Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

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.