Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fleet (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to the intended purpose of the Bill, which includes improving the well-being of children, as given in subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause, and removing barriers to opportunity, as given in subsection (2)(c) of the proposed new clause. I declare my interests as governor of Shoreditch Park Academy, former chair of the national plan for music education and co-founder and chair of the London Music Fund.

We are debating the future of our schools and children, and the well-being of our children. What could be more important than that? This Government were elected on a mandate of change, but on so many issues Ministers cannot explain the reason, in this Bill particularly, for the change. What is the problem the Government are trying to solve? On this Bill, the bewilderment about the reason for change is now greater than ever.

As my noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone said, we will be voting on a Bill that includes a curriculum that all schools will be obliged to follow—a curriculum about whose content neither we nor, it seems, the Government have any idea. This is absurd. This is not change to benefit children and improve their well-being but simply ideological change to satisfy trade union leaders and their followers. If they get their way, children’s education will certainly be damaged, not just for the sake of change.

At Second Reading, I focused on the importance of academy trust independence. Today, I narrow my focus to follow the procedure to one subject which I believe is missing from the Bill that could have a hugely positive effect on the well-being and academic outcomes of every child. That subject is music. Do noble Lords recall that, on the day of the magnificent VE celebration concert in Westminster Hall, the composer and conductor Keith Burstein said of music that it unites, consoles and galvanises?

The evidence is there: music helps listening, concentration, reading and memory. Music boosts self- esteem and helps young people understand the benefits of discipline. You cannot learn a musical instrument without self-discipline. That, in turn, helps to develop self-reliance, determination and grit—the very word the Government invoked last week. Music is not just about learning notes and techniques; it helps emotional and social development and brings young people together, enriching their lives.

The Prime Minister recently warned of the danger of Britian becoming a nation of strangers. Music, as he has acknowledged in the past, unites people. It unites children. Children of all backgrounds would benefit from the common enjoyment of music in their schools. An RPO survey showed that 85% of children wanted to learn a musical instrument. Music makes children happy and particularly benefits children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Every school should have a flourishing music department.

Music can transform an unhappy, failing school. In Bradford, at Feversham Primary Academy, in one of the most disadvantaged areas of the city, an intensive music programme for every pupil has transformed the school from failing to outstanding. I have visited a great many schools with wonderful music, choir ensembles and orchestras. Most are academy trusts, such as United Learning, Ark Academy and the City of London Academies Trust, whose schools, including Shoreditch Park, where I am governor, have the ethos and music of their hugely successful independent schools: the City of London School for boys and City of London School for Girls.

As co-founder and chair of a music charity, the London Music Fund, I have seen how music has changed lives. Our four-year scholarships for children from disadvantaged backgrounds are transformative. Many of our students from the first cohorts are now university and some are at the Conservatoire.

Among hundreds of examples, I think of one girl living in a high-rise on a bleak west London sink estate. Her mother seldom left the flat. The 10 year-old girl had only once visited central London. She had shown an aptitude for music, so we awarded her a four-year scholarship, gave her a clarinet, paid for her music lessons, gave her a mentor and helped her join an orchestra. Alongside music, she excelled at maths. Thanks in part to the London Music Fund, she is now studying maths at Imperial College. Talk about opportunity.

Even for children who are not musically talented, the benefits of the programme are wide ranging, improving self-confidence and well-being. Research from countless countries—Finland, Hungary, Turkey, China and so on—shows the value of music education and the positive impact it has on young people. Why is it that, after all these years of evidence, politicians still seem to have a blind spot about music? What do they not understand about the benefits of music education? I live in hope that, with the Prime Minister’s early enthusiasm for the flute and the imminent curriculum review from Dr Becky Francis, there will be a significant change of heart.

But—I stress the “but”—more teachers are needed to teach music. Schools must have the freedom to hire the best music teachers, not just the ones who have qualified teacher status. Taking away that freedom is change for change’s sake, simply pandering to the unions, not benefiting the children. A serious, long-term funding commitment to music that puts music at the heart of every school would improve the well-being and the academic outcomes of the next generation.

Support for these disadvantaged children, whose well-being and academic outcomes would undoubtedly be improved if music became a central part of their school lives, is so important. I would add: put the child to the fore in this Bill.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, as your Lordships will know from my register of interests, I am currently the leader of the London Borough of Bexley. That means I have an involvement with both the Local Government Association and London Councils. What my entry does not say that I am now the longest-serving leader of the London Borough of Bexley and that, before I was leader, I was the first cabinet member for children’s services in our borough.

Your Lordships might ask why that is important. Over that period, during which we were the first authority in London and only the second to Leeds in the country—as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, will attest—to achieve two outstanding ILACS Ofsted inspections. We also have a very good reputation for our local schools, which include four grammar schools, and we take in many young people from neighbouring Labour boroughs whose parents aspire to a better education for their young people. In this contribution, I will focus my comments on the children’s social care aspects of the proposed Bill.

Over the years, I have had the absolute pleasure to work with some fantastic local authority officers, including some superb directors of children’s services, or deputy directors who have gone on to become directors. I will not name them, to save their blushes, but they will know who they are. These are the people we all trust to make the right decisions, on a daily basis, to keep our young people safe and keep families together, if possible—but, if that is not possible, to ensure that the children who come into our care are prepared for the future. They are statutorily responsible and, if anything goes wrong, they are often held to account for the decisions taken.

Over the last few weeks, I have had exchanges with a number of senior practitioners whom I respect, and they are really concerned about the consequences of some aspects of the Bill. I know my noble friend Lady Barran has had similar conversations. So, my contribution to this debate will probably be very different from many others, as I have first-hand experience of seeing for myself the passion these professionals have for our children in our borough, to keep them safe, as well as having aspirations that they become successful, independent young people. They also have to forecast and take ownership of budgets, often with little control of implications. I am sure that some Members will be interested to know that you can have a young person move into the borough for whom you need to find care that can cost as much as a room in the Savoy for a week.

The conversations we have had suggest that there are some good aspects to the Bill, some of which will reinforce the good practice already taking place in some areas, or plug some of the gaps in current legislation, but fundamentally support the principle of meeting children’s and families’ needs, as they emerge, at the earliest possible time. But there are some major concerns about other aspects of these proposals. I know that we will get to the detail when we get further into the amendments, but some of the main concerns are that some of the proposals are unfunded.

The Josh MacAlister review said that £2 billion was required to implement the reforms in his care review. There is currently £290 million, and that has been agreed for only one year. This shows just how far away we are from what is required and what has been given to local authorities. Most of this will have to be funded from already tight local authority budgets that have become even tighter as a result of the Government’s national insurance contribution increase. Mandating that all child protection functions be held within multiagency teams marks a major shift from the current practice. While the intent is to foster stronger collaboration and clearer accountability, professional bodies and academics have warned of a number of potential unintended consequences if the model is implemented without careful safeguards. One of those consequences is budgets and, of course, in addition to actually determining future funding for social care for both adults and children should be, there is real concern about cost shunting, especially given that there are already suggestions of cuts to safeguarding budgets by local police and health communities.

There have been 10 pathfinders, but, as has been said, the key findings from those pilots have not been published and, as you would expect, the word on the street is that there have been issues with those pathfinders. Surely the sensible thing is to share that information and consider the findings before agreeing this Bill.

The intention might be to have clearer decision-making, improved information sharing, and unified threshold application, but the unintended consequences could be: a dilution of professional expertise; confusion over legal accountability; weakened local authority leadership; loss of focus on early help and prevention; operational bottlenecks and inflexibility; undermining universal services’ safeguarding role; implementation disruption; inconsistent models; and legal and human rights risks.

I know I come at this from a different perspective from many—but not all—in this Chamber, but I know that none of us would want to see young people being put at risk from ill-thought-out legislation.

I am sure that many noble Lords—this has been referred to—saw the letter in the Times yesterday from Eileen Munro, a very respected person in the field. When such people say that they are concerned about some aspects of the Bill, they deserve to be listened to, and we need to respect what they have to say. I hope the Minister will do so.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the proposed new clause and to support, in particular, subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c). As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, it contains the key word “improve”. One of the purposes of a purpose clause is to set out very clearly for the courts how legislation should be applied and to what end it is achieved. It will be a matter of debate—I am sure the debate already happened at Second Reading—whether measures in here will improve things: that is a matter for debate. But if we have this, I hope that my noble friend Lady Barran will put it to a vote on Report, so that all the House in its conscience, when it is determining what parts of the legislation we retain, change or drop entirely, comes back to the central purpose: what is this doing to improve the outcomes for children?

I say to my noble friend Lord Balfe that the Title of the Bill should really be “Some Children’s Wellbeing”, because clearly it does address well-being for some children. I suppose I am sharing my frustration—not that I am challenging the guidance of the clerks, although we can have a debate about it—that the scope of the Bill is actually pretty narrow in considering how to improve the well-being of children. I would hope that proposed new subsection (1)(a) would allow us to consider further matters which are not addressed in this Bill about the well-being of all children, which we are here to consider.

I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech—far from it—but there are undoubtedly omissions in the Bill about things such as child maintenance, which would certainly contribute to powers that have already been passed by Parliament but have not yet been commenced by Governments. I say “Governments” deliberately because I am conscious that applies not just to this Government. Those powers could be commenced by adding a clause to this Bill, but it is not within its scope at the moment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley]

29: Clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 25 and 26
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify what support the Secretary of State will require multi-agency partners to offer.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 29, I will speak to Amendments 31, 39 and 40. In my previous contribution, I suggested that there were many parts of this Bill about which there are major concerns, and the multiagency child protection teams for local authority areas is the most concerning. The main concern is that statutorily responsible directors of children’s services should not be mandated in statute to develop this way of working. The preference would be that the local working practice should be at the discretion of local areas in how they arrange child protection services.

The problem this is trying to solve—the sad deaths of Star and Arthur—will not be solved by this proposal. The proposal is set to separate out family help and child protection, but that could mean that workers in family help will believe that they are not responsible for child protection, as it is managed by a team elsewhere.

However, the reality of life is that the family help team need to be able to identify when a child or a family situation has tipped into risk and is unsafe, in order for the MACPT to be alerted to get involved. In Star and Arthur’s case, even if the team had been in place, the children may not have been referred, because the workers involved did not recognise the potential risks to both children.

I know the Minister said the other day that the findings of the pilots would be published in spring 2025, but we are about to go into summer, and they have not been seen yet. That means that the model has not been fully tested and has no research to back its veracity. Surely that has to be done before the Bill comes into effect.

The MACPTs are predicated on staff being supplied from the police and health as a core for the team. We know the financial pressures these services are under, so this is likely to be impossible to achieve at this national scale. There is also the uncertainty around the future of the integrated care boards—ICBs—in the health world, and no certainty that safeguarding budgets will not be reduced. There is no additional funding to achieve this. What happens if health and police cannot provide staff for the MACPTs? Where does the buck stop? Many believe that the requirement for MACPTs should be removed from the legislation or that it should be made that they can decide locally how these services will operate.

Amendment 29 seeks to clarify

“what support the Secretary of State will require multi-agency partners to offer”.

There was a conversation here on Tuesday evening about the role of schools, ably led by my noble friend Lady Spielman. Will the Secretary of State be mandating what the partners are responsible for? We know of the discussions about budgets. Will the Secretary of State be determining that money should be ring-fenced, and who will determine what partners are responsible? Health and police are named, education seems to be in question, but there are others that will potentially have a role as well.

Amendment 31 looks to ensure that there is an effective multi-agency team. We are all aware of the need for consistency of involvement in safeguarding. An effective multi-agency team will need to have consistent involvement. There will need to be ownership of involvement, and attendance or participation will need to be assured.

Amendments 39 and 40 seek to clarify how cases that cross local authority borders will be managed. These amendments are clear. It would be good to understand how issues that straddle local authority borders will be managed and where the responsibility lies, because we all know that our borders are porous. I beg to move.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I am really concerned about these child protection teams. Well-intended as they are, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has explained, there are some dangers in the arrangements that are being proposed.

The good intention behind this is that it addresses one of the fundamental problems we have had in child protection in the past: many of the authorities that are charged with confronting the child abuser have become frightened of them. Consequently, when someone should have gone into the house and dealt with it, they have walked away. I am afraid it has happened to the police at times, as well. Generally speaking, it is better that, when it is necessary, there is someone there who is prepared to take on that frightening person who has done so much damage to a child or a baby.

My concern is that if the police are to be included in this team, it will lead to a certain amount of confusion about their role. First, why are the police there? Generally, the police are there to enforce the law and to use the skills they have in that respect. They are not there because they are particularly good at child protection. That is why social services and health visitors exist and why schools receive incredible training and are very good at helping children and their development. For police officers, that is generally not their skill set. They are there to investigate crime and to confront the people who are the suspects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her detailed response and all noble Lords for their contributions. They have shown their passion for keeping young people safe. Nobody wants to get that wrong, which is why everyone is making such passionate contributions. To do so, you really need as much information as possible, and sharing those pilots is pivotal to all of that. I thank everyone for their contributions and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, having listened to the noble Baroness introduce these amendments, I think they are quite interesting. Let us see what the answer is.

The one that really attracts my attention is Amendment 37: how are you going to assess how the teams have worked? The point that the noble Baroness made was reasonable—that you might want different types of implementation teams in different areas—but if you are doing something new, how do you assess where it has or has not been successful? If the Minister could point out where in the Government’s process that is going to happen—if it is—I would be very interested to hear that. If it is convincing, I hope we can put this to bed and move on.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran on Amendment 30, which builds on the previous conversation in seeking to confirm that local authorities can use their discretion in how the multi-agency child protection teams are implemented operationally in their areas.

In addition to the contributions previously made about the pilots and having the information about those pilots, I want to add two very good reasons why it is imperative to ensure that local decision-making will become effective: how there could be confusion over legal accountability, and how the Bill could weaken local authority leadership.

The statutory responsibility for safeguarding will still rest with the local authorities, as has previously been said, not with the partnerships or multi-agency teams. If all functions are located within a multi-agency team, it may become unclear who is ultimately accountable, especially in the case of a serious case review or legal proceedings. As was referred to previously, current DfE guidance, through Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, emphasises that, although functions can be delegated, accountability cannot be transferred.

I have previously referred to the issue of budgets from other partners, especially police and health, and how that might impact their involvement, but we also need to consider the fact that not all agencies are coterminous. In my area, our police, under the leadership of the Mayor of London, are a tri-borough relationship. The NHS is a six-borough relationship. I quite often get notices from the police identifying a child in Lewisham, and I have to ask my team whether there is a connection to Bexley. There is a potential confusion there and, of course, with that confusion comes the ownership. This could create issues in determining not least the ownership but also the cost implications.

The other risk is weakened local authority leadership. Overconsolidation into multi-agency spaces could disempower directors of children services or the lead members, who are the statutory leads for safeguarding. There is a risk of fragmenting the governance. For those reasons it seems sensible to trust the local authority to use its discretion in how the multi-agency child protection teams are implemented locally in their own area. I support my noble friend Lady Barran’s amendment.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, for several reasons I support Amendment 37 from my noble friend Lady Barran. She and others have spoken about the enormous amount of change being imposed on the sector, both to current structures and prospectively with local government reorganisation and with many processes through these reforms.

We have now heard from enough people here and outside to think that there is good reason to be concerned about poor decision-making arising from the blurring of early help, targeted support, work with children in need and child protection. There are potentially parallels with the SEND reforms a few years ago, when a new model was expected to simplify and reduce costs, and reduce numbers in the system, but has, sadly, done the opposite. On the points that have been made about the blurring of accountability, there is again reason to be concerned.

I was part of a national implementation board after the care review and, in that process, I was struck, more than in most government processes I have been involved with, that many people seemed to find it hard to say what they really thought to Ministers. They perhaps pulled punches a little bit. It is incredibly important to make sure that there is a report that all can see and that is really transparent about how these reforms are working in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley]

33: Clause 3, page 4, leave out lines 8 to 11
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to leave discretion about the qualifications of those who are part of MACPTs to the relevant agency responsible. It also aims for clarity about where the Secretary of State might lift the requirement for qualifications in this work.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

I have clearly spelled out where these proposals came from and the engagement we will continue to have. I have demonstrated how the regulations will be subject to scrutiny, both in the sector and in this place. I have said that I am willing, alongside my honourable friend Janet Daby, to continue meeting a whole range of people about this, and that is pretty reasonable on my part, even if other noble Lords do not think it is.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her responses and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Like many of them, I am an absolute believer in early intervention, although my priority around early intervention is better outcomes. If we can change a pathway or avoid a tragedy, we will all have made a big difference. I hope that is where the intention is. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 33 withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

These amendments would improve the visibility of, and access to, kinship care. They would greatly help the Government’s stated aim to improve the quality of local kinship offers, but there is more work to be done.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support particularly of Amendments 69B and 71. From my experience—and it is an experience that some others in this Chamber would have—kinship care arrangements are often needed as the result of an emergency situation. It is often sad, leaving the young person involved feeling particularly vulnerable. The fact that the proposed kinship carer or carers already have a relationship with that person for whom the kinship care is being considered could help them at a time when they need it, not least because the carer might be experiencing and sharing exactly the same situation. However, it should be noted that, due to the nature of kinship care, it is unlikely that the proposed kinship carer would have been seeking to take on the role. Therefore, there would not be the same lead-in time that you might have to prepare them as you would with a foster carer.

Dependent on the circumstances, there is also the potential for conflict with an original parent as well as an impact on the wider family of the kinship carer. This situation means that appropriate support might be required at speed for the proposed kinship carer and their wider family for the benefit of the young person. That support probably would not be the same as for fostering arrangements, due to the uniqueness of the situation, and that makes these amendments important.

On Amendments 104 and 146, I am sure that your Lordships will not be surprised to hear what I am about to say. It is worth noting that kinship allowance and kinship leave, while they make sense, would be an additional cost to the local authority. As my noble friend said earlier, there would need to be consideration by the Government as to how they might be funded, but I support the amendments.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 69B, 70, 71 and 72 in this group. It is terrific that kinship care will be defined in legislation for the first time. It is a significant step, and one that we should admit is long overdue. I could never understand why kinship care was always so overlooked when it is very often the best solution to a child’s care. When I say, “best solution”, I mean that very much in the sense of the interests of the child, for one other thing that is overlooked—and underestimated—is the huge sacrifice that family members and friends make when they take on such a responsibility. While many do so willingly, the system does not exactly make it easy for them. That is why Amendment 69B, in the names of my noble friends Lord Effingham and Lady Stedman-Scott, is a sensible one in that it acknowledges the role of the whole family. I also hope that the Government will consider Amendment 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton.

Another significant step in this Bill is the duty for local authorities to publish a kinship local offer. However, there is an error of omission in that there is no reference anywhere to the different forms of kinship care. We know that different frameworks have different levels of financial, health and therapeutic support, depending on whether you are kinship fostering or have taken on responsibility via a special guardianship order, and whether the child you are taking on has or has not been in care previously. The only problem is that, very often, the potential kinship carers—for the reasons explained by my noble friend—do not have a clue about any of this. Why would they?

I will give some examples of what this means in practice, and this is courtesy of the very good charity, Kinship. Fiona’s grandson was taken into foster care at birth, and she was told that, unless she applied for a special guardianship order to look after him, he would stay in the care system. She said she felt pressured and pushed into this, because she did not have a clue what her options were. As she says, “I took social services at their word that this was the best for me and my grandson”. That was six years ago, and she was then 59 years old. She had to give up a well-paid career, and now survives on benefits and relies on food banks, eating only child-sized meals herself to get by. She has also struggled to get her grandson the assessments and support he needs, which would have been much easier had she been a foster carer.

Similarly, Sue, a former social worker, now 60, took care of her three granddaughters and one grandson. She was told by the local authority that she had to sort out all the court work and pay for all the solicitors’ fees to arrange the care of the children and get a special guardianship order. She and her husband were on benefits, but as guardians, they were means-tested and they received £17 per week per child. Sue, now a widow, had to complain to her local councillor, the Children’s Commissioner and the ombudsman before receiving an uplift.

Finally, Rebekah, 63, is raising her two grandchildren on benefits after the death of their mother, but what she did not realise was that she would not get any support from the local authority because the children had not been in care. She is now struggling and in debt. As she says, “Fortunately I’m resilient and resourceful, but it’s been a huge challenge. We’ve been flying by the seat of our pants, with no support or guidance or anything”.

The upcoming pilot on a financial allowance will, I hope, address some of these inequities, but it seems essential that potential carers are given explicit information on any legal support available. I think we can all see from the examples given that it would have probably helped the three women I have just mentioned.

I really hope that the Government will consider Amendment 70, which is a small change but could have a big impact. Can the Minister give us any further details on the pilot, which is an incredibly good thing but obviously comes too late for this Bill?

I hope the Government will also consider Amendment 72 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, which also covers the issue raised in Amendment 71 from my noble friend Lord Effingham. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has said, it would simply put the kinship care offer on a par with other offers, such as for SEN and disability. I am interested in the requirement in both amendments to guarantee the involvement of children and carers in the development of kinship care offers.

Working with the Grenfell community, the victims of child sexual abuse and infected blood over the years, it has become clear that local and national government is just not always very good at meaningful engagement. I once asked a civil servant what engagement they had had with regard to a specific policy, and I was explicitly told that there had purposely been no direct communication because it was incredibly important to keep a distance between those developing the policy and those who would be affected by it.

Things have improved since then but probably not as much as they should have done, and so I genuinely believe that embedding engagement into legislation, where appropriate, is the only way that we will drive the necessary culture change. We should not forget that a really important benefit of that engagement is that it builds empathy into the system. Too often, empathy is an afterthought—such as when certain television dramas might evoke a public outcry—when really it should be there as a given.

So, while explicitly involving children and families in the development of kinship care offers may seem a small matter, I really do believe it would have a far-reaching effect in helping to make the state work better for the people who need it.

--- 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.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, in many ways the test of the Government’s success in reforming public services will be whether we can crack the tough nut of children’s social care. It has been quite clear from the debates on the last three groups that this is a major challenge. I declare my interests as the founding chair of Social Enterprise UK, and I am on the social economy APPG. I am an associate of Social Business International and, for the past 10 years or so, I have been working with leaders of social enterprises that provide public services.

I might have preferred to have made this speech in the earlier debate, at the beginning of the afternoon, but I am afraid I could not make it here in time for its opening. However, this is an appropriate group because we are talking essentially about procurement and finance.

As the noble Lord said earlier, I think it was in the previous debate, the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, led by Josh MacAlister, described how the current system leads to unacceptable, poor outcomes for children and rising costs—private equity was referred to by the noble Baroness. It found that care packages are dictated by the market, not by children’s needs. Excessive profiteering has minimised resources and created public disgust. His central recommendation was for government to launch a reform programme, a radical reset to fix the broken care market, which has failed our most vulnerable children.

While I absolutely welcome the Government’s spending review commitments to fund family help, capital for residential care and fostering and other reforms linked to the MacAlister review, I feel that you cannot throw money at children’s social care and expect things to get better unless we actually also change. I want to see commissioners lever the well-evidenced voluntary sector, social enterprise and other forms of care to have a diverse marketplace in children’s social care.

At Second Reading I mentioned the wonderful Juno community interest company in Liverpool, Social AdVentures in Manchester and the Lighthouse Pedagogy Trust in London. All are boosting the life chances of our most vulnerable young people, and all exist for public service and benefit. They are efficient, entrepreneurial, transparent and accountable. They are sustainable and plough their profits into their social mission, often providing preventive and complementary services.

These organisations win tenders in open procurement processes yet are exceptions in a system that incentivises what you might call “social washing”—let me explain. Commissioners plan and design services to meet local needs and must consider social value when choosing providers, a concept brought into law by the social value Act, which I was very pleased indeed to help get on to the statute book, along with other noble Lords.

Scoring bids for social value means that public bodies consider and try to measure public and community benefits alongside value for money when they procure services we depend on, but in practice the system can be gamed or the process inadvertently rigged. Bidders promise outputs that they will never attain and do not achieve, and are barely held accountable.

Many commissioners know that social enterprises, co-operatives, mutuals, leisure trusts, employee-owned businesses, charities and trading charities deliver high-quality public services that meet community needs, and many have long wanted them to take a bigger role in public services. This chimes with the public’s view too.

The recent Procurement Act gave commissioners new tools and flexibilities and came into force in February this year after Cabinet Office Minister Georgia Gould introduced the national procurement policy and the social value procurement notice, which referenced the role of these kinds of organisations and the idea of codesigning with communities. There is no point in having the best regulation—which I am very proud of—if we do not use it and the opportunities it gives us. Commissioners can collaborate with social enterprise providers, charities and other businesses. Procurement regulations should be an enabler, not a barrier.

What in the Bill will allow this real change to take place? Do we need to strengthen the Bill in some ways to allow these redesigns to happen? In the earlier debate, I was very struck by the question of planning and so on—because of course it is the whole system that needs to be thought of. Might my noble friend the Minister organise a round table where we could address the new role of procurement to bring about the change we need in this particular marketplace before we reach Report?

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton on Amendment 134A. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know I shall be championing local authorities around the cost of children’s homes.

I want to give noble Lords a bit of a reality check, and to do so I am going to reference two examples. The first is about supported living for care leavers aged 21 to 25. They are nearly adults, need very little support and are very nearly independent. A semi-detached house is created that can take up to five young people with very little supervision. The cost for one young person in that provision is actually £500 per week. That is nearly as much as any landlord would get to rent out that property for a month: £2,000 a month. If you have got five young people in there, that is one hell of a profit margin. You can see why people go down that route and why we are having to grapple with the costs.

The second case is about a property that had been sought and used as secure accommodation with 24/7 support. It was another council that placed it in our borough. It was worth it getting the property and having 24/7 support for secure accommodation. Obviously, it had made the decision that either it could not afford to get that accommodation through normal routes or that this was good value. We first knew about it when we read police reports saying this young person, who is in 24/7 secure accommodation with two people, had gone missing. I was jumping up and down saying, “We’ve got a young child gone missing”. But it was not our child—we did not even know this young person was in our borough. That is expensive accommodation.

Earlier on, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that you would know if people were placed in your borough—but you do not. I am sure the Minister will have something to say about that. In addition to the knowledge that this young person is placed in your borough, the cost of 24/7 care and accommodation for one person in your borough is phenomenal. Local authorities are not perfect, but we are grappling with some of these things on a daily basis, which push the costs up, and some of this transparency might deal with it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, for missing her first few seconds. When someone said, “I want a quick word with you”, I should have jumped around them as opposed to trying to politely brush them off.

All these amendments are looking at financial control. It is probably overdue, but it is extremely difficult. It is a case of transparency. We need something in here, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has just pointed out, the Government are actually dealing with it on a last-minute, we-must-do-something basis. Having some control over that is an extremely sensible idea, but they will not get rid of the fact that it will have to be done through emergency contingencies or whatever. It is still going to happen that way. We are trying to extract from the Government the limitations of what they are proposing and to get it more on the record.

On my own amendment—I probably should have slightly reworded it—of all the things accused of costing too much, special educational needs spending is probably right up there, and often it is the private sector. It depends on what you are dealing with, because there is not a right sum of money for that.

I am on a committee looking at the Autism Act at the moment. I just went to see a school that had one full-time member of staff for every two pupils and TAs on top of that, because it is needed. Usually, the private support comes in to support somebody who has struggled in the education system—it may not be autism and it may not be that severe, but they are usually playing catch up and repair, to put it bluntly. So, they are going to have high staffing needs and it is going to vary from person to person. I would hope that this transparency may be a defensive thing from people who are providing a service that is needed.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran on Amendments 6, 13, 17, 250 and 251. I have also added my name to Amendments 11, 15 and 16. I remind your Lordships of my registered interests: I am a councillor in the London Borough of Bexley and was previously leader and a cabinet member for children’s services—hence my interest in this area.

I put on record my thanks to the Minister in the other place, Josh MacAlister, for the round table discussion on this subject last November. We discussed some of the points covered by our amendments today, so I hope he will find them helpful. Likewise, I understand that the Minister here opened up communications with directors of children’s social care across the country last summer during recess, for which I thank her; I know it was welcomed. I apologise if some of the points I am about to make today are similar to those they may have made to her last summer.

First, not everything in the Bill is bad; as I said previously, we all want a system that seeks to keep children safe. However, I do not understand the Government’s reticence on ensuring that the pilots are fully evaluated—and that information shared with others —before full implementation, which they are proposing happens before the end of the year. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, just made the case for evidence-based changes; I hope that I am knocking on an open door.

When we met the Minister from the other place in November, he promised to share the evaluation, but the document circulated—from July 2025—was Implementation and Process Evaluation Report: Early Findings. Surely this is not sufficient to drive full implementation before the end of the year, and I hope to explain why. First, I hear that, in some areas, the case loads are increasing for the family health lead practitioners. I am also told that the number of Section 47s is increasing in some of those areas. There is a suggestion that it could be about enlisting the expertise of the multi-agency child protection team.

If these two points were consistent across the pilots, it would contradict the Minister’s suggestion that the proposal would decrease demand. More importantly, it puts demand on the service that is not currently there. Surely it would be sensible to understand why that is happening—is it happening in all the pilot areas or restricted to some, and what is driving it?—to ensure that, if there is an issue, it can be addressed to avoid it happening more widely? It has to be in everyone’s interest to understand the reason for the increase, which is why we are asking for the full evaluation.

It would be helpful if the DfE were to conduct and publish comparative data analysis from both wave 1 and wave 2 pathfinder authorities, including trends in referral volumes, assessment outcomes, escalation from early help to statutory intervention and Section 47 activity, to inform the rollout and ensure the right resourcing and the safe implementation of the multi-agency child protection teams.

Likewise, it would seem sensible to evaluate pilots from a cost perspective, across agencies, to ensure that funding is available to make sure that children are safe once the scheme is fully implemented and to see where the costs arise. That will avoid cost shunting but might necessitate new burdens funding from the Government.

The next reason is recruitment and retention of appropriate staff. I understand that the pathfinder areas reported significant challenges in recruiting both social workers and qualified practitioners for the multi-agency child protection teams, with particular difficulties for key partners, such as ICBs and the police, due to workforce shortages and funding constraints. Indeed, the early evaluation said:

“Resourcing was a key concern across Wave 1 and Wave 2 areas”,


this also being a key challenge across partner agencies. The partner agencies expressed nervousness about assuming the family help partnership role and the additional strain it would put on their already limited capacity.

However, the evaluation did not publish specific recruitment or vacancy data for the multi-agency child protection teams. Instead, it highlighted barriers, such as partner agency workload, funding uncertainty and delays in recruiting specialist roles. It would be helpful if the DfE published workforce metrics and proposed solutions to recruitment and retention challenges, including a competency, training and development programme for the multi-agency child protection teams and alternate qualified staff similar to that for qualified social workers.

The strain on resourcing from partners could explain some of the apparent lack of engagement seen in the pilots. The Minister in the other place told us that lessons had been learned from the SEND inspection process and that the police, health and schools would all be willing partners, but I understand that is not the finding of the pilot areas so far. He also suggested that there would be unique qualifications for health and police. My understanding of the letter published recently by the Minister is the same as my colleague’s, in that there was a suggestion that it might be open to police staff and specials. I look forward to clarification on that point as well. That would diminish the role, and those people would not necessarily be able to make the decisions or commitments that might be necessary.

Likewise, there is a concern about potential changing landscapes and how that might impact delivery. I refer specifically to local government reform and ICBs. In addition to workforce, how might that impact IT systems? The impact of cross-border cases also needs consideration, especially as the partner agencies involved might not be coterminous with the local authorities.

Finally, there is a concern about the inflexibility of the proposals. The Minister in the other place indicated that the system is overregulated and that the new expectation is of a “self-improving system”, using practice guides rather than the introduction of further statutory guidance, which could mean a way of reducing the financial burden on central government and potentially shifting it to local authorities.

How will the department ensure that the absence of tighter statutory guidance does not lead to variable implementation or a lack of accountability for best practice? What assurances can be given that practice guides will be sufficiently resourced and supported rather than just being aspirational documents? How will the department respond if local authorities are unable to implement best practice due to funding or resource constraints? Is there a risk of different levels of service and safeguarding from area to area for children and families?

The Government have invested a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money in setting up pilot schemes. It would be foolish not to analyse the experiences from those pilots thoroughly to understand and answer some of the issues I have just spoken about and to avoid repetition of errors. That would make best use of the investment; it would ensure that we listened to the professionals responsible for delivery, and, most importantly, keep children safe. I support the amendments.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I think I understand why government Amendment 12 has been tabled, but I am worried that it is imprecise, and I am not sure that it is absolutely necessary. The unique thing a police officer will bring to these teams is powers—power of arrest, power of entry and powers to seize evidence—but if the teams do not exercise those powers, it is not clear why they need the police at all.

More importantly, the person needs experience. The amendment talks about a member of the police staff—that is, somebody who is not a police officer—who has “experience”. I do not understand the imprecision and wonder whether the Government might try to find some way of making it more precise. Experience could mean one week or six years. There is an accreditation process for trained officers—perhaps the police might offer some form of accreditation measure before they put someone in this role.

I would like to see somebody with experience of going into people’s homes, dealing with situations where childcare is needed, sometimes arresting the parents, sometimes moving the child to another location and sometimes involving other agencies to make sure that the child is looked after in the future. The reality is that, on the whole, police staff will not have that experience.

The only argument I can see for the amendment is that you might have a police officer who is retired—so, has previous police experience—and has become a member of the police staff. If that were the case, I am not sure it is necessary. There is now a scheme of fire and rehire—most chief constables seem to be working on it. The basis is that someone retires from their constable post, takes their lump sum, abates their pension and carries on being paid as a constable. So, if the requirement is to have someone in the role who has police experience, I would see that as a reasonable reason for doing this.

My biggest concern—I say this against the police, who of course I love—is that the 43 forces might come to different conclusions about what “experience” means. Probably more worryingly, they might conclude that they want the cheapest option, which would by far be to put police staff into this area and not have to pay police officers. The Minister knows that I have concerns about whether the police should be members of these teams, but given that they are, it is probably best that they are police officers and not people whose experience we have an imprecise definition of, because police officers offer some judgment about the life situations that they deal with—and that other social services deal with—which might amplify their judgment in the cases that these teams will have to consider.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 17, 250 and 251, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, relate to evidence, funding and accountability of these new multi-agency teams. On Amendment 17, I agree that learning from the families first pathfinders is important, but we must balance that with acting now to improve protection for every child who needs it immediately. Pathfinders are, as the name suggests, about finding the way to the new approach that the Government have set out. They are not pilots as such that we would then need to complete before we carried on with progress. We are already seeing commitment across the country from local areas that are driving forward on implementing these new teams. There are existing proven models and decades of learning about what works in protecting children that these new teams are based on, and I would seriously worry about delaying this great progress.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that all the pilots are not exactly the same, so therefore there will be different evidence from the different types of pilots done? Surely the sensible thing is to find out what works best and what does not.