Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am moving Amendment 166 with the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, to whom I am grateful—she regrets that she cannot be in her place—as I am to the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, the RMCC, for its help.

The amendment would introduce an entitlement to an independent guardian for separated asylum-seeking or trafficked children, in line with international law and the provisions already made in Scotland, building on and expanding the existing independent child trafficking guardian service run by Barnardo’s.

Imagine that you are a child who has fled persecution or conflict, travelling across Europe and then making the perilous journey across the channel, all of which makes for a pretty traumatic experience. You arrive frightened, wet and cold. You are given no time to recover but, instead, almost immediately are faced with questions that you may not understand and age-assessment procedures that can all too easily wrongly determine that you are an adult. I will not go into that today, other than to say that research shows how these age assessments can undermine children’s mental health and well-being. You then face incomprehensible bureaucratic procedures and have to navigate complex systems, such as social care, immigration and criminal justice, as you make the difficult legal journey involved in claiming asylum.

How different might it be if you had a legal guardian to support you? The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out that legal guardians are a crucial component of a protection system for children who temporarily or permanently lack a family environment and are unable to have their interests represented by their parents. An independent legal guardian in this context plays a key role in supporting unaccompanied children by connecting them to all the support they need, instructing solicitors on their behalf and, most importantly, representing their best interests throughout.

An evaluation of the Scottish guardianship service, now called Guardianship Scotland, showed that it played an invaluable beneficial role in supporting unaccompanied children. In particular, it helped them with navigation and orientation, gathered and provided information for stakeholders, supported interactions with immigration lawyers, and provided emotional support.

The RMCC applauds the crucial role played by the service, which, it says,

“highlights the transformative power of dedicated advocacy and care”.

Barnardo’s points to the evidence of the positive impact on mental health during often lengthy asylum waits, with qualitative feedback emphasising that guardians are viewed by asylum-seeking children as their primary source of stability, advocacy and protection. It told me that seven independent evaluations of the trafficking guardian service that it runs found that having a guardian helps reduce children’s likelihood of going missing and their vulnerability to harm.

The effects on children have been both immediate and long-term. Barnardo’s quotes asylum-seeking children supported by its service in Northern Ireland:

“I trust you and rely on your support”,


and

“my friend does not have an independent guardian working with him and this is so bad. I would have really struggled with that”.

Yet the limited reach of the traffic and guardianship service in England and Wales, and the lack of any such service for asylum-seeking children here, means that thousands of vulnerable children are having to struggle every day as they try to build a new life.

Compelling evidence of this comes from a new study of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people by the LSE and the University of Bedfordshire, as I referred to in our previous sitting. It focuses in particular on their well-being. The children and young people themselves identified a number of aspects of their lives that were important to their well-being, including

“not being lonely and having reliable people to talk to”

and

“professional support and knowing professionals are taking responsibility for you and your needs”,

along with

“having hope for the future”.

Moreover, they viewed integration as key to their well-being.

Happily, a significant number of the children and young people were being supported by a charity operating an independent guardian-like service. For them, that was often the difference that made the difference, but, the report said, these specialist casework interventions happen mostly by chance and after procedural drift and poor mistakes in and around the asylum decision-making process, rather than systematically or at the early stages of children and young people’s asylum applications.

The report talks of a “protection gap”, in which the children and young people felt very much alone. Their sense of well-being was closely associated with the extent to which they felt cared for by professionals—to have what the authors call a “scaffolding of care” built around them to help give them hope and belief in themselves and their future—and hope for the future was crucial to their well-being.

The importance of caring support from a social worker cannot be stressed enough but not all enjoy such a relationship, and social workers do not necessarily have the requisite understanding of the asylum system. This led to the recommendation by the children and young people themselves, echoed by the academic researchers, for

“independent guardians from the start and throughout their journey, who understand the asylum, immigration, modern slavery and social care processes, who understand the unique challenges”

and who are accessible.

As that study illustrates, the case for extending the guardianship service lies primarily in the positive impact that it will have on a particularly vulnerable group of children, in line with international standards. It is also a very cost-effective measure. UNICEF UK and the Children’s Society calculated some years ago that a system of guardianship for all unaccompanied children could save £1.25 for every £1 spent over three years, rising to £2.39, taking account of the benefits once the children become adults. That detailed cost-benefit analysis estimates an overall saving of over £62 million arising from reduction in social work time, police resources, interpreting time, judicial and legal expenses, and the time of other professionals.

Ultimately, what is at stake here is the mental and physical well-being of children. That is what the Bill is all about. As one of the young people in the study I cited commented:

“Children are not just a category. You need to be living all your childhood”—


a maxim that we might apply to the Bill as a whole.

The RMCC concludes:

“In light of the substantial financial savings, improved systemic efficiency, and enhanced well-being of unaccompanied children, implementing a nationwide guardianship service in the UK is both a fiscally responsible and morally imperative decision”.


In her recent oral evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Minister, Angela Eagle, suggested that the Home Office

“may start to look at how we can provide a voice for migrants—an advocacy service, a help service”.

I do not know what she had in mind, but I suggest that a guardianship service for unaccompanied children would be a good place to start.

I am not looking for such a decision today, but I believe the case is compelling from the perspective of children’s well-being. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister to commit to talking to her Home Office colleagues and, together with them, to give the proposal serious consideration, with a view to possible implementation in the future. I beg to move.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. I declare that I am vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation and co-chair of the all-party group against modern slavery. Ten years ago, the Modern Slavery Act introduced child advocates who are informally called guardians. It is a brilliant scheme, but I understand that it is still in a pilot stage, which is one of the sadnesses of the implementation of parts of the Modern Slavery Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

Children could use phones that do not connect to the internet—phones that do not access social media—like the old phones, if they need to phone their parents in an emergency. With the mobile phones that we are talking about now, for children under the age of 16, their brains are not developed enough to understand the harms and dangers—and, as we have said, it is all very addictive. Big tech companies know how to get children to look at certain sites. In our generation, we did not have phones and we did not have that exposure to predators, and we did not have so many mental health issues among the youth.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I ask the noble Baroness how on earth she thinks that parents will be able to stand up against their children so they will not have phones? What we are discussing here is phones in school. The idea that we should prevent children under 16 from having smartphones seems to me utterly unrealistic.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

I did not mean under-16s in general, I meant under-16s at school, as in those amendments. However, I agree with some noble Lords that parents also need to be educated. When we see parents pushing a pushchair and children looking at video games and such things, it is probably not very helpful, but this is part of education and we all need to get together to educate parents also. So, I support these amendments and I think that, to help our children’s well-being and future, this is something we should look at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

I absolutely acknowledge that, but it is important to note that such a provision was available and was defunded. The number of centres was decimated, which has had long-term consequences that noble Lords have been so clear about: the effect on the poorest children of that poverty of provision. I think that is really important to note.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I feel the need to move on. I very much support early years strategy, and I particularly appreciated the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Young of Cookham. I remember a mother and her three year-old daughter. The mother had never learned how to speak to her daughter, who had no speech and had never heard anything from her mother. They were invited to join what was almost certainly Sure Start in north Kensington and, three months later, hand in hand, near Christmas, they danced down the steps of the preschool, singing carols together. That place closed—and this is one of the sadnesses that we have.

I very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, because I have a granddaughter who at five was said to be stupid. Thank goodness she changed school; she was found to be dyslexic and, I am glad to say, she got a good degree at Edinburgh—but with a great deal of help. To identify children at an early stage, long before they go to school, would make the most enormous difference. It did to my granddaughter, who was extremely unhappy at her first school, because she kept being told she was stupid, and she was not stupid at all. She is one of countless children who are not identified at one stage early enough.

Dare I ask the Minister whether it is at all possible that this Government, from the party that produced Sure Start, which was so excellent, could think one day, when there is a little bit more money, they might reintroduce it again?