent reviewing officer to oversee their care arrangements. They are also entitled to legal assistance in pursuing their asylum claim. These arrangements ensure that children are provided with independent support and advice; the addition of a guardian to this framework, as I have said before, could risk adding another level of complexity to existing arrangements. Instead, we have worked to provide additional support specifically to vulnerable children who may have been trafficked. We therefore do not consider that expanding or bringing forward the point at which support is initiated would be in the best interests of meeting the needs of exploited and trafficked children.

That is not to say that we do not recognise the work that needs to continue. I am pleased to say that Jess Phillips, the Minister for Safeguarding, has regular meetings with the ICTG service. She holds round tables, bringing everyone together to make sure that we can bring the role of advocates into this mix and continue the essential conversations.

I completely recognise the need for stable relationships, as outlined by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. We can only imagine the disruption, upheaval and separation, and the impact that that has on these very vulnerable young people. The importance of this is that the child will have access to an advocate. Unlike the social worker and IRO, the advocate is not required to have a prescribed social work qualification; their primary purpose is to represent fully the views and wishes of the child. As part of this function, they can assist the child in obtaining legal advice in the same way as the social worker and IRO—and, indeed, the foster carer, where that is appropriate.

I understand the need to continue the conversations. I hope that my noble friend will recognise that those conversations will continue. I completely acknowledge that there is no room for complacency at all in this very important area of work. With those reassurances, I hope that my noble friend will feel content to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I entirely understand and respect the Minister’s reservations, particularly on not putting regulations in primary legislation that might make more difficulty—that I understand. It is the spirit of the amendment that I am particularly concerned with. I just ask, is it intended that the modern slavery advocate will be put out across the entire country before the end of this year?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The tender is going out in the summer. I believe that implementation will take some time and should be fully up and running by 2027.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I do not question the proposition that substantive court reports should be done by qualified practitioners. Such reports are valuable, and often essential, to the court, providing information, analysis, assessments and recommendations—and not just to the court but to the parties who are thereby helped to settle their differences without a full contested hearing.

Until I heard the noble Baroness’s introduction, I wondered at the nature or extent of the problem that prompted her amendment. Most final reports nowadays—and I mean final reports—are well written, well researched and well reasoned. Substantive reports are prepared by the allocated Cafcass officer—or social worker, in my experience—and social workers often state their academic and professional qualifications. Sometimes, the worker has to be a substitute or a trainee, but in those circumstances the report will be checked and countersigned by a team leader. So, although I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, I do not believe there is problem.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 183C, tabled by the Baroness, Lady Barran.

I will begin by giving everyone in the Chamber some reassurance, although I am sure that I do not need to do this. It is absolutely crucial that everyone understands that, for child protection cases, there is a requirement for a social worker. It is imperative that we make that that point absolutely clear. The issue that has perhaps driven the concern is that of quality, and I will go on to give some reassurance about that. At the end of the day, the absolute imperative is that we do right by, and make the best decisions for, children, and that we have the right people available to make sure that that happens.

In line with the current framework, reporting to the courts can come from a range of experts, as we have heard. The legislation, as written, surrounding court-ordered reports provides a degree of flexibility, depending on the circumstances of the case and the discretion of the local authority or the court. When specifically considering Section 7 reports, there is currently no requirement for them to be prepared by a qualified social worker. It is important that there is flexibility in who may prepare these reports, to make sure that they are prepared by the right person, with the right skills and the right experience. Courts and local authorities should have discretion in determining this, too.

We know that most S7 reports are prepared by Cafcass social workers, with a small number of them completed by local authorities. Where social work leadership or oversight is needed, this should be built into the supervision and sign-off of the reports. Of course, the court has a duty to ensure that the reports are of sufficient quality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to this amendment, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I thought, from the original groupings, that we were also going to talk about Amendment 502T, but I gather that is no longer the case, so the Committee will be relieved to hear that my speech will be even shorter.

Like my noble friend Lady Spielman, I do not support the noble Lord’s amendment, although I accept absolutely that it is a real sign that a child or young person has been failed by both their family and the services designed to support them if they end up in police custody. But the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s guidance regarding the treatment of children in police custody is clear. It already states that children should not be held overnight in police cells, suggesting that time will typically be very limited in police custody. It is also clear on the role of the local authority where there are concerns about the child’s welfare, and the child’s right to have an appropriate adult present to explain their rights and help them understand the situation.

In practical terms, even if we could magically find an educational psychologist to go to the police station, I question whether that really is a good time to assess a child for special educational needs and disabilities, since it is a particularly stressful situation. As my noble friend Lady Spielman said, very specialist skills are required for this. To reiterate, there is no high-quality definition of special educational needs and disabilities and no clinical definition. My noble friend already said that there is no clinical definition for neurodivergence. Currently, definitions of SEND vary from school to school and within different forms of SEND. This confusion would open the door to misinterpretations. For example, a child could have ADHD, but that does not mean that they are incapable of making decisions. With respect to the noble Lord, who is not in his place, I suggest it would be very hard to make the amendment work in practice.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 183CD is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for stepping into the gap so that we could have a brief discussion on it. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is not here because he has a lot of experience of, and a background in, this field. It would have been helpful to have heard from him. I will move to the end of the comments I was going to make to reassure him: there are no plans to set up a separate system.

I echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. On screening for special educational needs, disabilities and neurodiversity, it is important to bear in mind that police custody is primarily a place of safety and investigation. Normally, a child would be there for a very short time. There is a high likelihood of a very stressful situation and an unfamiliar environment. For those reasons, we do not believe that police custody is likely to be an appropriate setting to assess special educational needs and disabilities, or neurodivergence.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy intended to protect and promote the well-being of children in police custody, with a particular focus on provisions relating to children with special educational needs and disabilities and children who are neurodivergent. The Government’s manifesto was clear that particular care must be taken when the police are investigating children. Children should be detained in custody only when absolutely necessary, and where there are opportunities to divert children away from custody they should always be considered. It is, as we have heard, particularly important where the child has special educational needs and disabilities or is neurodivergent.

More broadly, the Government’s young futures programme is about intervening earlier to ensure that children and young people who are facing poorer outcomes and are vulnerable to being drawn into crime are identified and offered support in a more systematic way. Effectively identifying the right young people early enough and ensuring that they are accessing evidence-based support is what prevention partnerships will aim to do.

The rights and entitlements of children in police custody are clearly set out in a statutory code of practice, code C to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Under code C, all children in police custody must be provided with an appropriate adult whose role is to safeguard their welfare, rights and effective participation. When a child is detained in custody, the custody officer must notify a parent or guardian as soon as practicable, explaining the reasons for the child’s detention and where they are detained.

In addition, all detainees, including children, have access to health care professionals while in custody. These professionals play a critical role in identifying vulnerabilities and ensuring appropriate care. Interestingly, as we have heard, different police forces are looking at different ways they can train their police officers. Distraction tools such as books, colouring books, puzzles and foam balls have been provided for some police custody suites by organisations such as the Children’s Society and UK autism charities. These help a child to settle while they are in custody. We are of course always looking for examples of good practice.

I am also aware of the work under way in some violence reduction units, such as London and Cleveland, which provide custody navigators for young people in police custody involved in or at risk of serious violence. Custody navigators offer support to those young people at a time of crisis, or at a so-called reachable moment—a moment when otherwise hard-to-reach demographics are away from their usual environment and are potentially more willing to engage with offers of support. Even though we have explored the issue of the appropriateness of some of this work in those settings, it is important to recognise that police officers and legal representatives need to undergo training that equips them for working with vulnerable suspects such as children who are neuro-divergent.

The College of Policing has also published an extensive neurodiversity glossary of terms, intended for all police officers, staff and volunteers, to raise awareness and enhance understanding of neurodiversity. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has a dedicated neurodiversity portfolio chaired by ACC Matt Welsted of West Midlands Police, who has established a neurodiversity working group. Its work includes supporting police officers to design and deliver a service to be proud of, relating to neurodivergent victims, witnesses, suspects and residents. We are all aware that there have been distressing examples where such manifestations have not been recognised; everything is now being done to recognise them.

In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and ask him to consider withdrawing the amendment that he has moved on the noble Lord’s behalf.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am so sorry to intervene on my noble friend again but, having introduced the group, he had a chance to make the points he needs to make. I think now is the time to hear from the Minister.

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking for the clarification that he has just made, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for a very clear explanation of why she is not supporting these amendments. As a former lead member for children’s services for the second-largest metropolitan authority in the country, I find it very difficult to recognise some of the comments that have been made tonight, and I emphasise the dedication and hard work of so many people whose primary, indeed sole objective is to make sure that all children in this country are safe from harm. It is so important to reference that as we go through.

I am not sure how many more times Ministers need to stress that there is total recognition of how many parents are out there working extremely hard to provide a suitable education when educating their children otherwise than at school. We have heard examples of the successes of so many of them, and we recognise that many of those children are thriving.

I emphasise that parents have no reason to fear the prospect of having to include key information on local authority children not in school registers. This information is vital to help local authorities discharge existing responsibilities and ensure that the education children receive is suitable and safe. As we have heard, without the registers, too many children and young people are at risk of falling through the gaps.

I will respond briefly to the amendments in this group, which are all tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. They suggests exemptions for why a child’s information should not be included on a local authority’s children not in school register.

Amendment 254 seeks to ensure that, if a child does not fit the eligibility criteria, their parents would not be required to provide any information. This is unnecessary. If a child is not eligible to be registered, their parents would not be under the duty to provide information.

Amendments 230, 323, 324 and 326 seek to limit which children must be registered on a local authority children not in school register. A key objective of the registers is to aid local authorities in their existing duty to identify, as far as it is possible to do so, all children in their areas who are not registered pupils in school and are not receiving a suitable education. These amendments would prevent this.

Amendment 230 would exempt children if the parent is able to provide a sworn affidavit from an experienced home educator that the home education being provided is suitable, if the parent has arranged for the child to sit at least three national qualifications, or if the child is enrolled in certain educational provision. None of these proposed reasons for exemption would give a local authority enough assurance that the education being provided is suitable for an individual child.

Amendment 323 would exempt children who are temporarily residing in the UK with a permanent residence elsewhere. Where a child is living in the local authority’s area, even if only for a short time, the local authority has education and safeguarding duties towards the child.

I am particularly disappointed to see Amendments 324 and 326, where the noble Lord suggests exempting asylum-seeking families and families affected by war, natural disaster or economic collapse from registers. These are some of the very children who registers will most benefit. Where local authorities are aware of these children, they can offer support to ensure that their education continues undisrupted. The registers would simply not work if the exemptions that the noble Lord proposes were to apply.

Amendment 325 would enable children aged 14 or over to be exempt from being included on the register if they register as self-directed learners. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 is clear: it is the responsibility of the parents to secure a suitable education for their child. Parents, not children, must remain accountable for this. As we have heard, most parents are fulfilling this duty, but registers will be a crucial tool in identifying where this is not the case so that these children can be supported into suitable education.

Finally in this group, Amendment 423 seeks to allow parents to discharge their duty to provide suitable education when their child is providing services, mentoring or trade-related activities. The Government’s guidance on home education for local authorities and parents sets out that a parent must provide their child with a full-time, efficient, suitable education. Parents therefore have the flexibility to educate their child in whatever manner they deem best for their child, provided it is suitable. This may be able to be achieved through school-type work or through practical education, such as the noble Lord mentioned, depending on the needs of the child. For the reasons I have outlined, namely that exemption of any eligible child for inclusion in the registers would mean that children who may be in receipt of unsuitable education fall through the gaps, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I thank the Minister and my noble friend Lady Barran for their comments. Frankly, I am disappointed. I feel that many of the measures that I have proposed are designed to help our wonderful officials, who work in local authorities and are struggling under a huge workload, to focus their efforts with the register, which will create a lot of, let us say, false positives as well as genuine areas where intervention might be needed, and a huge amount of work. That is the focus of these amendments.

The point I wanted to raise about asylum seekers was that asylum seekers are obviously very vulnerable, but under the Bill, the moment when the details of the asylum seeker’s children are in the register, the clock starts ticking. They have two weeks to do it, they have to report X number of people’s email addresses and names, they might not even speak or write English, and yet the clock will start ticking. Of course, local authorities and we as a society need to support asylum seekers, but are we willing to put them through such an onerous process if they choose, for whatever reason, to home-educate? I am not sure that this has been really thought through.

It is not any part of my design to exclude asylum seekers from the support that local authorities can provide; it is just trying to be practical. While I recognise and really applaud the officials working on the front line—already under huge pressure and struggling to work out, within all the noise of all the many databases they have access to, where they should intervene—my concern is that without exemptions such as these, this is going to make their life much more difficult and may indeed lead to safeguarding scandals and problems because they have not been able to get around to the families and children who really do need help.

I am grateful for what has been said. I will reflect on it and may return to it at a later stage but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition believe that we do, of course, need to pay careful attention to the barriers that prevent children from low-income backgrounds, young carers and others from attaining higher grades and better results in school. Ensuring that every child has a fair and equal chance is paramount, and it is entirely right that we should look for ways to mitigate these barriers wherever they arise. That may well be achieved in different ways —for some children, through home schooling, and for others, through specialist academies, as we have already argued on other clauses of the Bill.

It is also important that we look beyond structure and address the socioeconomic reasons that often lie behind underperformance. Disadvantage, low prior attainment and the additional burdens carried by some young people all need to be recognised. We hope the Minister will use this opportunity to set out clearly how the Government are working to level the playing field, ensuring that no group of pupils, regardless of background, is either favoured or disadvantaged and that even well-intentioned measures do not lead to any kind of positive discrimination. The principles of fairness and opportunity for all must remain central.

For that reason, while we would have stopped short of saying that a statutory national tutoring guarantee is the best or only approach, we welcome the spirit of Amendment 460, and we look forward to hearing how the Government intend to address the issues it highlights.

On Amendment 482, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for raising this important issue. The children of parents who are in in prison are too often a hidden group, and yet they face particular challenges that can significantly affect their educational attainment and life chances.

We have had the opportunity to research the work that has been done by the charity Children Heard and Seen. That research suggests that schools were aware of just 30,000 children with a parent in prison, whereas the Ministry of Justice’s data estimates that the number of children with a parent in prison in England and Wales is more like 192,000.

This amendment rightly shines a light on these children’s needs and on our responsibility to ensure that they are not overlooked. We would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to set out what steps the Government are taking to address the barriers faced specifically by these children and whether they recognise them as a group that requires dedicated support and special help, in addition to helping schools identify those affected children who would indeed benefit from additional or tailored interventions in their place of learning. It is only by identifying and acknowledging such groups, not just children with parents in prison, that we can make sure that no child is left behind, whatever the circumstances of their family life.

Finally, we support the principle that lies behind Amendment 490. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for their tireless work in highlighting these challenges that are faced by children with special educational needs and disabilities. Their determination to improve outcomes for this group makes a huge difference, and we hope the Minister will recognise the strength of feeling across your Lordships’ Committee on this matter.

That said, we have reservations as to whether a royal commission is the best medium to close the attainment gap for people with special education needs and disabilities. Commissions can be lengthy and expensive, and sometimes produce recommendations that are overtaken by events before the findings themselves can be implemented.

Our goal is to ensure that we do everything we can to enable children with special educational needs to leave school with the skills, independence and confidence that will allow them to flourish and seize every opportunity available to them in the outside world. That requires schools and educational delivery to be formulated in ways that are genuinely tailored to children’s needs, not necessarily to meet a single uniform benchmark. For that reason, although we absolutely support the intent, allow me to suggest that another approach may be from the bottom up, focused on practice and provision on the ground and in the corridors, rather than launching a royal commission.

None the less, the underlying issue is of the greatest importance, and we hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to set out how the Government are addressing the attainment gap which has been made clear by noble Lords across your Lordships’ House, between those with special educational needs and those without, and to set out what more can be done to make sure that every child is given the best chance to succeed.

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

My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed on this important group of amendments. First of all, it is not going to be possible to give the list that everyone has specifically asked for, but I want to start by making it absolutely clear that raising attainment for all children with inclusivity in mind and recognising the gaps wherever they occur is absolutely a top priority for the Government. This is such a complex area of work, as has been eloquently highlighted by the contributions that we have had on the three amendments.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, he reminded us of the place we were in during those very dark days of Covid, and of the response to try to recognise that so many vulnerable young people in particular were being left behind as a result of their absence from the school system. I fully appreciate his concern and the concerns expressed by others, and particularly his interest in this and his understanding from his background of how this works locally. But I emphasise that it was a programme that was time limited for obvious reasons and has served its place.

I am very conscious of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, about how we target the resource we have. One of the best resources we have is our schools and those involved in the system, and I believe it is much better to go to those schools and let them identify the best way forward. It could be that a tutoring programme has worked brilliantly for them specifically, but we know that this is not the case all over. We should have confidence in those schools to determine the best way that they can reach young people who really need that additional support.

As I say, schools can choose to continue to provide tutoring through the use of funds such as pupil premium, for example, and to support the disadvantaged pupils identified in this amendment. Also, the Department for Education has published evaluations of the National Tutoring Programme; therefore we do not believe that it would be good value to have further reporting on it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Weir, for his comments. I am very interested in the work that he highlighted. If he could send me a link to the report that he mentioned, I would be grateful. It is of course critical that we listen to experience from our devolved regions and make sure we learn from all the experience that we have. As has been said, gathering information from across so many comments is one part of the issue. How we analyse that information and make it worthwhile and useful is another serious part.

My response to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is that we do not believe that it is necessary to set out the complete requirements and framework in statute. We have confidence in schools to take this forward.

Moving on to Amendment 482, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for stepping in and raising this whole important area. I of course recognise the concerns that have been expressed across the House. I am very grateful to her for raising such an important issue. Having a parent in prison can have a lasting detrimental effect on children’s life chances, including increasing their risk of low educational attainment, as we have heard. I appreciate that a supportive school environment can help to act as a buffer against these risks, and teachers can help children to navigate a challenging time and aspire towards further education.

The Government have committed to identifying and supporting all children affected by parental imprisonment. This is not a simple or straightforward task. It is extremely difficult. We have to be aware of the gaps in our knowledge and perhaps try to understand why we have some of those gaps. We are considering how to support this cohort as part of the Government’s opportunity mission. Obviously, the theme running through all this is about making sure that educational attainment is at the centre, but there are many other factors that we need to bring in relating to the well-being of children and young people, and how that can have an impact.

While the request is welcome, it would risk duplicating efforts that are already being made to identify this cohort sensitively, ensuring that they are offered appropriate support. As the noble Lord, Lord Gove, said, the Ministry of Justice is stepping up in this space. The Department for Education is working closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that all children affected by parental imprisonment, including those not of compulsory school age, are recognised and receive the support they need to achieve and thrive alongside their peers.

I say that this is sensitive because we cannot assume that all children whose parents are in prison have the same experience. Indeed, the difference in experience between siblings can be stark. It is a complex area. Some children who have a parent in custody might never have lived with that parent. We must be careful not to make assumptions about their experience. Our approach is looking at all children, recognising that their specific experiences can be very different indeed. Sensitivity is paramount in this area.

I turn to Amendment 490, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and thank him again for the way in which he expresses his concern around these issues. I extend those sentiments to everyone who has contributed to this area.

Again, I have to agree that establishing a royal commission on this subject may not be the way forward. As a Government, we have recognised that the whole area around special educational needs needs serious attention. Just to pick up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, recognising the complexity of all this is why we are looking at that review. I know that we will go on in the next group of amendments after the dinner break to look into some of these issues in more detail, so I do not want to cover too much of the ground that will be raised then.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by noting that, although there are a smaller number of noble Lords in the Chamber, the quality of the contributions has nevertheless been truly significant. I thank my noble friend Lord Layard for bringing this to the Chamber and for continuing to share his enormous expertise and passion in this area, ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson. I emphasise that this Government absolutely understand the importance of apprenticeships and the scandal of reduced opportunities for young people and are fully engaged in discussions on how to address this and move forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, this group focuses on the thorny issue of complaints. The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough would introduce a new right of appeal for parents who have made a complaint that has not been upheld to a maintained school, academy or non- maintained special school.

At the risk of stating the obvious, most schools follow the law; they follow guidance and non-statutory guidance. I remember one teacher saying to me, “We live our lives by the bell. Of course we follow the rules”, but I accept the examples that my noble friend cited. We know that the volume of complaints is rising considerably, sadly assisted by tools such as ChatGPT and other large language models. As my noble friend Lady Spielman said on her amendment, to which I was pleased to add my name, a complaint can be made to the Department for Education, Ofsted and the TRA, as well as to the school itself. Most worryingly, the school is sometimes excluded and complaints are made to all the other agencies but not to the school.

I am grateful to the charity Parentkind for its research into complaints, which shows that the vast majority of parents are happy with their child’s school, but also that 38% of the 2,000 parents in the sample interviewed had filed a formal complaint in the last year. Head teachers report separately from the Parentkind research that, on average, they are dealing with five complaints a week.

As my noble friend Lord Jackson explained, his amendment would support parents who are not satisfied with the school’s response to a complaint and provide a different mechanism to enforce their legal duties. I find it troubling that this amendment is needed, particularly the second element, as there are significant safeguards to ensure that schools meet their legal duties. I would have hoped that the existing system, which allows a complaint to be referred to a panel chaired by an independent member, would be sufficient. However, I think the Committee will agree that my noble friend has raised some extremely worrying examples including—and this might be insulting to snails—about the pace of the response received from the department.

I turn to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Spielman. As she set out, it aims to simplify and streamline the complaints process. We are trying to address the current problems in the system whereby parents can make complaints to multiple places, which leads to confusion, frustration on the part of parents, delays and extra work and stress for school leaders. I know that is something that the Secretary of State is very alive to and has promised to come back with ideas on in the schools White Paper, which is coming very soon, I think—but perhaps I put the “very” in.

Our amendment would ensure that complaints are dealt with by only one party at a time, and that it is the most appropriate one. The Minister will be aware of cases where tremendous pressure is placed on the leadership of schools, including on some occasions when false and vindictive allegations are made. I remember visiting a school where a parent had alleged that over half of the members of staff had behaved inappropriately towards their child. Each complaint was made to multiple organisations and had to be dealt with individually, which took a huge toll on school leaders and their colleagues. Indeed, Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, has said:

“We are hearing more often from school leaders who have seen a significant increase in complaints, including a big rise in those that are clearly vexatious or baseless. This can harm their wellbeing, and cause unnecessary stress and workload”.


He also agrees that:

“Too often complaints are escalated unnecessarily, including sometimes to multiple agencies at the same time”.


I hope that I am safe in saying that I do not think that either my noble friend or I are wedded to the particular approach that we have in our amendment, but we are wedded to supporting schools and parents so that complaints can be dealt with swiftly and clearly, with a minimum of stress and expense, human or financial, to all involved. I look forward to hearing from the Minister the Government’s plans in this area.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions and for raising this very important area around parental complaints and appeals and the introduction of a central school complaints system. The Government completely understand the concern on this matter. As I shall go on to mention, the increase in the number of complaints is quite staggering, when you see the statistics laid out.

Amendments 485, 487 and 488, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would allow parents and carers of children in maintained schools, independent schools, including academies, and non-maintained special schools to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Amendment 489, also tabled by the noble Lord, would allow for regulations to amend secondary legislation on the rules and procedures of the First-tier Tribunal. I note the detailed examples that the noble Lord highlighted to us.

Amendment 502YM, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, would introduce a central complaints system to handle all school-related complaints in England, and for these complaints to be held in a central database accessible to the Department for Education and Ofsted. I hope we have made it very clear throughout the passage of the Bill, and I repeat it, that the Government’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity by driving high and rising standards, so that all children are supported to achieve and thrive. This area fits into the discussion of these amendments.

When parents and carers believe schools are not delivering the standards expected of them, they of course have the right to raise complaints with schools—that is of the utmost importance. All schools are required to have a complaints policy in place that is promoted and effectively implemented. However, we believe that the introduction of an additional level of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal would create increased burden on a school system that is already under enormous pressure, as we have heard, from the increasing number of parent and carer complaints.

Importantly, the existing system already allows for the escalation of complaints where parents and carers believe complaints have not been handled compliantly or a school has not adhered to education law. When non-compliance is identified, the Secretary of State for Education has powers to intervene in a way that is proportionate and necessary to bring resolution to the parent’s or carer’s complaint.

We have accepted and acknowledged the issues and concerns being raised, by both schools and parents and carers, about the current school complaints system, both the pressure it places on schools—we have heard some good examples of that—and the frustration it can cause for parents and carers. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, highlighted, the increase in parent and carer complaints is a growing concern across the sector. That is why we are working through the Improving Education Together group, bringing together colleagues from across the sector to improve the school complaints system. Our aim is to reduce the burden on schools and leaders, while also maintaining parents’ rights to raise concerns, including by exploring ways to reduce unnecessary duplication. We want to create a better and clearer system for parents and to improve the relationship between schools and families.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, highlighted the work that Parentkind has done in this space. I am very pleased to inform the Chamber that the Secretary of State went to the launch of its latest publication on this subject on Tuesday—when, ironically, we were in the Chamber. That was a very important step forward. She set out that we are resetting relationships between schools and parents, so that trust levels are high and any issues are resolved informally before becoming complaints.

The other pressure that I need to draw attention to, and why we are very concerned about introducing additional burdens, is from SEND-related tribunals. The number of appeals has risen by over 40% in the past year alone. I think that it is well known that we are working with the Ministry of Justice to bring more capacity into that system. That will be addressed in the SEND reform review that will be published later in the autumn.

The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, raises an important point about AI. I had not thought of it in that way, but of course people are finding new applications all the time, just putting their few words into ChatGPT or whatever and coming out with a whole document built on that. I want to reassure her that the department is fully aware of this situation and is looking at ways to support schools in this space, including revision of the department’s guidance to schools on this very important matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Can the noble Baroness say now, or write to me and put the letter in the Library, clarifying whether, in relation to simplification of the complaints system, which obviously the Secretary of State has said she would like to do and which is at the heart of the amendment in my name and in that of my noble friend Lady Spielman, that requires a change in primary legislation or whether it can be done in secondary legislation? If it requires primary legislation, I am sure that colleagues in the department would be able to craft some kind of commencement clause—I am not sure quite what sort of clause it would be—that would allow that to happen without us having to wait several years for more legislation.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a very important point, and these will all be matters that are being considered as the Secretary of State takes this important work forward. I can get a written note and put it in the Library to outline the way forward and where we are at this moment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her well thought through and considered response. It ranged wider than I expected, but just for the avoidance of doubt, of course I deprecate any unreasonable or vexatious complaints against teachers from parents that might veer into anti-social behaviour of the type she mentioned in terms of WhatsApp groups. I am happy to put that on record.

This has been a very thoughtful and important debate and I am grateful to noble Lords who took part, not least the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and my noble friend Lady Spielman, who both brought great expertise and experience to the debate—the noble Lord from his time on Liverpool City Council and my noble friend from her leadership of Ofsted.

At its heart, this debate has revolved around a single clear question: do we believe that the laws passed in Parliament should be enforceable in schools? People are worried about a litigation culture, yet the evidence demonstrates that the current system of bureaucratic brick walls and institutional inertia is the true source of conflict and frustration. We have heard concerns about costs, but I ask again, what is the price of the status quo? What is the cost of a department that fails in its duty, and of parental trust in schools evaporating?

This accountability vacuum does not remain empty for long: it is filled by an entire ecosystem of unaccountable third-party advisers and activists. This is not, I suggest, a failure of individual teachers but a systemic failure. In the absence of clear enforcement, the law becomes muted and professionals are left rudderless. Into this void step commercial subscription services. I will give one final example in this debate. The Key is an organisation ironically first established by the Department for Education before it was privatised. When the previous Government consulted on draft guidelines for schools on gender-questioning children, The Key actively counselled schools that it would be unlawful to follow that guidance.

The accountability these amendments would introduce is not just for schools; it is for the entire advisory industry, which is funded by stretched school budgets. When the advice of these organisations is tested before a tribunal and found wanting, schools will quite rightly cease to pay for it. The market for bad advice will therefore, for the first time, face a correction.

These amendments are not a radical proposal. They do not seek to create conflict: they seek to provide a clear, fair and independent forum for its resolution. They would not undermine professional judgment, but they do subordinate it to the rule of law, which is as it should be. They give parents a voice and give the law teeth.

In conclusion, the choice is simple. We can endure the current inertia, condemning parents to a system that does not work, or we could take a meaningful step to restore accountability, uphold the will of Parliament and ensure that, when a parent has a legitimate concern that a school is breaking the law, they have somewhere to go. I believe we must choose the latter. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment but will consider returning to it at a later date.

--- Later in debate ---

I also echo the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, in acknowledging the care, the thought, the intellectual firepower and a few hours of work that have gone into scrutinising the Bill from across the House. I also want to thank personally a number of external experts who have certainly shared their insights with me and have taken great care and trouble to support us on a number of our amendments. We all do this because we care about the children whom the Bill seeks to support. We may not agree, but we all care.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Before I start summing up, I just have a comment to make: if loosening ties is good enough for instructions in this Chamber, maybe schools should consider it. I am sorry; we are getting to the last group of amendments here.

These are all exceptionally important amendments that we need to consider. It is a rather strange grouping but there is a theme running through them. I will turn to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, first because his amendment led the group. The whole thrust of this is that it would require schools to remain open to all pupils during civil emergencies unless the other place decided otherwise. I stress that every emergency is different and unpredictable; that is the nature of the beast that we are talking about. We all learned the lesson—some of us were more involved than others—that planning is best when it is agile and takes a whole-system approach, and is responsive to the emergency faced. For example, I will never forget the chilling moment when I got a call from our director of education to say that a teacher had been murdered in one of our schools, all of the emotions that brought in, and the effect on all the children in the school and the staff, and the huge response required at the time.

I am acutely conscious of the impacts that closing schools has on children, and protecting children and young people in emergencies will always be a priority for the Government. I commend those school leaders who kept schools open during the pandemic—albeit for limited numbers of pupils, but the vast majority of schools were open during that time and we should remember that. They did extraordinary work to keep those settings open. They received very strong local support in, I have to say, often a very conflicting and chaotic environment where directives were not clear; there was an enormous amount of confusion during that whole period.

It would not be appropriate here to pre-empt the findings of the Covid inquiry into the decisions made by the previous Government. We must let the inquiry go into a real level of detail. It is of course timely that the children’s module is starting the week after next. We will all watch the evidence that is gathered through that process with great care and great insight. However, I want to raise the issue that, for those of us who had to deal with the directives, there was a question: why were zoos, theme parks and pubs opened before schools? That is the sort of question that we need to try to get an understanding of.

School leaders already manage complex legal duties. No one would close a school lightly. The Government publish guidance to help settings prepare and tailor their approach for different emergencies. For health emergencies, non-statutory guidance backed by public health advice generally works well, and the current framework enables this without new legislation. DfE would work with a range of experts if faced with such decisions at scale again, and we will consider the role that the Children’s Commissioner plays. I would be interested in hearing the views of the Children’s Commissioner at this present moment on whether her office actually has the resource to take on the responsibilities being suggested in the amendment.

Something that might be of interest is that Exercise Pegasus, the UK’s largest-ever pandemic preparedness simulation, started this week. It is a vital step in ensuring that our systems, people and plans are ready for the next pandemic, whenever it may come. DfE officials are participating fully in it, as is Minister Gould in the other place. A Written Ministerial Statement on Pegasus came out earlier in the week, and I recommend that we all look at the experience that has been gathered through that process. Additionally, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is looking carefully at legislation around future public health emergencies, drawing on those lessons and ensuring that we are never again in the position of unpreparedness that we faced in March 2020.

Amendment 502P, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, would require new schools to be built to deliver net zero carbon in operation and to be resilient to climate change, and would require action plans to be developed for all existing schools to reach net zero and be adapted to be resilient to the impacts of climate change. I confirm that the Department for Education already requires all centrally funded school building projects to be net-zero carbon in operation. New schools delivered by the department are designed to be climate resilient to a 2 degree rise in average global temperatures, as has been stated, and future-proofed for a rise of 4 degrees centigrade. They need to incorporate sustainable drainage systems and deliver a greening factor of at least 35% to promote biodiversity, and I confirm that this is ongoing.

The DfE sustainability strategy introduced an expectation for all schools to develop a climate adaptation plan, supported by a network of climate ambassadors who, through nine regional hubs, provide free expertise and support to nursery schools and colleges to develop and deliver impactful climate action plans. The DfE has partnered with Great British Energy to support schools in decarbonising their buildings through the installation of solar power and other energy-efficiency measures, such as installing LED lighting.

On the three questions posed by the noble Baroness, I think everyone knows that taking exams at the hottest time of year can be extraordinarily difficult. It is not always extremely hot at that time of year—as we all know, our climate is unpredictable at this time—but that is under consideration. I will have to get back to her on the other questions that she raised around data and information gathering.

Amendment 502YA is a very thoughtful amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who speaks with enormous experience and gave very appropriate examples. I think the way we feel about this is that teaching about emergencies has to be age appropriate. We must work sensitively to ensure that it extends to not overstating risks and helping pupils contextualise what they learn, without causing alarm. That is the very delicate balance we have to tread on this. Of course, there are particularly obvious safety measures we can help to get across, as the noble Baroness outlined. But there are areas in which we need to rely on schools. They are exceptionally well placed to know how to plan for emergencies and how to talk to pupils appropriately. There is guidance available to them, including from the department.

In addition, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, commonly known as Martyn’s law, received Royal Assent this year, as we have heard. It will require certain premises, including educational settings, to prepare for potential events and be ready to keep people safe in the event of an attack. As such, we think it would be confusing and unnecessary to accept this amendment while Martyn’s law is being introduced within the next 24 months.

Amendment 502YB was proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and states that we need an initial 12-month and then biennial review of the level of preparedness of grant maintained schools and other schools for increasing extremes of climate, particularly high temperatures. Of course, in Australia wearing hats is compulsory, and I think kids having suncream is compulsory as well. Other parts of the world have moved ahead of us, and we need to learn from other experiences. We understand the concern expressed in this amendment, but we have to be very careful about adding to the burden of the sector around collecting the data she suggests and the review. I think we need to be very sensitive to this and make sure everything is done proportionately, while making sure children and young people are safe.

The considerations set out in the amendment should be included in settings’ climate action plans, to be dealt with at a local level. However, for the preparedness of buildings and grounds, we will potentially develop new methods of data collection in the future to help us understand the preparedness of school settings for managing climate change emergencies.

I do not think I need to say an enormous amount more about uniform provision. We issued guidance to support schools in developing and implementing uniform policies which states that schools should take a sensible approach to allow for exceptions to be made during extreme weather.

On the suitability of transport provision, we know some schools provide transport—minibuses, for example. We do not provide guidance or collect information on this transport. Health and safety on educational visits guidance sets out our advice on considerations necessary to plan, organise and risk assess educational visits.

For the level of emergency planning to protect pupil health and well-being, including regulations and rules about maximum temperatures in classrooms, the workplace regulations apply to schools and cover temperatures in indoor workplaces. This is supported by other legislation which requires schools to maintain their premises to ensure the health and safety and welfare of pupils. It is for individual schools to have policies in place for emergency response and safeguarding.

Finally, Amendment 502YK, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, looks at the rather vexed issue of ventilation and air cleaning in schools and reducing the transmission of respiratory diseases as well as other measures to reduce transmission of other diseases with annual reporting on progress. I agree that good ventilation is vitally important. The department already publishes guidance on ventilation which is consistent with expert advice given by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, SAGE, during the Covid-19 pandemic on ventilation requirements to reduce the spread of Covid-19 and by extension other airborne infections. I am sure all noble Lords will remember those shots of airborne particles circulating around a room without ventilation and the difference that opening windows and other factors made.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I turn to the first group of amendments to this important Bill on Report. I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I start with a message of reassurance that this Government are committed to hearing from and listening to children about what matters to them most. It is for this very reason that we have laid government Amendment 4 to Clause 1, on family group decision-making. The amendment requires local authorities to seek the wishes and feelings of the child, as opposed to their views, as was in the original drafting, and to give due consideration to those wishes and feelings in exercising their functions under this clause.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is absolutely right about the importance of the child in these proceedings and the need to make sure that they are included wherever it is appropriate. That includes ascertaining the wishes and feelings of very young children, non-verbal children, and children who may lack capacity and are not able to express their views. This is a complex area that requires the expertise that we have referred to. In making this requirement, the amendment strengthens the requirement on local authorities to hear and give weight to children’s voices, without changing the overall effect of the clause.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is absolutely right. From experience, these situations often come out of a state of crisis, where extended family members might not have been expecting the difficulties that were going to come up. It is crucial that there is clarity. As we all know, relationships and families are complex, and we need to do everything that we can. Evidence shows that engaging family networks through the use of family group decision-making meetings can reduce applications for court proceedings and divert children from entering the care system, improving the outcomes for children and their families. It is important to keep that at the front of our deliberations.

I turn to Amendments 1 and 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I completely appreciate the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that the term “family group decision-making” is well understood and that families are offered evidence-based support. However, given that the family group conference model is one of family group decision-making, we believe that including both as distinct terms in legislation risks creating confusion and undermining the clarity that the noble Baroness is seeking. We do not believe that prescribing a particular model in primary legislation is necessary. Likewise, the term “evidence-based approach” could be interpreted differently and including it could create confusion for local authorities if it is not defined in the clause.

Instead, as my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families set out to Peers in a round table on this issue on 11 November, we will set out clear principles in statutory guidance that are informed—this is the crucial bit—by the evidence-based family group conference model. The latest estimates we have are that 80% of authorities already use this model. We will make it clear in national statutory guidance that we expect local authorities to consider using this model, and we will direct local authorities towards the strong evidence base for it. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, talked about evidence repeatedly, so I hope that this addresses her concern.

I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that there is no attempt at dilution here. We want to make sure that we stick to the evidence-informed model all the way through the process. It is an incredibly powerful means of bringing people together and we want to make sure that we use every skill that exists out there to get the very best outcomes for children and their families.

Our intention is to avoid tying local authorities to a single model in legislation, as mandating one approach risks stifling innovation and limiting professional judgment. Local authorities have been clear that flexibility in primary legislation is essential to design services that meet local needs and family circumstances. We have already published the Families First Partnership (FFP) Programme Guide, which sets out clear principles informed by the evidence-based family group conference model. We will continue to embed these principles in updated statutory guidance on pre-proceedings and in the working together guidance, both of which we will publish later this year. Statutory guidance rather than primary legislation is the right place for this. Key organisations and proponents of the family group conference model have contributed to the development of best practice support and resources for local authorities, which we shall also publish later this year.

I turn to Amendment 3, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I share their determination to ensure that children returning home after a period in care receive the right support. Continued breakdowns are heartbreaking and do so much to damage the future life chances of the young people involved, undermining confidence and causing enormous disruption. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, spoke eloquently about the importance of reaching all family, and indeed not just family. Sometimes, extended members of the family circle may be the appropriate people to be involved in this process. Of course, proper preparation is essential. The statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, already provides that local authorities should consider family group decision-making when planning for reunification to support the transition from care to home, and we will continue to support this approach. The care planning regulations make it clear that wider family members should be consulted where appropriate, as I have outlined.

Through this Bill, the Government are introducing a range of measures to ensure that children leaving care receive the necessary support to improve their outcomes. Although we agree that family group decision-making can be an important part of the reunification process, and are mandating measures to ensure young people get the support they need, we are concerned that introducing a second statutory trigger point to offer family group decision-making risks delaying the reunification process for some families. I re-emphasise that we have commissioned the production of best practice support and resource for local authorities on family group decision-making, which makes clear that family group decision-making should be championed as a tool to support reunification. I am happy to share an embargoed copy with noble Lords to demonstrate our commitment to this approach.

Turning to Amendment 5, I recognise that the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment is to ensure that children’s welfare needs are prioritised following family group decision-making. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that we need more carers across the piece—kinship carers and foster carers. We know how vital this is for so many young people across the country.

I re-emphasise that local authorities have existing statutory duties to ensure the safety and welfare of children. In addition, Clause 5 will place a duty on local authorities to publish a kinship local offer, setting out the support available to children living in kinship care in the area, cementing the expectation already set out in statutory guidance. This transparency will reduce barriers to obtaining help and ensure that kinship carers receive the practical support they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

On the last point on Amendment 5, the noble Baroness talked about the local care offer. Is she able to say today whether she expects that, when the consultation happens and a template is developed for what that will look like, there will be a specific section on reunification? Obviously, that is a rather different context from the other situations.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Baroness that her comments are fed into the process and that they are listened to.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks; she also comes with huge expertise on this subject. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for not acknowledging his co-signature of Amendment 3.

I was reassured by what the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said on Amendments 1 and 2. I accept that there could be confusion if you use both terms. I was glad to hear her say that clear principles would be set out in the guidance—as was suggested by my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park—and that there would be no dilution of the models. I thank her very much for that.

I am encouraged by the noble Baroness’s last comments on Amendment 3. I think there is an inconsistency when she points to the recommendations in Working Together to Safeguard Children that there should be family group decision-making meetings at the point of reunification because, as I understand it, that is the same recommendation as there is for using those meetings at the point of care proceedings. The Government have chosen to put one on statute and not the other, but that is, ultimately, the Government’s prerogative. She is, of course, right to bring up the point about delay and avoidable delay, but the choice is between delay and stability. I hope that, where the delay is proportionate, stability really is prioritised in the interests of the child.

In my intervention I touched on the noble Baroness’s remarks on the local support offer. Obviously, I am disappointed that the Government did not accept my Amendments 3 and 5 in particular. I hope that, as they implement this new legislation, local authorities will use all their discretion and creativity to address the needs of specific children in the way that we all, across the House, hope. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

4: Clause 1, page 2, line 24, leave out from “child” to end of line 26 and insert “a local authority must, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare—
(a) ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings regarding the exercise of those functions, and(b) give due consideration (having regard to the child’s age and understanding) to such wishes and feelings of the child as the authority has been able to ascertain.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that local authorities will take into account the wishes and feelings of a child when making decisions about family group decision-making in relation to the child under section 31ZA of the Children Act 1989 (as inserted by clause 1).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

18: Clause 4, page 7, leave out lines 11 to 14
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I will Amendment 18, which is in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith. This group covers minor and technical government amendments relating to data protection. These remove Clause 62, and amend certain text in Clauses 4, 13, 18, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 45.

The original drafting sought to clarify that any duties or powers to process personal data are subject to data protection law. However, these references are now unnecessary, following the commencement of Section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 on 20 August 2025. I reassure noble Lords that this absolutely does not remove any data protections; this is about refining drafting to reflect the latest legislative developments.

Section 106 of the 2025 Act introduced a general data protection override into the Data Protection Act 2018. This ensures that the UK’s data protection laws are not overridden by future legislation that imposes a duty or grants a power to process personal data, unless expressly provided otherwise. This does not remove any data protections; this is about refining drafting to reflect the latest legislative changes to the UK’s statute book. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s clarification of the reasons and the impact of these amendments, which seem entirely reasonable.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

29: Clause 5, page 10, line 5, at end insert—
“(8) Before publishing its kinship local offer (or any updated version) a local authority must—(a) consult relevant persons about any services that are offered, or may be offered, by the local authority which may assist to improve outcomes for children living in the authority’s area who live in kinship care, and(b) publish a report on the consultation.(9) In subsection (8), “relevant persons” in relation to a local authority, means such children living in kinship care, kinship carers and other persons as appear to the local authority to be representative of children living in kinship care and kinship carers in its area, which may include former kinship carers and children who used to be in kinship care.(10) The duty to consult in subsection (8) does not apply in relation to kinship local offers that are published or reviewed before section 5 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add a new duty for local authorities to consult with children in kinship care, and kinship carers, before the kinship local offer is published.

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

My Lords, we have heard the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee, and in the other House, about ensuring that kinship local offers meet the needs of kinship families. Having reflected, we agree that a duty to consult and publish a report of consultation would strengthen the expectations already set out in existing guidance and regulatory frameworks that local authorities should ensure that a kinship local offer remains relevant and responds to the voices of children, young people, and families.

This duty will support those local authorities which are yet to publish their first kinship local offer and ensure that they understand the needs of the kinship families living in their areas and develop a support offer that meets those needs. I beg to move.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I rise to speak to Amendments 44, 45 and 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I will pick up on some of the other issues, as they flow between the amendments. All these amendments speak to the desire, which the Government share with others in this House, to ensure that children in kinship care and their families get the support they need to thrive.

Amendment 44 seeks to extend pupil premium eligibility to pupils in England who are living in kinship care, as the noble Lord outlined. As stated in Committee, we are providing over £3 billion of pupil premium funding to improve the educational outcomes of disadvantaged pupils, including pupils looked after or previously looked after by a local authority. Therefore, while kinship arrangements are not part of the pupil premium eligibility, some children in kinship care will attract the pupil premium.

What is more, the pupil premium is not a personal budget for individual pupils who meet the funding criteria. This means that schools can direct spending where the need is greatest, including to pupils with other identified needs. The pupil premium is a discretionary grant, and while there are no plans to place it on a statutory footing, I would like to reassure the noble Lord that we are reviewing how we allocate the pupil premium over the longer term to ensure that it is targeted to those who need it most.

On Amendments 45 and 48, relating to the introduction of financial support for kinship carers and kinship leave, this Government recognise the need to support kinship carers with the financial challenges they experience as well as the difficulties they encounter when trying to work alongside raising a child. In Committee, we said that the department would soon launch a new kinship allowance pilot. I am pleased to share that this will support approximately 4,500 children in kinship care in selected local authorities. The pilot will evaluate the impact of paying a weekly allowance to kinship carers and support them with the additional costs incurred when taking on parental responsibility for a child.

We understand the concerns of noble Lords, and there is a desire to roll out an allowance nationally. However, as we mentioned in Committee, it is important that we first build the evidence base to find out how best to deliver the support for kinship families and to ensure that any decisions about future rollout are informed by the findings of the evaluation.

The issue of leave for kinship carers was rightly discussed and debated by your Lordships’ House last year during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill. I acknowledge the strong case put forward by Members for better support for kinship carers. The Government agree that the issue of kinship care leave is important and requires further consideration. As a result, the Government have committed to include kinship carers in the announced review of the parental leave and pay system. I am pleased to confirm that, following this commitment, kinship leave is now included in the published terms of reference for the review.

Additionally, I am delighted that, from April, those kinship carers who are already entitled to unpaid parental leave, if they have, or expect to have, been granted parental responsibility, will be eligible for this from day one of employment. From their first day in a new job, kinship carers with a special guardianship or child arrangement order will now be able to give notice of their intention to take up to four weeks of parental leave each year for each child they care for, up to a maximum of 18 weeks, until the child is 18. I hope noble Lords will agree that these are meaningful steps towards ensuring that more kinship carers are supported to care for the children they look after.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 31 and 32 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I start by welcoming the commitment to kinship care. It has not always been like this. I remember that, when we started this several years ago, there was a lot of resistance, a lot of suspicion. We had to keep coming back again and again to talk, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, about outcomes for children and young people. This is what it is all about: better outcomes.

In those authorities where the rate of kinship care increases, the need for children to go into care is reduced. If it is possible to hold on to the resource that would have been used to pay for children going into care—which can be horrific, as we know—and reinvest that into family group conferencing and early intervention, we will be in a strong position.

There is still some way to go in convincing people that this is the right way to move forward. I acknowledge that, and that is why I hope that the noble Baroness, in particular, will understand our approach as we go on. I want to give some reassurance around this.

We are speaking about the desire to help more children grow up in safe, stable, loving homes within a family network. As I have said, we recognise that there is much room for improvement to ensure that there are not unnecessary barriers preventing this happening. We need also to improve the experience of being assessed as a kinship carer, which can be another barrier for some people.

As the noble Baroness rightly said, we spoke to Amendment 31 in detail in Committee, and followed up by letter explaining our position on Amendment 32. I reassure the noble Baroness that we do understand the concerns. That is informing the work that is happening with the Law Commission kinship review. We believe that this is the best vehicle for identifying the changes that we need to make to the current system. I know that there might be frustration about timing, but we must make sure that we get this absolutely right.

We engaged the Law Commission, recognising that a holistic review of the complex legislative landscape underpinning kinship was required and recognising its expertise in reforming the law. The concerns raised in this group of amendments will all be in scope, as the review will consider the legal processes and thresholds for assessment, approval and oversight of kinship carers.

At the conclusion of the review, the Law Commission will put forward recommendations for reform. I believe it is important that we do not try to pre-empt its findings without taking a holistic view of the system. We do not want to risk ineffective, piecemeal reform that may have unintended consequences.

For example, Amendment 31, which relates to the removal of requirements under fostering regulations for kinship carers, would undermine the role that the relevant regulations play in ensuring that children are placed in safe, stable and nurturing environments, by removing important safeguarding assessments with nothing to replace them. It would also remove a means for local authorities to identify the right support for carers so that they are not left to manage alone. Getting this balance right is essential. We strongly believe that part of the answer to the issues raised by the noble Baroness lies also in improving practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

Could the Minister give us an estimate, or guesstimate, of when she thinks the review will be completed?

[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.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, I welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled to Clause 8. I think they will meet the aims of our Amendment 35, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the additional support that the Government will offer to care leavers.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and Baronesses for their positive comments today; they are a measure of the fact that all of us in this Chamber want to put the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society at the centre of the Bill. I think the Government have clearly put across that we are strongly committed to improving support for care leavers, both through the measures in the Bill on Staying Close, local offer and corporate parenting and through our other programmes of work, such as the care leaver covenant and the care leavers interministerial board, all of which seek to ensure that young people leaving care have stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong loving relationships and are engaged in education, employment and training.

We want to support those in care and preparing to leave care before they reach adulthood, and to ensure that they have the same support as all young people. They will of course benefit from the wider changes that we are making for all young people in this space; we have had some fantastic discussions about the need for financial literacy for all young people in different places over the last few months.

I emphasise that in November the independent curriculum assessment review published its report, along with the Government’s response. As part of the review, we are taking forward recommendations that will help to deliver a high-quality curriculum for every young person. One key recommendation is to embed applied knowledge throughout the curriculum, including financial literacy. We have given a clear commitment in our response to the review to strengthen financial education through both the maths and the citizenship curriculum so that all young people and children have the skills they will need in adulthood. These commitments will benefit those children in care and preparing leave care.

Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, seeks to ensure that Staying Close support includes support to access services relating to financial support and literacy. Having said what I did about the review in general, I acknowledge that care leavers have particular and additional needs in this area. I fully endorse the noble Baroness’s intent with this amendment, recognising the importance of care leavers being properly informed of the financial support available to them as they transition to independence.

We have listened to concerns from both Houses about ensuring that care leavers receive the support they need from local authorities, particularly with financial management, and helping care leavers to develop the skills and knowledge that they require in this area. That is why we have tabled two government amendments to Clause 8. Amendment 39, in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, adds services relating to financial literacy to the list of services in Section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, meaning that local authorities will have to publish information about those services as part of their local offer for care leavers. Amendment 40, also in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, amends Clause 8 to require each local authority to include information about the arrangements that it has in place for providing financial support to care leavers in its local offer. In bringing forward these amendments, I acknowledge the continued advocacy for care leavers to receive assistance with financial literacy and financial support that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, has provided in this area, and I thank her for that.

Most care leavers already receive a pathway plan before leaving care that should cover their financial capability, money management skills and strategies to develop these abilities. Adding these government amendments will ensure that care leavers are better aware of the services available to them, and it will increase local authorities’ accountability in supporting care leavers to receive the support they need. That further underscores how the Government have listened to the voices of children and young people because, as we have heard and as everyone engaged in this area acknowledges, when we listen to care leavers’ requests for support, the message that comes across loud and clear is that they want more support in understanding their finances. For that reason, we consider Clause 8 the most effective place for the amendment, ensuring a robust and consistent level of support for every care leaver, not only those accessing Staying Close.

Importantly, including the amendments in Clause 8 does not remove or dilute the support for care leavers receiving Staying Close. Financial literacy remains a key factor in helping young people to find and, importantly, keep accommodation and will continue to be considered as part of the overall assessment of their ability to maintain a tenancy. This will be reflected in the initial programme guidance we will be sharing with local authorities before April this year as the national rollout of the programme begins. This has been developed in collaboration with local authorities, stakeholders and people with care experience and will be updated after evaluation of local authority practice and ahead of the publication of final statutory guidance. I hope that this answers the questions that the noble Baroness asked in moving her amendment, that noble Lords are reassured, and that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and comprehensive response. The fact that the government amendments will go into Clause 8 and my amendment was to Clause 7 does not matter to me. What matters is that those government amendments will be there and that the care-experienced young people will now have access to the financial support and financial literacy that they need. I thank the Government again for their extremely constructive and helpful response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interest in this area. As he opened the group, I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Watson for his sincere interest, as we heard in Committee, when we had a good exploration of the issues.

I will first discuss three amendments together: Amendments 37, 38 and 59. Amendments 37 and 38, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, seek a review of current Staying Put funding and the introduction of a national minimal allowance for Staying Put arrangements. Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, proposes extending current Staying Put duties to the age of 25. We know that the existing Staying Put duties, which continue until a young person reaches 21, enable local authorities to support young people to remain longer in the stable and secure foster homes they know. This continuity helps them to step into adulthood with the same opportunities and life chances as their peers. We recognise that additional stability at a crucial age.

We remain firmly committed to supporting young people in Staying Put arrangements. The provisional local government finance settlement includes continued funding of £100 million through the first multiyear settlement in a decade for local authorities supporting these arrangements. I am sure that all Members who have had local authority experience will recognise that multiyear settlement as crucial in bringing stability back into local government finance. As I said, this will provide greater certainty and enable effective sufficiency planning for Staying Put arrangements.

However—and I emphasise this again—we must also ensure that we prioritise addressing the gaps in current provision with the available resources that we have. That is particularly the case for those moving into independent living at 18 who have not been able to remain with their former foster carers and for those with the most complex needs. This is precisely why we are introducing statutory Staying Close duties. Under these duties, all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those who have a Staying Put arrangement, will receive Staying Close support where their welfare requires it. This will help them find and keep suitable accommodation, and access the wraparound services they need to thrive.

As we introduce a number of new duties for care leavers through the Bill, it is essential that we allow these changes to embed and begin to deliver the outcomes we expect before we review Staying Put and look to amend or include further requirements within the duty. I hope that this gives some comfort to my noble friend Lord Watson. We are not seeking to ignore his comments; we are looking at this in a pragmatic way that will bring things forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked about the initial cost estimates, which amount to several hundred million pounds. Further proper assessment is therefore needed, and we will not shy away from that. Further assessment of the impact of local authority funding will be needed, in this changing picture, for both residential and foster care. As has been set out, we must prioritise those gaps. I know that this is a difficult message to get across, but we need to make sure that, through Staying Close, we reach as many young people as possible.

Amendments 41 and 42 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendment 41 seeks to require local authorities to publish information in their local offer about transition arrangements for care leavers in relation to health and primary care. While fully supporting the aim of the amendment, we believe that it is not required, as there is already an expectation that local authorities will include details of services that may assist care leavers in relation to health and well-being in their local offer.

Similarly, the Government support the intention behind Amendment 42, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which would require that general practice contracts have due regard to the additional health needs of care leavers under the age of 25 when negotiating general practice contracts in the future. However, again, it is not required, as there are already clear expectations in statutory guidance for local authorities, integrated care boards and NHS England to have effective plans in place for looked-after children to make a smooth transition to adulthood, including continuation of access to the health advice and services they need. Additionally, the corporate parenting responsibilities that will be introduced through the Bill, which we will go on to discuss, will require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and NHS England, as relevant authorities, to be alert to matters that might adversely affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers in the exercise of their functions, including negotiating GP services.

Amendment 95, tabled by right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to consult on and publish a national offer for care leavers. Throughout the Bill, the Government are taking significant steps to ensure that young people leaving care are not left to navigate adulthood alone. Our aim is clear: to ensure that every care leaver has a stable home, access to necessary health services, support to build lasting relationships, and the opportunity to thrive in education, employment and training. These are the foundations that every young person deserves, and care leavers should be no exception.

Care leavers’ legal entitlements are already set out in the Children Act 1989, supported by regulations and statutory guidance. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 strengthened this by requiring local authorities to consult on and publish a local offer for care leavers. Statutory guidance makes it clear that this local offer must include information on both the support that care leavers are legally entitled to and any additional help a local authority chooses to provide. Clause 8 of the Bill further strengthens those expectations. Here I am addressing in particular the argument on local as against national that the right reverend Prelate made.

Most importantly, it is local authorities that are best placed to understand the needs of their young people. Crucially, this support should be shaped in consultation and by understanding the needs of care leavers themselves. Therefore, the amendment risks unintentionally creating a one-size-fits-all approach that leaves care leavers in different areas and with different requirements not getting the support that best meets their needs.

With regard to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I suggest that her comments about the cost of foster caring are possibly more relevant to the next group, under Amendment 110C.

I recognise that we are putting in place measures that will take some time to embed and move forward, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that we are absolutely committed to improving the life chances of all young people and, in this case, particularly of young people in care. With those comments, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for those remarks. I will just start on the point that she finished on: that the Government are totally committed to ensuring that all young people have the support that they need. I do not question that. It is unfortunate that there seems to be a cohort of young people who are in foster care, and when they reach the age of 17, they may be able to continue with their foster parents, if they want to and the foster parents are happy to keep them, but there will not be the national minimum allowance, which applies to 16 and 17 year-olds. So, it is incumbent on the foster carers themselves to make up that shortfall. In many cases, with the best will in the world, that simply is not financially possible.

It then opens up the situation where some young people, having just turned 18, have to find alternative arrangements. I take the point that my noble friend the Minister made about wraparound care, the local authority’s offer and the Staying Close arrangements. All those are valuable, and most young people in that situation will make use of them and take advantage of them. But there are some who will not be able to do so. I stress the fact that, in seeking for the national minimum allowance to be extended beyond 17, it would apply only to those situations where the foster family felt able to keep the child and the child wanted to keep the family, as it were. It would not apply to every child of that age.

I am not quite sure about the answer my noble friend gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on her question about cost. In my Amendment 37 on a review, there is no cost implicit. My noble friend the Minister gave a ballpark figure of several hundred million. I do not know whether that would be the case or not: it would depend on the outcome of the review. I had hoped that she might say—although obviously it was never my intention that this should go in the Bill—that the Government would undertake that review. I cannot see any harm in undertaking a review of the Staying Put arrangements that have been in place now for 12 years, since 2014.

I cannot avoid saying that I am disappointed in the response. There are many options for young people. The place I am coming from is: how would any noble Lord who had a child who turned 18 feel if they were obliged to leave home—I am not talking about going to university or college—and find other arrangements at that important and psychologically difficult time in their life? It is no accident that children in care are far less likely to go to university than their peers who live with their birth parents and are far less likely to take up training and apprenticeships. I just make that point to my noble friend. I am not saying that she is being unsympathetic, but I hoped we could at least have a review, which might have pointed the way forward to advancing the number of young people who turn 18 and are able to stay with their foster parents. Foster parents do such a fantastic job. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords will remember from our debate in Committee that on this side of the House we had considerable practical reservations about the Government’s approach to regulating groups of children’s homes and foster care providers. These two amendments aim to improve the process that the Government plan to embark on.

Amendment 63 would simply require an agency or an establishment to provide information about its parent undertaking when it registered with Ofsted and to keep that information regularly updated. I assume that it would make it simpler for future regulation and enforcement if the identity of the parent undertaking was clear from the outset, given the complexity of the ownership structures of some of these groups.

My Amendment 64 aims to strengthen the effectiveness of the enforcement regime by giving it commercial teeth that would impact on these businesses. One would hope that preventing them expanding and restructuring financially or organisationally when they were subject to an improvement plan would lead to speedier compliance with the regulatory framework, as well as preventing a suboptimal group from expanding. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

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

My Lords, in the absence of other comments I will turn to Amendments 63 and 64, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in relation to the provider oversight scheme. The scheme will enable Ofsted to require provider groups to implement an improvement plan across multiple settings where Ofsted reasonably suspects standards are not being met. If the provider group does not adequately implement improvements, Ofsted will be able to issue it with a fine.

Amendment 63 seeks to ensure that, where an applicant for registration with Ofsted is a subsidiary undertaking, the applicant must provide information about its provider group. This information must then be kept updated and new powers would provide for enforcement of these requirements in regulations. I do not believe this amendment is necessary. There are existing powers in Sections 12 and 22 of the Care Standards Act 2000 which we intend to use to impose requirements on an applicant for registration, or a person already registered to carry on an establishment or agency, to provide information in relation to its parent undertaking—for example, contact details for service of relevant notices by email, and information about other subsidiaries under the same parent undertaking.

Amendment 64 seeks to ensure that, when a parent undertaking is required to implement an improvement plan, it is subject to financial and commercial restrictions, including the limitation on the acquisition of further subsidiaries, the opening of new establishments or agencies, and the organisational or financial restructuring of the parent undertaking while the improvement plan is being implemented. The measure as drafted allows for regulations to set out that a person is not a fit and proper person to carry on an establishment or agency where their parent undertaking—the provider group—has failed or is failing to comply with an improvement notice. This will allow Ofsted to refuse registration applications in respect of new settings that are under the ownership or control of the parent undertaking that has failed to comply with provider oversight requirements. The significant restrictions created by this amendment on parent undertakings which are implementing an improvement plan would not be proportionate, given that the purpose of this measure is to require the provider group to implement change quickly across all settings where concerns have been identified.

I turn to government Amendment 65. It is vital to the safeguarding of children that relevant authorities can quickly and efficiently issue notifications and documents where needed to persons carrying on or managing establishments and agencies and parent undertakings. This measure will amend Section 37 of the Care Standards Act 2000 so that Ofsted notices and documents under Part II of the Act can be served by email, giving the option to choose between delivering notifications by post, by hand or by email. This amendment aligns with our wider aims to deliver efficient technological services. It will bring coherence to communications across reforms and eliminate outdated, costly and time-consuming requirements of delivery only by hand or by post. This will reduce the risk of sensitive financial information being lost, and reduce delays to decisions that could impact the delivery of children’s social care services and to resolving concerns about the care that children receive. I hope I have addressed the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and that she will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her remarks. I perhaps accept them more in relation to my Amendment 63 than my Amendment 64, but time will tell how the Government’s plans work out. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, seeks to remove Clause 22(1) and (2), extending the local authority’s duty of care to looked-after children to the Secretary of State where Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 overlaps Clause 21. From memory, the Minister gave an extensive reply in Committee on this topic, so while we understand the importance of the amendment, we will listen with interest to the Minister, who will share her extensive thoughts on the subject.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, through the Bill, for the first time, key public bodies, from Secretaries of State to schools, NHS organisations and regulators, will be required to be alert to matters that affect looked-after children and care leavers when shaping policy and services. These new corporate parenting duties aim to drive a culture change, tackle stigma and improve outcomes for some of the most vulnerable in our society.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, that the voice of care-experienced young people is crucial in this. The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and I are two people in this Chamber who have experience of being corporate parents—I do not know how many others there are. We know just how serious that is. I understand the reference to language, but the responsibilities that come with this are real and important and need to be taken very seriously indeed.

Amendments 75 and 76 in this group were tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Again, I completely understand where he is coming from, and we have debated this in this Chamber under other debates. These amendments quite rightly seek to strengthen the corporate parent duty by requiring relevant authorities to have due regard to removing or minimising disadvantages faced by looked-after children and care leavers and to take steps to avoid or mitigate any adverse impact of their policies and practices.

We fully share the intent behind these proposals oftackling disadvantage and ensuring that care-experienced young people are not adversely affected by public policy. This is central to our vision for corporate parenting. However, as discussed in Committee, the new corporate parenting responsibilities are broad duties that apply in relation to a corporate parent’s existing functions and can be implemented in a way to fit the unique circumstances of each corporate parent. We believe that our existing measures achieve the aim of tackling disadvantages experienced by looked-after children and care leavers.

Just for a bit of clarity, the current responsibilities require corporate parents to be alert to matters which adversely affect the well-being of the cohort. This will require them to take action as appropriate. I just give the reassurance that this is not just a means of being aware; it comes with responsibilities. Therefore, we anticipate that corporate parents would already consider disadvantages experienced by these young people and how they may be addressed.

We will support implementation through statutory guidance, which will set out the responsibilities and include best practice examples for tackling disadvantage among care-experienced young people. Best practice will draw on not only relevant authorities but wider organisations, including local authorities that have taken action such as representation on governance boards, financial support and discounts, and treating care experience as a protected characteristic. This is the best way to deliver impactful change, not through this amendment, which, as I have outlined, is already sufficiently covered by the clause as drafted. I am delighted to say that we are in contact with Terry Galloway, who is very supportive of the direction we are going in. With his vast experience he will be an invaluable resource, ensuring that we keep moving in the right way.

Amendment 96, also tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to place a duty on public authorities to include in equality impact assessments an assessment of the impact on persons who are being or have been looked after by a local authority. We are determined to tackle the stigma and discrimination faced by care-experienced young people. This is why the Bill introduces corporate parenting duties for Secretaries of State and public bodies, already requiring them to consider the needs of care-experienced young people with the aim of improving outcomes. Clauses 21 to 25 aim to embed this cohort’s challenges into policy and service design. We will commission an implementation partner to support implementation through provision of training and circulation of best practice, including training on how to effectively assess the impact of policies and practices on looked-after children and care leavers. For this reason, the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 77 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Moraes, who I am very pleased to see back in his rightful place in the Chamber. It seeks to amend the exemption on immigration, asylum, nationality and customs functions in respect of looked-after children so that action that would be taken in adherence with the corporate parenting responsibilities in the exercise of these functions would still be taken where it is not already required by Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. It also seeks to distinguish functions in relation to the acquisition of British citizenship by statutory right from other nationality functions when exercising duties under Section 55 and Clause 21.

While I understand my noble friend’s intent with this amendment, I emphasise that, as my noble friend the Minister noted in Committee, our measures require that public bodies named in this legislation be alert to matters affecting the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, regardless of immigration status, except when performing asylum, immigration, nationality or customs functions. We fully intend on partnering with the sector and care-experienced young people in the immigration system to make sure that our statutory guidance covers their specific needs and vulnerabilities. We will also ensure that our implementation partner develops and delivers training on this cohort to all new corporate parents. As we have heard, my noble friend the Minister recently met with my noble friend Lady Lister and partner organisations, who were greatly reassured by our proposed actions in this area. I hope that this is sufficient reassurance for my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Additionally, Department for Education officials will work closely with the Home Office as it develops its proposals in the immigration White Paper to reduce the financial barriers to young adults who have lived here throughout their childhood accessing British nationality.

Local authorities already follow a separate set of corporate parenting principles and are best placed to take steps to consider whether a young person in their care needs support to seek British citizenship. The Home Office has taken significant steps in recent years to support local authorities in ensuring that children in their care are able to access British citizenship, including by introducing an exception in June 2022 that removed the requirement to pay a fee for an application for citizenship registration by children who are looked after by a local authority.

I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that we will continue to work with the Home Office on how we can improve the experience of looked-after children and care leavers in the immigration, asylum and nationality system, building on existing measures that the Home Office has taken in this space. The further efforts will include working on proposals set out in the White Paper published on 12 May, Restoring Control Over the Immigration System, to ensure that children who have been in the UK for some time then turn 18 and discover they do not have status are fully supported and are able to regularise their status and settle. This will include a clear pathway for those children in care and care leavers.

The White Paper also sets out that the Home Office will consider measures to reduce the financial barriers to young adults who have lived here through their childhood accessing British nationality. Applying the duty to the asylum system would not require the Home Office to decide asylum claims for young people as soon as possible. Given the steps we are taking in this area to ensure that looked-after children in the immigration system benefit from the corporate parenting measures, we do not see the amendment as necessary.

Amendment 79A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to ensure that the corporate parenting guidance issued under Clause 24 is laid in draft before Parliament. This amendment has of course been helpfully raised in reference to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report. Our response to the recommendation explained that guidance issued under Clause 24 will not introduce requirements on corporate parents beyond those enabled by this legislation.

The guidance will help corporate parents understand how the duties could be implemented, using examples of best practice. We will develop statutory guidance in partnership with corporate parents and this will then be subject to consultation. This gives all those affected by the changes, including corporate parents, local authorities, looked-after children, care leavers and all of the above an opportunity to have their say. We will also draw on the expertise of the care-experienced community and representative bodies from within the sector, including those who have campaigned for these amendments, to support guidance drafting.

I can assure the noble Lords that their input will form the backbone of guidance. I hope that with those comments I have addressed the right reverend Prelate’s concern and that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the short debate that we have had this evening. It is clear that we are all passionate about the same thing—we would not be here at this time on a Monday night if we were not. We are passionate about getting the best deal we can for care leavers and young people in care, and I am very grateful to hear that. The fact that we are hearing that from all the Front Benches gives me some assurance that this is not something that would float away were there to be a change of Government—at least not one to any of the parties in this Chamber tonight.

Moving on quickly, I really appreciate the guidance that has been spoken of, and I accept the assurances of the Minister that there are many matters that we sought to put in the Bill, as is proper on Report, but which can be dealt with in that way before the Act is implemented in due course.

Were I merely alert to the fact that it is late at night and I do not have the support of the Front Benches, I might still waste your Lordships’ next 15 minutes by pushing this to a Division, but I am not only “alert to”, I am “having due regard to” those factors. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 75 and will not press Amendment 76 either.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

82: Clause 26, page 45, line 6, after “section 18” insert “made by the Secretary of State”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendment to Clause 26 at page 45, line 6, would amend Clause 26 to change references to a “statutory instrument” containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers to a “Welsh statutory instrument” to reflect the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, this group consists of government amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith. They are Amendments 82 to 85, 244, 245, 249 and 253 in relation to consequential provision for Welsh and Scottish Ministers, and minor and technical changes relating to the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025.

Amendments 82 to 85 relate to Clause 26 on the employment of children in England and Wales, and simply update references to the Welsh statutory instruments and the procedure to be followed in the Senedd in consequence of changes made by the 2025 Act, which came into force on 1 January 2026.

Amendments 249 and 253 do the same for Clause 67. This is a change that we are making to refine the drafting in the Bill and ensure that the terms used align with the latest legislative developments.

Amendment 244 will confer power on Welsh Ministers to enable them to make provision consequential to Clauses 11, 12(5), 20 and 31 to 36 in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Welsh Parliament. Amendment 245 will confer power on Scottish Ministers to enable them to make provision consequential to Clause 11 in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. This would ensure that if any such consequential amendments are identified, Scottish and Welsh Ministers could make those changes to the legislation.

I am grateful for the continued engagement of our Welsh and Scottish counterparts on the passage of this landmark legislation. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, we thank the Minister for her clarification of the reasons behind these consequential amendments. They seem entirely reasonable, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comments and emphasise again how grateful we are to the devolved Governments for their engagement with the Government on this Bill. We will continue to work closely with them as the Bill progresses through Parliament.

Amendment 82 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

83: Clause 26, page 45, line 6, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under section 18 made by the Welsh Ministers are to be made by Welsh statutory instrument.””Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my other amendment to clause 26 at page 45 line 6.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

87: Clause 27, page 48, line 7, leave out “Except as provided by subsection (3),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 27, page 48, lines 14 to 18.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, I have had so many parents stop me to say that we need to get this through. One young person approached me on my computer the other day to say, “Please keep going—we need this change”. A mum from Manchester said, “As parents we are desperate, please do whatever you can to protect our youth who are drowning in mental health crises due to the impact of social media”. Another mum implored, “It is too late for my kids, but we need a ban for the younger ones. We have to do something to ensure that no other child goes through what mine has”. Sometimes, we have to say enough is enough and that we cannot wait any longer. The alternative is that in the quest for perfection we lose the good, and in doing so we condemn thousands more children to harms, ignoring the change we desperately need to see.

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

My Lords, I have absolutely no desire to stifle debate, but I ask anyone who wishes still to speak to be very mindful of the number of votes we are expecting at the end of this group. We also have very important dinner break business scheduled for tonight. Please be brief and to the point so we can move on with this important debate.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have two original points to make that have not been covered at all. We should bring ourselves back to the fact that there is an enormous amount of agreement around this Chamber. I think everyone will say we feel enormous sympathy for the families, some of whom are here today, who have lost family as a result of contact with social media. We all accept that we want 16 year-olds on the day of their birthday to be able to stride out into the world confident, capable, ready to step into adulthood. Most of us want to rein in the overwhelmingly powerful digital companies which have been allowed to run wild across the world by political decisions made by adults. I particularly commend the right reverend Prelate for naming the spectre in the room—Donald Trump and his tech bro friends. He is a spectre here and is now recorded in Hansard.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that we have very broad agreement that the Online Safety Act has been a total failure and Ofcom is not delivering what it should be doing. Those are the points of agreement. Where my conclusions drive me is that I would back Amendment 91 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, with some caveats, which I will get back to, but it is not my intention to vote for any of the ban amendments before us today. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Lib Dems’ brave effort to find a way through a middle road and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, almost swayed me that we should make a gesture. The case I put, argument one, is that your Lordships’ House is not the right place: we are not the right people to be making this decision. Many of us have joined since the depths of Covid, but those who were here then will remember when the House went largely remote and lots of people who had never used a computer before were suddenly on Zoom. We met their grandkids: “There you are, Granny. You are off mute now”.

I invite your Lordships to look at the people around you. We are extraordinarily unrepresentative of the country in many ways, but particularly in terms of age. This is where I draw on the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, but come to a different conclusion. I was also in the learning centre and spoke to some of the same pupils. They overwhelmingly said, “We do not want a ban”. My argument is that we must stop doing politics to young people. We must give young people agency and a sense of control. We have bequeathed to them a disastrous, damaging world; failing to give them a say in this is absolutely the wrong way forward.

On that point, I have a serious proposal for the Minister. In the consultation, are the Government prepared to include a people’s assembly that represents young people from around the country? Rather than just asking young people to tick a box in a survey—we all know what happens with “yes” or “no” votes—this would give them the chance to deliberate on how they think we can control the future and improve their situation.

My second point is important and has not been said before. In this debate we have heard a huge amount of scapegoating of social media. Social media is a mirror: it reflects the misogyny, violence, racism and fake news that runs across and through our society, it does not create it. If we could wave a magic wand and get young people off social media, they would still be affected by the dreadful levels of poverty and the schools that operate as exam factories, putting them under tremendous pressure and subjecting them to unbearable discipline. They would still have parents who are struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. They would still encounter all the misogyny and racism in our society. When we are debating and voting on this, we must understand that social media is a mirror; it is not creating where we are now.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 95 to 97 not moved.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a convenient time to break for dinner break business. We will return to the Bill not before 8.36 pm—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I meant 9.36 pm —wishful thinking; I was just checking that your Lordships are all with me—to allow time for ping-pong on the Holocaust Memorial Bill.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 9.36 pm.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I too will be brief. I was slightly surprised at the need for Amendment 102. If I have understood correctly, the Government have committed to establishing a child protection agency and are currently consulting on it. I absolutely understand that the noble Lord wants to raise this because, clearly, implementation will be crucial if we are to avoid blurring lines of accountability and creating a bureaucracy. But it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say on that.

We covered standards for children in need thresholds in Committee. On these Benches, we retain the view that we need flexibility in the system so that practitioners can use their professional judgment to look at the overall situation of a child and keep it under review. But I absolutely accept that there are real problems at what one might call the top end of Section 17, with an extraordinary number of children who are suffering child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation still being classified as “children in need” rather than “child protection”.

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

My Lords, each of these amendments would introduce a new clause, referring to the establishment of the child protection authority and consistent support for children in need, as we have heard. This group raises important issues about child safety, well-being and support. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are, as he outlined, completely committed to working in this area.

Amendment 102, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to impose a binding timetable for the establishment of the child protection agency. Just by way of background, establishing a child protection authority was one of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. In a Statement to the House of Commons on 8 April 2025, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls announced that the Government will establish a child protection authority in England, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, alluded to.

On 11 December 2025, we published a consultation on the child protection authority, which sets out its proposed roles, responsibilities and powers. This will help to make the child protection system clearer and more unified and ensure that there is ongoing improvement through effective support for practitioners. The design and delivery of this authority require consultation, including with child protection experts and Victim Support, to ensure that it has the right constitution and powers. Given this, we do not think it is prudent to agree an arbitrary timeline, but we will work to publish the government response this summer, following which we will move to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Oh, well, all the time, then.

I will keep my remarks very brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lord Parkinson made a convincing case that children involved in performances should get special consideration in this area. I am not sure whether this is something I have to declare on the register, but my husband appeared in a drinking chocolate advert. I am ashamed to say that I just messaged him and, rather like my noble friend Lord Parkinson, he remembers exactly how much he was paid: £17 a day for two days and £200 for repeat broadcasts. My noble friend made the point very vividly: this means a huge amount to the children involved.

On the amendments tabled my noble friend Lord Wei, he will not be surprised to hear me say that the principles underpinning a register were in the previous Government’s Schools Bill and in the current Government’s manifesto, and we should respect that. Having said that, his Amendment 157A, even if it does not need formally to be in legislation, would be a very constructive way forward. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

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

I feel that this group is becoming something of a confessional. It is very interesting to hear noble Lords’ backgrounds. The thing I love about this House is that noble Lords can bring their personal experiences, which makes the debate so rich. I expected it from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, but it is very interesting to have other experiences coming into the Chamber.

This is a very important group of amendments about making sure that the registration system works, that it captures the appropriate children and that it does not in any way undermine young people’s ambitions. That is a very good point.

Amendments 127 and 129, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, would exclude all child performers from inclusion in the children not in school registers. I thank the noble Baroness for her productive engagement with the department and my noble friend the Minister on these issues that she obviously cares very passionately about. I think that she agrees that home-educated child performers should remain in scope of the registers. For that reason, we cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendment, which would exclude all child performers from the registers. However, I am pleased to confirm that the Government intend to exclude school-registered child performers from the scope of the registers and will consult on this position as part of our wider consultation on the content of the regulations. I hope that that gives her the reassurance that she has been seeking in her conversations with us.

Amendment 130, also tabled by the noble Baroness, seeks to place a duty on local authorities to ensure that any children taking part in a performance, and who are not captured on the children not in school register, are registered under the existing child performance regulations. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that children can take part in performance opportunities while also ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, made a very good point about making sure that all children can take up these incredible offers when they come along.

I reassure the noble Baroness that existing legislation already requires children undertaking certain performances and related activities to be licensed with the relevant local authority. That would remain the case regardless of whether a child was also registered on a children not in school register and, as such, this amendment is not required. We recognise the need to review child performance regulations, and the Government are committed to doing so, as was agreed when the noble Baroness met my noble friend the Minister and officials last September. This review will take account of her concerns, and I am sure that she will look forward to further evidence of that work coming forward. Putting children at the heart of everything we do throughout this legislation is central to our ambition to support young people in this country.

Government Amendment 128 seeks to clarify that children who attend school on agreed part-time arrangements can be included in the children not in school registers where they are also receiving education outside of a school setting. This amendment is necessary to ensure local authorities have oversight of those children and can be confident that their overall education is suitable.

Government Amendment 156 clarifies that a local authority may ask an out-of-school education provider to confirm whether they are providing education to children, whether or not those children live in the authority’s area. That will help local authorities identify children who are not recorded on registers but who should be. Not having this clarification risks a loophole where registration is avoided simply by sending children to providers outside their home authority.

Government Amendment 157 also clarifies how the provider duty will work in practice. The amendment would clarify that providers subject to the duty need to give information only on children living in England and Wales. We recognise that there are providers that have significant online or international offerings that may be captured by the duty on out-of-school education providers. As the children not in school registers apply only to children in England and Wales, it would be inappropriate for local authorities to receive details of children outside of these countries.

Amendment 157A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish annual anonymised statistics on the operation of the registers and school attendance orders. We already publish annual anonymised statistics on home-educated children and school attendance orders drawn from local authorities’ voluntary registers. I emphasise that, once the children not in school registers are implemented, the department intends to continue doing so; where this would not identify individuals, it will also publish the number of complaints and appeals, along with their outcomes.

Amendments 148C and 161B were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, added her name to the former; I do not want to leave her experience out of this. They would require the registers to be reviewed, their findings published, and for the registers to be re-approved by Parliament within a set timeframe. We will evaluate the impact of the registers following implementation and will communicate it to the House. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to create uncertainty for families and local authorities by placing sunset clauses in this legislation.

Amendment 161C, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to give parents an independent route of appeal to decisions made by a local authority under Sections 436B to 436G and to prevent local authority enforcement action where a parent has lodged an appeal, ombudsman complaint or judicial review, unless there is suspicion of harm to the child.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

144: Clause 32, page 59, line 41, leave out “within the further education sector”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the register of children not in school would be required to contain information about all schools or institutions that a child attends or has attended in the past, including those which are institutions not in the further education sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The government amendments in this group seek to strengthen the support and engagement local authorities offer to families who wish to home educate. As my noble friend the Minister said during Committee, it is vital that local authorities build constructive relationships with parents. Such relationships are the most effective way for local authorities to understand a child’s education and circumstances and to identify any support families may want or require. The Department for Education is committed to fostering these partnerships wherever possible.

Government Amendment 144 would amend Section 436C(2)(j) to remove the specific reference to institutions in the further education sector. This would ensure that the department can require local authorities, via regulations, to record information about any education institution a registered child is attending or has attended in the past where the local authority has the information or can reasonably obtain it. Such information could be beneficial to include on registers because a history of establishments attended will give local authorities a clearer idea of the child’s circumstances and educational history. This understanding will enable the local authority to offer and provide more bespoke support to the child. For those parents who feel forced into home education, a record of previous schools attended would also give the local authority insight into which settings parents were dissatisfied with. Further analysis of this information could reveal where there may be gaps in support for parents within the school system, enabling the local authority or central government to take action.

Government Amendment 146 would make it clear that information on young carers may be prescribed for inclusion in children not in school registers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for raising this important matter in Committee, and the Carers Trust for its tireless work on ensuring that young carers are identified and supported. As my noble friend the Minister said in Committee, knowing whether a child is a young carer provides important context for an elective home education officer, both in assessing whether the child is receiving a full-time suitable education, and in ensuring that the family is signposted to any relevant support to which they are entitled. Prescribing this information for inclusion on the children not on school register would ensure that local authorities must record it if they can reasonably obtain it.

Turning to government Amendment 158, the department’s guidance is clear that when a parent elects to home-educate, they must be prepared to take full responsibility for their child’s education. This includes making arrangements for access to exams the child may wish to take. Local authorities should, however, be sources of advice for home-educating families. That is why we have tabled Amendment 158, would make it clear that local authorities must give advice and information about access to GCSE exams if requested by the parent of a home-educated child registered on their children not on school register. This advice could include signposting to local centres that may be open to taking private candidates; providing information on how to enter GCSEs as a private candidate; and signposting the Joint Council for Qualifications’ list of exam centres that accept private candidates, and organisations that provide guidance on exams or careers, such as Ofqual and the National Careers Service.

At a national level, the Department for Education will send communications to schools encouraging them to take private candidates and to join the list of centres held by the JCQ. We will engage with the JCQ to explore options for updating this list earlier in the year, ensuring that families have timely access to accurate information to support their planning.

Government Amendment 159 would require local authorities to hold forums with home-educating parents twice a year as part of their support duty, if there is an appetite on the part of parents for them to do so. These forums would be an opportunity for the community to provide feedback and to ask the local authority how the registered support duty and school attendance order process is operating. In turn, the forums would provide local authorities with a better understanding of the needs and views of home-educating families in their areas, laying the foundation for more constructive relationships.

Government Amendment 161 would ensure that the duty on local authorities to offer a biannual engagement forum is targeted specifically at home-educated parents. This would ensure that the forums remain focused on their core purpose. We know that some parents whose children are on a school roll or whose education is arranged by the local authority may also want the opportunity to speak directly to a representative from the local authority. However, where the issues relate to other duties, such as those under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, those discussions are often highly technical or specific to an individual case. Such matters would not be well suited to an open forum of this kind, so those parents would be better supported through the existing routes of communication available to them. I beg to move.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 160. As I did in the last group, I start by saying that I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for having moved in some way on the information provided about exams, and for setting up a forum; it will be interesting to see how that operates. I am also very sympathetic to Amendment 161A from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, in which he proposes setting up a proper forum where parents are asked to take some responsibility for the relationship. That seems quite a positive, and maybe a longer-term, way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are of the view that the government amendments seem entirely reasonable, and we therefore support them. While we understand the intentions behind the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, we cannot support them. These issues were addressed in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I will not repeat those arguments on Report.

Similarly with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, we believe that local authorities simply do not have the capacity right now to be committing new funding, however small. So, while we understand the noble Lord’s intentions, we cannot support his amendment, but we welcome the opportunity to hear the response from the Government on the critical issues highlighted by all noble Lords thus far.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their very considered comments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for bringing his experience into the Chamber. I thank him for the considerate way that he has approached this. I hope we will continue to have a constructive dialogue as we move forward on these important issues.

Amendment 160, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and Amendments 161A and 175ZC tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to require local authorities to act supportively towards, and establish advisory boards of, home-educating families, and ensure that home-educated children can access examinations. As I said at the beginning of this group, local authorities should be sources of support for home-educating families. Noble Lords’ engagement has been constructive and I reassure them that this will be further strengthened by the support duty in the Bill, which is the first ever duty on local authorities to provide support specifically for home-educating families, as well as the government amendments in this group, which clarify that information on GCSE exam access should be provided as part of the support duty and require local authorities to arrange biannual engagement forums, as we have discussed.

We also recognise the importance of ensuring that parents are responsible for bearing the costs of any exams they may enter their child for before they make the decision to withdraw them from school. This is something already made clear in the department’s Elective Home-education guidance and which we would expect to be discussed as part of the mandatory meetings pilots that my noble friend described earlier. To expand on this, while some of these things seem straightforward, they are more involved than perhaps has been suggested. The question is: why can we not require local authorities to find exam centres for all home-educated students? This would involve a local authority forcing a state school or college to accommodate a home-educated pupil. We do not think this is right or appropriate. Exam centres, schools, colleges and private institutions rightly take their own decisions on whether they can accept private candidates based on their individual circumstances, such as financial and administrative capacity and logistical considerations. Schools and colleges have finite resources and exams must be delivered in line with strict regulatory requirements, including desk spacing, appropriate invigilator-to-candidate ratios and the secure administration of assessments to ensure that they are conducted fairly and safely. When a centre is able to accommodate a private candidate within these requirements, we fully encourage it to do so. However, it would not be appropriate to require a centre to breach exam regulations or compromise the integrity of the assessment, or to require a school with a full exam hall potentially to exclude one of their own pupils to make space for a private candidate. Instead, we encourage arrangements to be based on an understanding of each exam centre’s local circumstances and relationships.

However, the department will contact both state-funded and independent schools and colleges to encourage them to accept private candidates and to be included on the list of centres published by the JCQ, as appropriate. To pick up on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, we will also work with the JCQ to explore whether this list can be made available earlier in the year so that families have timely and accurate information to support their planning.

In addition, we will update our guidance to local authorities, encouraging them to provide clear and accessible information for home-educating families at an early stage about the qualifications and exam centres in their area. This will help families to consider exam arrangements before starting a course of study, make informed choices about assessment options and avoid unnecessary travel, where possible.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I welcome this timely provision of information for families. I speak for myself, but Peers here have also spoken about the need for exam access and would not want to burden state or other schools that have completely full exam halls. I wonder whether, maybe through a letter, we could have a further conversation with the department about this.

As that information is gathered and you discover what access there is in a local authority, if there literally is none for exams, could there not be some dialogue with the local schools? This would not be to force them to do anything they cannot do, or cannot afford to do, but just to ask how many spare desks they have in their exam halls, which they probably will be able to tell you very quickly. Then, that will allow conversations to happen about creating something in the area, which often may be absent, as we found.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. This is exactly what we are proposing: there needs to be that dialogue, to have a better understanding of what is—or is not—available locally. The noble Lord mentioned his own circumstance, having to travel a long distance. Perhaps if he had been able to have a conversation about which exam boards operate in his local area, that might have made a difference.

That situation, of the offer from different exam boards, is unique to England, which obviously means different syllabuses—which has an impact. The earlier conversations we are proposing will hopefully bring that out. It is difficult to be too prescriptive at this point, because of the different circumstances in different localities. It is for those areas to make clear what provision they are able to make.

In relation to Amendment 175ZC, it is also important to highlight that the Equality Act 2010 already places a statutory duty on awarding organisations to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled students in exams and assessments. This applies to all learners, irrespective of whether they attend a school or are home-educated. I hope that answers the point the noble Lord, Lord Wei, raised about equalities.

Amendment 175ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to ensure that home-educated children and families are not unfairly disadvantaged or subjected to additional administrative and evidential requirements. Of course, we agree that home-educating families and children should not be unfairly disadvantaged. However, the reality is that many services are accessible to children through their school. When a family makes the choice to electively home-educate, they are opting out of this system. This is why our guidance is clear that parents should ensure that they are fully informed about home education before they enter into it. There are existing duties under equalities law to ensure that organisations do not discriminate, and our guidance is clear that any request for evidence must be proportionate. Private businesses, such as many education providers and examination centres, must retain autonomy over who their services are available to, as long as they comply with the law.

Amendment 175ZB, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the training of local authority officers on the children not in school measures. I am happy to reassure the noble Lord that we will be developing the training package for local authorities, focused on their new duties. This training will be co-developed with and co-delivered by home education representatives, and we will engage with relevant stakeholders, including our implementation forums, and safeguarding and domestic abuse organisations, on the materials to be included in this package.

With these comments, I therefore hope the changes the Government are proposing have addressed noble Lords’ concerns. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his comments and explanation of the position he is taking.

Amendment 144 agreed.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling the government amendment, which His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support. We also thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his amendment. He has been described in the media as the United Kingdom’s greatest living expert on Parliament and a world authority on constitutional issues. He is entirely correct that post-legislative scrutiny is essential for any public Act, but it is especially important for Bills as substantial as this. By the conclusion of Report, we will have debated over 10 amendments seeking reviews of various aspects of the Bill, which surely highlights how wide ranging its impact is expected to be. An all-encompassing review would combine these amendments and, most importantly, allow the Government to evidence the positive change that they believe this Bill will put into effect. Some form of post-legislative scrutiny is the right vehicle, and the noble Lord’s amendment would serve as the foundation stone of that verification.

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

My Lords, the amendments in group 3 concern a review of the Act on commencement. Amendment 205 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I too recognise his continued dedication to this matter, echoing the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and his undoubted experience and expertise in this area. As my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern set out in Committee, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord again that the department understands the importance of the legislative feedback loop, as he described it clearly then and again this afternoon, and is committed to that. However, we believe this amendment cuts across what is a perfectly clear set of cross-government expectations for post-legislative scrutiny.

The question he poses is: why did we not undertake pre-legislative scrutiny? The Government give consideration to which Bills will be published in draft, taking into account the overall requirements of the legislative programme and how to ensure that time is used as efficiently as possible. The Government did not consider the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill necessary for pre-legislative scrutiny, and therefore did not publish it in draft. We wrote to the Education Select Committee upon introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and provided a briefing opportunity with officials before its Second Reading.

The noble Lord has previously raised issues in this House with the current process for such scrutiny. The process seeks to ensure that the chair of the Commons Select Committee has adequate information to decide whether to instigate a fuller inquiry, and we would expect to undertake that fuller inquiry given the importance of this Bill. However, as he will know, should they decide not to, that inquiry can be taken up by another interested parliamentary committee of either House.

In Committee, the noble Lord noted that the Government included post-legislative scrutiny in the Football Governance Act. I am not sure if others in the Chamber were subjected to the passage of the Football Governance Bill, but it was an interesting process. That was a single-issue Bill, so it was deemed appropriate for that Bill. However, that does not mean it is appropriate for all Bills, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware. This Bill covers a broad range of measures, with different timelines for implementation and different evaluation needs. I think we would all agree, for example, that the rollout of a single unique identifier is quite different from the rollout of breakfast clubs.

None the less, alongside our commitment to post-legislative scrutiny, we have committed to a post-implementation review as part of the Better Regulation Framework. We published our plans in the impact assessment for this Bill, on which the RPC rated us green, for how we will monitor and evaluate the transformative measures that will change the lives of millions of children and young people. I hope that noble Lords are reassured. I repeat that commitment now, for good measure: we will undertake post-legislative scrutiny for this Bill, but it is not needed to be included the Bill when it is already an expectation.

On government amendment 246, Clause 67 currently provides that

“any provision of or amendment made by Part 1 or 2, so far as it confers or relates to a power to make regulations or an order”,

will come into force on the day the Act is passed. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his support for the amendment. It will clarify that, by order, we mean secondary legislation. The only instance of secondary legislation order in the Bill is Schedule 3, which amends the Education Act 2002 to provide that the Secretary of State may by order make provision requiring the remuneration of an academy teacher to be at least equal to the amount specified in or determined in accordance with the order. The amendment would ensure that it is clear what order the Bill is referring to.

I hope I have addressed the noble Lord’s concerns, and that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister’s response is disappointing. I am grateful to the two Front Benches for their very kind opening comments but in terms of the substance of the amendment, I thought the Minister’s comments reinforced the case for post-legislative scrutiny; she spent some time explaining why the Bill has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, which I would have thought adds to the case for subjecting it to post-legislative scrutiny. She referred to the Football Governance Act, which just dealt with one particular issue, whereas this Bill is very wide-ranging. There is therefore scope for a lot of things to go wrong, which I would have thought reinforced the case for checking that the Bill has delivered on all aspects of what the Government seek to achieve with it.

The value of committing to post-legislative scrutiny is the Government demonstrating that they have confidence in the measure. If there is to be a review anyway, why not put that on the face of the Bill? At least critics of it would then know that it will definitely be subject to review—it is in the Bill, and that will happen. That is one of the arguments for post-legislative scrutiny of the Football Governance Act.

As I say, I am disappointed with the response. I shall keep coming back to the case for putting provision for post-legislative scrutiny on the face of Bills that meet the criteria I have outlined, and will press the Government to have the courage of their convictions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friends have made a compelling human, practical and democratic case for the role of Parliament in expressly approving school closures in the event of a future pandemic or public health emergency. In practical terms, as we all know and have heard in this short debate, parents and teachers see every day the impacts on those young people who missed out on significant chunks of their education and their social development when schools were closed. My noble friend Lord Brady rightly pointed out the fundamental value of schools being open as unlocking all the other good things that we expect and trust them to deliver for our children.

I hope that, when the Minister comes to close, if she does not plan to accept these amendments, she gives a clear response as to how the issues that my noble friends have raised will be dealt with in future. As my noble friend Lady Spielman said, children at that point had no balancing voice to the decisions that were made, and that feels like something we do not want to have happen again.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all the contributors to this important debate. Amendment 207, which has been degrouped and stands alone for the reasons the noble Lord has outlined, would require schools to remain open to all pupils during civil emergencies unless Parliament decides otherwise. As the noble Lord stated during Committee, closing schools has significant impacts on children, as has been reinforced by the discussion here this evening. We all agree that continuity of education is vital for their learning and well-being.

We mentioned it in Committee, but I do not think it has been stressed enough in this debate that almost all schools remained open and allowed attendance in some cases to all pupils and in others to vulnerable children and to children of critical workers. I want to put on record here today our enormous thanks to the staff who worked under incredibly difficult circumstances, with changing guidance on this on a day-to-day basis, in putting the needs of those children first. There were very few total closures, and where they happened, they were usually short-term and for operational reasons. I am sure noble Lords will remember the coverage about deep-cleaning and all the other issues that came up on a daily basis.

We know now that children generally were not at risk from Covid-19 in terms of health. That does not mean that the staff were not, but children were not as vulnerable as was first feared. But that might not always be the case in future pandemics or other whole-system emergencies, and we need to keep that at the forefront of our minds as we discuss this important issue.

I reassure the Committee that the department is committed to learning from the Covid-19 pandemic inquiry. We learned from the last pandemic that planning is at its best when it is agile, takes a whole-system approach and is responsive to the situation. The department is continuing to build its capabilities to support education in all circumstances, including strengthening remote education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her serious response. She alluded correctly to the role of many different bodies, were these difficult circumstances to happen again. However, if I am not mistaken, the one body she did not mention in her response was Parliament. Does she not accept, as is fundamental to Amendment 207, that in these circumstances a decision to close schools is so important that it should have explicit parliamentary approval within a reasonable time?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I apologise, but my assumption was that all the departments working together would keep Parliament informed of the decision. However, I do not think we can pre-empt at this time how quickly decisions will need to be made. We just need to make sure that we do not create serious disadvantage by putting in legislation something that might undermine our ability to respond at pace and appropriately in circumstances that we perhaps cannot envisage now. With that, I hope that the noble Lord feels reassured enough to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response, and I thank my noble friends Lord Brady and Lady Spielman for cosponsoring this amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for her excellent contribution.

I will make just one point in response to some of the points raised. It is important to learn one lesson from our response to the pandemic. That lesson is that we are pretty poor at learning lessons from previous pandemics. We had a pandemic preparedness strategy, and we prided ourselves on being better prepared for a pandemic than almost every other country. That pandemic preparedness strategy was based on the findings of public inquiries into previous pandemics and epidemics, and it was junked within two weeks in the febrile, panicky atmosphere and the heat of politics. The compelling desire to be seen to be doing something overrode the lessons we had supposedly learned from previous pandemics and epidemics. Sweden, on the other hand, which broadly speaking followed our pandemic preparedness strategy, did far better.

I am a little reassured by the words of the Minister about responding in a more intelligent, systematic, thoughtful way next time, but once the conclusions of the Covid-19 inquiry have been published, the Government need to give some thought to how those will be conveyed and how they will be meaningfully observed by a future Government, in the absence of legislating and giving Parliament the kind of role it should have before critical decisions affecting the most vulnerable people in our society are made. With that, I will of course withdraw my amendment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, we admire the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her relentless focus on this issue, which is obviously well intended. But as we made clear in Committee, we are not in a position to support this amendment. Our reservations stem from the belief that its remit would extend to every ministerial decision that may have, either directly or indirectly, an impact on the well-being of children. It may add an additional legal layer of bureaucracy to a legislative process that is, unfortunately, already weighed down and could therefore hinder the decision-making process. While it is no doubt intended to improve the well-being of children, it has the potential to be detrimental to swift and decisive action in the best interests of children, and for those reasons we are not able to support it.

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

My Lords, Amendment 221, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister, would place a duty on Ministers and officials to prepare and publish a child rights impact assessment, or CRIA, in relation to all relevant legislation, policy and budget development which will impact on children’s well-being, social care or education prior to the decision being taken.

I restate this Government’s continued commitment to upholding children’s rights and the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We continue to work closely with key stakeholders that advocate for the rights of children. As stated in Committee, members of the department meet quarterly with representatives from children’s rights charities, providing Ministers and officials with opportunities to hear directly from experts in the sector, helping us to put children’s rights at the heart of policy-making.

We agree that impacts on children should be carefully assessed as part of policy-making; however, such an amendment is unnecessary, as upon ratifying the UNCRC in 1991, the UK Government made a commitment to give due regard to the UNCRC when making new policy and legislation. Compliance is demonstrated through the periodic reporting process every five years when the Government report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on progress the UK has made in upholding children’s rights.

To pick up on the points about devolved Governments, powerfully made by different contributors—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, clearly wanted to speak about Wales—as we say, these are devolved matters. Devolved Administrations are free to develop their approach to children’s rights and we are confident that the UK Government’s approach fulfils our duties under the UNCRC. This Government are committed to being child-centred and will continue to put children at the heart of our decision-making. We will continue to assess the impact of the devolved Governments’ changes, including the duty on their Ministers to complete child rights impact assessments for relevant work.

Safeguarding children’s rights is of utmost importance, but assessments should be effective and proportionate. Introducing a statutory requirement for Ministers and officials to prepare and publish CRIAs for all measures that affect children would be a significant undertaking. Government departments will continue to complete CRIAs where necessary, including on this legislation, which has been published and will be updated. The Covid inquiry noted that where mandatory arrangements are in place, for example in Scotland and Wales, CRIAs were not completed.

Furthermore, we have heard the strength of feeling on this matter in this House and in subsequent engagements, including between the Minister for Children and Families and my noble friend Lady Lister. My department will therefore be upskilling officials across government on the importance of children’s rights in policy-making. This includes delivering training to officials across government on the importance of children’s rights and supporting the completion of the CRIAs when developing policies or legislation that may impact on children and young people.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, on Amendment 243E in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, so eloquently spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, we fully support the intention of helping young people to win apprenticeships. In fact, we delivered more than 5 million apprenticeships when in government, but a key part of our success was partnerships with employers, not just an onus on the Secretary of State. It is on this Government to match our record. To achieve that, a clear and cohesive strategy with actions is critical, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister in that regard.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I win the prize tonight for the most wide-ranging set of amendments that could possibly come together in one group.

I turn first to Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I appreciate the noble Lord’s arguments, which were also put forward in Committee. I thank him for raising them again. However, my view on this remains the same: schools are best placed to understand the needs of their pupils and should be able to choose from a range of options to best suit those needs, with tutoring being one option. Although the national tutoring programme has ended, schools can continue to provide tutoring through the use of funds such as pupil premium, which can be used to support the disadvantaged pupils identified in this proposed amendment. Guidance based on evidence gathered through the programme is available to support schools to deliver tutoring.

In addition, the noble Lord may be aware that on 26 January the Department for Education announced plans to co-create AI tutoring tools with teachers and leading tech companies. This programme will develop and robustly test our AI tutoring tools so they are safe and work for pupils, including the most disadvantaged, and school staff to complement high-quality, face-to-face teaching. We need to have confidence that schools are best able to go forward and use their resources appropriately.

On Amendment 241, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mott, I fully appreciate the noble Lord’s concerns about the educational attainment of children with a parent in prison. We had a good discussion in Committee and we have committed to identifying and supporting all children affected by parental imprisonment. We welcome the intent of this amendment and assure the noble Lord that the Department for Education is working closely with the Ministry of Justice to determine how we can best identify all children affected, not just those of school age, sensitively and ensure that they get support to enable them to thrive.

I think that emphasis on sensitivity is crucial here. I stress what I have said before, which is that we must not make any assumptions in this area about the experience of individual young people and must make sure that their needs are met across the board. It is a complex picture and our approach is to make sure that we link to a consistent nationwide support offer. We are working through the details of exactly how we can do this. Sharing information and increasing awareness have to be fundamental measures that we look at in this. While I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, I hope he recognises the seriousness with which we take this subject.

Amendment 243, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, would require new schools to be built to deliver net zero carbon in operation and to be resilient to climate change, and for action plans to be developed for all existing schools to reach net zero and to be resilient to the impacts of climate change. I can confirm that the Department for Education already requires all centrally funded school building projects to be net zero carbon in operation, designed to be climate resilient to a two-degree centigrade rise in average global temperatures and future proofed for a 4% rise, and to incorporate sustainable drainage systems and promote biodiversity. The DfE’s sustainability strategy introduced an expectation for all schools to develop a climate adaptation plan. This is supported by the Climate Ambassadors Network, which provides free expertise to schools.

The considerations set out in the amendment should be included in the setting’s climate action plan. As I say, guidance has been published, and I hope that schools are aware of the programme of support that is available to help them put the plans in place, with the sustainability leadership and climate action plans in education from the department. The requirement for a climate action plan has also been included in the recently updated estate management standards. This policy is designed to ensure that action is taken at a responsible body and/or setting level to ensure that children and young people are prepared for a changing future and that sustainability and climate resilience is built into the operation of the setting.

Turning to Amendment 243A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, I appreciate the intention behind this amendment: to prevent safeguarding procedures being misused for political purposes. The Government cannot support it, however. Safeguarding teams must be able to consider all relevant information to keep children safe, and restricting their ability to take account of political views would make that vital work harder. We recognise the difficulties that schools face when making decisions that require consideration of safeguarding and security risks alongside political impartiality and freedom of speech. However, we can all agree that the fact that my honourable friend Damien Egan MP was unable to visit a school in his constituency was a completely unacceptable situation, and I think it triggered, in part, the amendment. All Members of Parliament should be able to visit anywhere in their constituency without any fear of antisemitism or prejudice.

Ofsted has inspected the school in question and found no concerns, but it is also vital that we fully understand the circumstances of this case. That is why the Secretary of State has asked the trust to commission an independent investigation into what happened so that key lessons can be learned. The Secretary of State has also announced an independent national review to help ensure that all schools and colleges have the right systems, processes and support available to identify and respond effectively to antisemitism and related issues, as has been outlined. It is important that we do not pre-empt those reviews, and the DfE will of course continue to look at all schools and colleges across the board through the lens of the work they are doing.

On Amendment 243B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I am aware that the VAT status of all further education colleges is an area of continued interest for the sector. Colleges are unable to reclaim VAT incurred on their non-business activity, which includes providing free education. The Government operate VAT refund schemes for local authorities, including the schools they maintain, and for academies. These are variously designed to prevent local authorities needing to raise local taxes to pay for their VAT costs, and to support schools to leave local authority control by ensuring equal VAT treatment between schools and academies. Colleges do not meet the criteria for either scheme.   In relation to business activity, colleges enjoy an exemption from VAT which means that they do not have to charge VAT to students but cannot recover it either. I stress that tax is a matter for the Chancellor, who takes decisions at fiscal events in the context of the broader public finances.

Amendment 243E stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Layard, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, for laying out its content and for the work he does with my noble friend, who is regarded as a real champion in this area. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for their comments. The amendment seeks to ensure that every eligible young person aged 16 to 18 in England who wishes to start an apprenticeship at level 3 or below has the opportunity to do so.

This amendment is in the context of an incredible drop-off in the number of people starting apprenticeships, and the unforgivable rise in the number of young people who are NEET across the whole of the country. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Layard is such a champion of apprenticeships, and this Government share his ambition to support more of these opportunities for young people. For this reason, we are investing in young peoples’ futures and rebalancing apprenticeships back towards young people, who obviously have the most to gain from apprenticeships, regaining their confidence, against the backdrop of the fall in starts over the last decade.

Since we last spoke in Committee, we have announced our ambition to support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships, backed by an additional £725 million of investment. We will expand foundation apprenticeships into sectors where young people are traditionally recruited, exploring occupations such as hospitality and retail. We are making £140 million available to pilot new approaches to better connect young people, especially those who are NEET, to local apprenticeship opportunities. From August, apprenticeship training will be completely free for SMEs who hire eligible young people aged 16 to 24.

We also continue to provide a range of financial support to encourage employers to offer apprenticeships to young people. We provide £1,000 to employers when they take on apprentices aged under 19, or eligible 19 to 24 year-olds. Employers receive additional payments of up to £2,000 for eligible foundation apprenticeships. Employers are not required to pay anything towards employees’ national insurance for all apprentices up to age 25.

However, we have to recognise that apprenticeships are jobs, first and foremost. We cannot compel an employer to hire—it must remain for employers to decide when they offer apprenticeships to meet their skills needs.

With those comments, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because the Commons consider the Amendment to be unnecessary in light of existing statutory guidance about bringing a child protection plan to an end and steps already being taken to strengthen multi-agency decision making relating to child protection.

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, K and K1. In this group we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to child protection plans, multi-agency child protection teams and local authority consent for children not in school. For each, I will set out the rationale for why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

I will speak first to Motion A relating to Amendment 2, originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, regarding decisions to end child protection plans for under-fives when care proceedings are initiated or a care or supervision order is granted. When care proceedings begin, the child protection plan should not automatically be discharged. Statutory guidance is clear that a multi-agency meeting should take place to make this decision.

The Ofsted inspection framework reflects this statutory guidance and includes a focus on child protection. However, I note the noble Baroness’s concerns about children losing support at key transition points, potentially making them more vulnerable. This is why we will strengthen statutory guidance to make sure that the reason for the decision and any ongoing support is recorded.

We expect expert practitioners in multi-agency child protection teams to make decisions about plans ending. These teams bring fresh child protection expertise to concerns and will know the circumstances of the child well, so they are best placed to make these important decisions. While senior and experienced directors of children’s services should get involved only when needed, this is already provided for in the statutory framework.

Motion B relates to Amendment 5, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requiring that the Secretary of State delay an evaluation of the families first for children pathfinder in Parliament before the multi-agency child protection team measures come into force.

Effective multi-agency child protection practice, which prevents tragedies and saves lives, needs to happen now. Delay is unacceptable. The Government will set out implementation plans covering the next phase of children’s social care reform following Royal Assent, including information about the planned pathfinder evaluation.

This summer, we expect to publish interim findings that are informing national rollout. Clause 3 also includes powers to make regulations about the functions of multi-agency child protection teams. The regulations will be subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny and will reflect learning from the pathfinders and national reform rollout. Regulations are not expected to come into effect until 2027, but the system is rightly changing now and we must not hinder this.

I turn finally to Motion K, relating to Amendment 44, and Motion K1, relating to Amendment 44B in lieu, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The amendment in lieu would require parents to obtain permission from their local authority before withdrawing their child from school for home education if their child is currently, or has ever been, the subject of care or supervision order proceedings, unless the child has since been adopted. We share the noble Baroness’s commitment to ensuring that every child is safe. However, we remain unconvinced about extending the consent requirement further. Children who are the subject of such proceedings would almost always fall within existing protections, either through a child protection plan triggering the Government’s proposed consent measure or as a looked-after child whose education is already determined by the local authority through their care plan.

We recognise concerns about children previously subject to proceedings potentially being vulnerable. That is why we have extended the consent requirement to children who have been on a child protection plan in the last five years and extended the school attendance order power to these children who are already being home educated. This approach maintains the high threshold for consent to child protection action, recognises that children may be vulnerable if they are withdrawn from school within five years after a plan ends, and balances this with the reality that families can and do change.

On Report, the noble Baroness referenced the review into the tragic death of Sara Sharif. We have already amended the Bill to respond directly to its recommendations. We will pilot mandatory meetings before any child in a pilot area can be removed from school for home education, and the new power for local authorities to request to visit home-educated children in their homes will benefit the children that the noble Baroness is most concerned about. Importantly, our wider children’s social care measures also strengthen information sharing, improve early preventive support, create new multi-agency child protection teams and strengthen the role of education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements. It is for these reasons that the Government disagree with these amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments. I thank the Minister in her absence for the meetings we have had away from your Lordships’ Chamber. Clearly, protecting our young people is close to all our hearts and is something that we will keep a watching brief on. We have looked at the Government’s proposals. Early on, when I arrived at your Lordships’ House, I worked with the Children’s Commissioner and a briefing was sent to all noble Lords in June last year about something I was trying to bring forward on Report to try to make young people’s lives better. On that occasion, I failed to convince noble Lords on both the main two Benches and, as we live in a democracy, I chose not to pursue that.

I wish the Government well with their intentions. Clearly, as the opposition here—the smaller opposition—our duty will be to continue to hold the Government to account on the reassurances they have given us in briefings and, more importantly, on what they have written to us both from your Lordships’ House and the other place. These Benches are not minded to oppose what the Government are proposing, but we are putting them on notice that we will continue to watch the progress and we wish this Bill well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments regarding Motion A and the commitment to strengthen statutory guidance, and for the publication of interim findings in relation to Motion B for the multi-agency child protection teams. To the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I say that there are multiple pathfinders, and the one to which he referred—the one he was worried that my amendment might delay—was a different pathfinder from the one to which my amendment referred. It is easy to be confused with so many paths going on.

I turn to my Motion K1, and again acknowledge that the Government have done the right thing by introducing a new power for local authorities to withhold consent to home-educate a child where there are significant safeguarding concerns. Noble Lords know that we spent time testing the limits of what these concerns might be, in Committee and on Report, to ensure that they are proportionate. That has been informed in part by the tragic death of Sara Sharif, whose father took her out of school.

As we heard, in response to our debates, the Government broadened their initial definition of children who are eligible. Then, on Report, we tested the appetite of the House for a much wider scope, but this was rejected in the other place. Last night we all received a letter from Ministers that covered the response to the Sara Sharif safeguarding practice review. I have read the letter several times. I find it extraordinary that, although I explained to the Minister on Monday that my amendment would simply cover children who had been in the care system, there is no mention of those children or my amendment anywhere in the letter—unless I missed it. Either officials and Ministers do not understand the significance of care proceedings, which I find very hard to believe—particularly of the Minister at the Dispatch Box today—or there is no political will to engage with this subject. I feel uncomfortable saying this in the House but, reading the letter, that is what it feels like. Either way, it is a very unfortunate oversight.

As the Minister knows, in the hierarchy of safeguarding, the greatest concern is for children who are in care or care proceedings, where the state judges that they cannot stay safely with their birth parents. These children are at greater risk than those on a child protection plan, but the Bill as currently drafted, and the Government’s rejection of my amendment to the Motion, leaves this specific gap. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said, you could have two children: one who was returned to their parents three years ago, having been in care, and another who came off a child protection plan three years ago. If the parents of both children want to take them out of school, the local authority cannot have a say on the first child, but it can on the second. I am guessing that the Minister does not feel entirely comfortable about that.

When the Minister says that almost all children will fall within existing proceedings, that is almost all children except Sara Sharif. Sara Sharif was on a child protection plan at birth, but she was never on a child protection plan again and there were two sets of failed care proceedings. She is precisely the child we should all be thinking about this evening.

I will finish by quoting the Secretary of State, who made a Statement on 13 November last year when the safeguarding practice review was published. She said:

“The whole country remembers with profound sadness the tragic murder of Sara Sharif by her father and stepmother in August 2023. Aged just 10 years old, the unimaginable cruelty of Sara’s death at the hands of those who should have been her first and brightest source of love and care shocked us all … The introduction of compulsory children not in school registers will empower local authorities to better identify children who need support and protection, as will the accompanying duties on parents of eligible children and out-of-school education providers”.


I emphasise the following:

“The measures will ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/25; col. 31WS.]


Outside this place, people will judge us not by what we said but by what we did. Let us be crystal-clear: without my amendment, these measures will not ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests. When the next serious case review happens—and sadly it will—I hope the House will remember this debate and the chance we had to do the right thing tonight by supporting my amendment when we come to vote later.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I am exceptionally grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I recognise the commitment and contribution they have all made during the passage of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for not pursuing any of the points further, as he said.

To address the main points raised, as I said in my opening speech, I fully recognise the importance of what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve with Amendment 2 on the discharge of child protection plans. I hope I have provided reassurance that, although the statutory framework already requires robust multi-agency oversight of child protection plans, we will strengthen expectations for reasons to be recorded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

The Minister needs to respond.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I cannot express my sadness enough about the issues that the noble Baroness raises, but I am seeking to reassure her and the House that the provisions we are bringing in will be sufficient as we move forward. That is the issue. I think the Minister she referred to from the conversation on Monday was the Minister in the other place, not me. I am sorry that she is not satisfied with the letter, but I know that he went into meticulous detail and I am confident that he responded.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am sorry, but the meticulous detail in the letter did not refer anywhere to children in care or those who had been in care proceedings. It referred to my previous amendment and children who were classified as being in need. I will let the noble Baroness progress.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Perhaps if I continue with my comments, the noble Baroness can intervene if appropriate.

I reassure all noble Lords that the child would almost certainly be caught by the Government’s proposed consent measure due to a child protection plan, or by being a looked-after child, and therefore education provision would be a matter for the local authority to decide. Family hubs also provide support through targeted multidisciplinary support for vulnerable children. However, I want to reassure noble Lords that, as we move into implementation of the policy, we will continue to engage with noble Lords. Should it become clear that the proposal to extend consent to children who are currently, or were historically, the subject of care or supervision orders or proceedings would strengthen the policy substantially and improve protection for this wider group of children, we would, of course, be open to considering how it could be delivered.

Where a care or supervision order is no longer in place, and the child was not subject to a current protection plan or had not been in the last five years, it would be appropriate to require consent. Children who have returned home after a care or supervision order are already supervised by the local authority, and where the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, child protection plans apply. The information-sharing duty included in the Bill will make sure agencies are talking to each other when there are concerns about a child, ensuring appropriate escalation. Using historic Section 31 orders as a blanket trigger could unfairly brand families long after risks have reduced.

The independent review into Sara’s death was clear that there were long-term, broader multi-agency failings that resulted in Sara not receiving the level of protection she needed. Extending the consent requirement to all children who are ever subject to supervision order proceedings was not actually a recommendation of the review. Instead, it highlighted the need for stronger multi-agency practice, information sharing, early identification of risk and better decision-making. Those are exactly the reforms that this Bill delivers. Of course, for further reassurance, we will include specific sign-off of child protection plans for children entering proceedings, in consultation with multi-agency child protection team regulations.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her contribution on the matter of evidence for multi-agency child protection teams. I hope she is now reassured and that I have set out how the findings from the independent Families First for Children pathfinder evaluation will be used and shared. We are also confident that there is strong evidence from evaluations on multi-agency safeguarding hubs, strengthening families and supporting families programmes and youth offending teams, which all demonstrate how effectively multi-agency working improves outcomes for children. Most importantly, I remind the House once more that the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, which means there is already adequate provision in place for parliamentary scrutiny ahead of the regulations coming into force.

On Motion K1, which would expand the home education consent requirement, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. The Government are committed to ensuring that every child receives a safe, suitable education. The Bill’s current requirements strike the right balance, extending them to all children who have ever been the subject of care or supervision proceedings. They would capture children already benefiting from appropriate checks and would not risk indefinitely stigmatising families who have made sustainable changes. I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, but, having worked with families in this space, I can say that this is an issue. Stigmatisation is a very real thing for many families.

I recognise, of course, concerns that the current consent requirement would not have prevented Sara Sharif being removed from school. However, the home education measures are one part of the system that safeguards children, and we have also made significant changes to reform and strengthen child protection in the Bill. The Bill strengthens the wider children’s social care system and the children not in school measures, which directly responds to some of the recommendations and adds targeted safeguards where children can become less visible. Of course, I recognise the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that home-educated parents very often have a great deal to offer from their experience in this area.

In closing, I urge noble Lords to resist Motion K1 and I commend Motion A.

Motion A agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 16, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 16A.

16A: Because the Commons does not consider the review proposed by the Amendment to be necessary in light of the ongoing public consultation on adoption and special guardianship support services.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion C and shall speak also to Motions D, E, F and F1. In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, sibling contact, regional co-operation arrangements and deprivation of liberty. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

I will speak to Motion C, relating to Amendment 16, originally tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerning a proposed review of the per-child funding level for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. The Government have confirmed £55 million for the support fund in 2026-27, with continuation into 2027-28. A 12-week public consultation on adoption support is under way, seeking evidence on what best supports adopted children and outlining eight proposals for a future system. Introducing the review proposed in the amendment could potentially inhibit balanced consideration of the consultation responses. We therefore cannot accept this.

Motion D relates to Amendment 17, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. As we have previously set out, the amendment will not alter the duties placed on local authorities. There is already a requirement in regulations for local authorities to record in the care plan any contact arrangements made between a looked-after child and any sibling with whom they are not living. This is why the Government do not support this amendment.

Instead, we propose Amendment 17B in lieu, to add siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act 1989. This will make clear the expectations on local authorities to allow reasonable contact between children in care and their whole, half and step-siblings where this is consistent with their welfare: a duty that already exists for contact been children in care and their parents. I acknowledge Liberal Democrat Peers’ constructive engagement, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and acknowledge in the other place the honourable Member for South Shields, Emma Lewell. Both have tirelessly campaigned for many years on the importance of relationships for children in care, and I therefore urge noble Lords to support this amendment.

Motion E relates to Amendment 19, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. This amendment seeks to include integrated care boards in regional co-operation arrangements. The Government agree that health partners play a vital role in improving outcomes for looked-after children. However, existing duties under Sections 10 and 16E, 16G and 16J of the Children Act 2004 already require local authorities to co-operate with relevant partners, including ICBs, to promote children’s well-being. These duties will continue to apply to authorities entering into regional co-operation agreements. Following helpful discussions on Report, and with the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, it is clear that these duties could be implemented more consistently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, we very much welcome the Government’s amendment in relation to sibling contact and hope very much it makes a tangible difference in practice. I will speak briefly to my Motion F1, which relates to how we can provide the highest-quality care for the most vulnerable children: those who are deprived of their liberty. As we have already debated, this must involve the local authority and the integrated care board.

The Minister will be very familiar with the difficulty of getting health to the table, even if the door is often held wide open by the local authority. But of course the cost of them not being there is borne by children, whose cases end up being repeatedly delayed because of disputes between health and social care as to who is responsible, who are moved from placement to placement without any join-up, and who attend emergency services without up-to-date information about their needs. My amendment would go some way to addressing this.

However, I am encouraged by the Minister’s promise—which is what I wrote down in very large letters, anyway—that the integrated care board involvement would be “locked in from the outset”. If that is what the Government are going to do, and if the Government are going to create some innovation funding opportunities to see true integrated work between health and social care, then I am grateful to the Government and look forward to following how that develops in practice.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this debate. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her comments, and also say that I am totally confident she will keep a good check on how this goes forward. I am very appreciative of her role.

The Government recognise the vital role of adopters and kinship carers and the need for timely, appropriate support. That is why we are continuing to fund the adoption and special guardianship support. The department is also consulting widely on the future of adoption support, with over 600 responses received already and consultation events planned after Easter. Therefore, with the ongoing work, we do not believe a further review is necessary.

I note all of the comments from around the Chamber recognising the importance of the work we have done in adding siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act. I am sure that makes the Government’s commitment absolutely clear and I very much welcome the support of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We are committed to best practice in helping children to see their siblings; it is a huge step forward for the experience of so many young people.

I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, for highlighting through his Amendment 19 the importance of health involvement in the creation of regional co-operation arrangements. Just to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I was very fortunate in having very good relationships with health colleagues, and I know through that the potential of when we get it right. I fully agree that integrated care boards need to move forward. The statutory mechanisms will be strengthened through the detailed guidance we will publish, alongside the expression of interest for the next wave of regional care co-operatives. I reiterate that this will require relevant ICBs to state their commitment as we go forward. I hope that gives noble Lords the reassurance they require. A financial incentive is an excellent way of moving forward. Therefore, we do not believe the amendment is required.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 17A, and do propose Amendment 17B in lieu—

17A: Because the Commons does not consider the review proposed by the Amendment to be necessary in light of the ongoing public consultation on adoption and special guardianship support services.

17B: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Sibling contact with children in care
In section 34 of the Children Act 1989 (parental contact etc. with children in care)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (c), and
(ii) at the end of paragraph (d) insert “; and
(e) any brother or sister (whether of the whole or half blood) or step-brother or step-sister (whether by marriage or civil partnership) of the child.”;
(b) in subsection (4), for “(d)” substitute “(e)”;
(c) in subsection (8), in paragraph (za), for “(d)” substitute “(e)”.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 19A.

19A: Because the Commons does not consider the Amendment to be necessary in light of existing arrangements that ensure local authorities work together with integrated care boards in discharging functions for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.

Motions D and E agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 21, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 21A.

21A: Because the Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion F1 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 42, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 42A.

42A: Because the Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 41 to which the Commons disagree.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion J. I beg to move.

Motion J agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 44, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 44A.

44A: Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion K. I beg to move.

Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102A.

102A: Because the Amendment imposes inappropriate restrictions on the scope of the adjudicator’s powers to determine school admission numbers under clause 56 and the clause already provides for regulations to make provision about the matters the adjudicator must consider when making a determination about a school’s admission number.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion L. I beg to move.

Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)

[Baroness Barran]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 102.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 105, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 105A, and do propose Amendments 105B and 105C in lieu—

105A: Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.


105B: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—


“Allergy safety policy for pupils at schools

After section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014 insert—


“100A Allergy safety policy


(1) The arrangements made under section 100 by the appropriate authority for a school to which that section applies must include an allergy safety policy.


(2) An “allergy safety policy” is a policy for the management of allergies affecting pupils at the school (including the management of pupils at risk of anaphylaxis).


(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about matters that must be covered in an allergy safety policy.


(4) The appropriate authority—


(a) must, at least once every year, review the school’s allergy safety policy;


(b) must make such changes to the policy as it considers appropriate following a review.


(5) The appropriate authority must publicise the school’s allergy safety policy in the form of a written document by—


(a) making the policy generally known within the school and to parents of pupils at the school,


(b) taking steps, at least once a year, to bring the policy to the attention of all pupils at the school and parents and all persons who work at the school (whether or not for payment), and


(c) publishing the policy on the school’s website.


(6) In meeting the duties under this section, the appropriate authority must have particular regard to guidance issued for the purposes of section 100(2) that relates to the management of allergies (including anaphylaxis) in schools.


(7) The Education Act 1996 and this section are to be read as if this section were included in that Act.


100B Regulations about allergy safety


(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations impose duties on specified persons in connection with the management of allergies affecting pupils at schools to which section 100 applies (including the management of pupils at risk of anaphylaxis).


(2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision about—


(a) the keeping of, and access to, medicinal products and medical devices on school premises and at other places where pupils at a school are under the lawful control or charge of a member of the staff of the school;


(b) procedures for identifying, and managing risks to, pupils with allergies;


(c) provision of training on the recognition and management of allergies for teaching staff, non-teaching staff, persons providing catering services at the school and such other persons as may be specified;


(d) recording and reporting of incidents.


(3) Regulations under this section may require the appropriate authority for a school to which section 100 applies to designate a specified person to have responsibility for specified matters.


(4) A person on whom a duty is imposed by regulations under this section must, in meeting the duty, have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.


(5) In this section—


“appropriate authority for a school” has the same meaning as in section 100;


“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.


(6) The Education Act 1996 and this section are to be read as if this section were included in that Act.”


(2) In section 342 of the Education Act 1996 (approval of non-maintained special schools), after subsection (5) insert—


“(5ZA) Regulations made by virtue of subsections (2) and (4)(a) must impose—


(a) a requirement for an allergy safety policy (within the meaning of section 100A of the Children and Families Act 2014) to be in place at a school,


(b) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed by section 100A(4) to (6) of that Act (duty to review and publicise policy etc), and


(c) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed on the appropriate authority for a school by regulations under section 100B of that Act (allergy safety regulations),


and the requirement referred to in paragraph (a) includes a requirement for the policy to comply with provision made by regulations under section 100A(3) of that Act.”


(3) In section 94 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 (independent educational institution standards), after subsection (3A) (inserted by section 37(2)(b) of this Act) insert—


“(3B) Standards prescribed by virtue of subsection (1)(c) must include standards that have the effect of imposing—


(a) a requirement to secure that an allergy safety policy (within the meaning of section 100A of the Children and Families Act 2014) is in place at independent educational institutions,


(b) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed by section 100A(4) to (6) of that Act (duty to review and publicise policy etc), and


(c) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed on the appropriate authority for a school by regulations under section 100B of that Act (allergy safety regulations),


and the requirement referred to in paragraph (a) includes a requirement for the policy to comply with provision made by regulations under section 100A(3) of that Act.””


105C: Title, line 5, after “uniform;” insert “about allergy safety in schools;”

Motion M agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 106A.

106A: Because the Commons does not consider the Amendment to be necessary in light of the existing guidance about mobile phones in schools.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion N. I beg to move.

Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N)

[Baroness Barran]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 106.”

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I have listened very carefully to my noble friend the Minister but have the greatest difficulty in understanding why you need a consultation period when dealing with those aged 16 and under. The restraint that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, seeks is to prevent them having access to pornography, which I have described in this House as vile pornography. He is proposing that from the moment the Bill comes into force, there will be a ban for under-16s. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can understand that I speak as a matter of conscience. It is why I support the noble Lord’s Motion.

I speak as a departing hereditary Peer. Regrettably, no time has been allocated for hereditary Peers to say farewell to this House. I am very sad about that, but that is the position. Would your Lordships be kind enough to listen to me, a departing hereditary Peer, saying a brief goodbye to this House?

I first entered this House 54 years ago, in 1972. The House then was very different. There were very few Peeresses—fewer than 10%—and those who were in the House nearly all wore hats. I had the very scary experience, when I was giving my maiden speech, of being attacked by the hatted Baroness Summerskill, who wrongfully attacked my maiden speech. It took me a long time to recover from that attack by the hatted Peeress.

The House in those days was much less proactive. I give a comparison. If you wanted to table an Oral Question, you would go to the Table Office and say, “Have you got a space for me on Thursday of next week?” The answer might be “No, but we can give you a space in 10 days’ time”.

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

Can my noble friend come to a close? This is not an appropriate moment.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!