Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Spielman Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We have come on to more understandable consideration of how the teams will work in practice, particularly with respect to local authority responsibility. Multi-agency child protection teams will be effective only if they are truly multi-agency. There is an understandable concern here about the significance of the role of local authorities, but it is probably also worth remembering, as we discussed on Tuesday, that safeguarding partners—local authorities, health and police—have joint and equal responsibilities for safeguarding in legislation. Through the multi-agency child protection teams, we are trying to ensure that day to day, in operational terms, with respect to individual children and cases, there is a practical way for those responsibilities, and the information that those agencies may have, to be brought together in that full picture about the child.

I spoke earlier about the findings from the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel on child protection. To tackle the issues it identified, we need, as I have suggested, multi-agency experts in a room together, sharing information and bringing their different perspectives to decisions that protect children. It is important that we ensure the right people are deployed to those teams so that expert, swift and decisive action is taken to protect children, and we recognise the importance of safeguarding partners reporting on the impact of their arrangements to make sure that is happening. We need to base that, as has been the argument on other parts of the Bill, on the best possible evidence, which is both the professional work that constituted the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and, as others have mentioned, the independent review by my honourable friend Josh MacAlister.

Of course, we also need the evaluation that noble Lords have talked about. It will come in more than one stage. There will be evaluation of the process and some of the practicalities of setting up the process that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referenced, and, later, of the impact of the teams.

Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks local discretion in multi-agency team membership and organisation. Requiring safeguarding partners to nominate a minimum team reflects partners’ collective duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. They will also have, as I outlined in the previous group, flexibility to add other agencies or individuals, reflecting local needs and to tackle local harms. We know from Families First pathfinders that these teams are already making a real difference. In Ofsted’s recent inspection of children’s services, Dorset, one of the pathfinders, received an “outstanding” judgment. The report noted that when children are at risk of significant harm, strategy meetings are well attended by partner agencies and that effective information-sharing and analysis of risk lead to children receiving the right intervention and support. It is right that we celebrate the success of and learning from pathfinders and, as I suggested previously, learn from where things have been more challenging. On the resourcing, as I said on Tuesday, this transformation journey is being supported from our £500 million Families First Partnership Programme funding.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, made a couple of specific points. On whether this is doing away with an independent chair, one of the main purposes of multi-agency child protection teams is to have a fresh pair of eyes coming in at the point of the Section 47 inquiry. The new lead child protection practitioner role will work—in fact, is working in pathfinders—in a very similar way to the current independent chairs. I take her point about the need for a fresh view and independence, but that is built into the design of the teams.

On whether this would mean children having more than one social worker, children and families will stay rooted in family help throughout. Multi-agency child protection teams will lead the child protection functions, working with and wrapping support around children, families and the family help lead practitioner. The multi-agency child protection team brings expertise and a fresh focus on significant harm. The lead child protection practitioner will be an experienced social worker but will not be the case lead. In other words, the important ongoing relationship, which I know children feel strongly about, with a person they can understand, work with and gain a relationship with, will remain in place, but additional expertise will be brought to this from the multi-agency child protection team.

On Amendment 37, which would place in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to report annually on the team’s impact and activities, I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it is essential that we understand how multi-agency teams are leading to better outcomes for children and that that learning be shared across the system. That being said, safeguarding partners already have a statutory responsibility to publish annual reports on their multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. This will include reporting on multi-agency child protection teams once the teams come into force. Statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, already sets out the information that should be included in yearly reports, and that will include evidence of impact. Guidance will be updated to include the reporting requirements for these new multi-agency teams. There will be, at the level at which it really matters, a responsibility to account for and report on the nature and success of the multi-agency safeguarding arrangements.

On that basis, and with those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 53 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield. It is designed to ensure timely implementation of the single unique identifier, otherwise known in the Bill as the consistent identifier.

Timely access to high-quality and personalised education, health and social care services is fundamental for good childhood outcomes and reducing inequalities. Important information on children’s needs and outcomes is, as we know, held by many different services across health, local authorities, police, education and beyond, but so often these services have not communicated with each other and crucial parts of the jigsaw around a child’s life have not been fitted together by professionals interacting with the child. Sometimes that results in tragic cases, as the Minister mentioned earlier.

Clause 4 inserts two new sections into the Children Act 2004 on information sharing. This includes a provision to introduce a consistent identifier for children, which is to be welcomed. Many Peers from around the House, including my noble friend Lady Tyler, argued strongly for the introduction of a single unique identifier for children during the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022, in which I also took part. We know that too many serious safeguarding case reviews—especially the heartbreaking and harrowing ones that hit the headlines—have said that better data sharing between services is urgently needed to properly safeguard children and improve their wider health and well-being outcomes. This very welcome clause is intended to provide a clearer legal basis for sharing information to promote the welfare of children and prevent them falling through the gaps. Through the introduction of this unique consistent identifier, it will be much easier to match records and share information confidently.

Implementation within this Parliament of this crucial measure, as promised in the Government’s manifesto, is paramount. We cannot run the risk of it being lost in a subsequent Parliament if it is no longer considered a priority. That is why many in the sector, particularly children’s charities, are working together to scrutinise the planned timescales and implementation plan.

As things stand, there is a risk that full implementation of this identifier will not take place before the next general election. The NHS and local authorities might be using a common identifier by 2029, but schools, early years settings and the police might not. Partial implementation would fundamentally undermine the benefits of a single identifier. Either all services should be supported to use it soon, or the purpose will be lost and children will continue to be at risk. Hence Amendment 53 would ensure that full implementation of this part of the Bill takes place before the next election, as set out in the Labour manifesto.

I will say a brief word about some of the other amendments. I also have concerns about other possible vulnerable members of the family, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised. I look forward to hearing reassurances on that from the Minister.

On Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, which has not yet been introduced, it sounds to me like a good idea that the data should be consistent, so that those accessing it will understand exactly what it means. I am concerned it might turn into a tick-box exercise, although I hope that would not be the case. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 69 would make provision for a common open data standard for those with responsibilities for individual children. I will start with a couple of wider comments. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, as chief inspector at Ofsted, I reported each year, for many years, on the concerning shift of local authority spend into acute services and away from early help and targeted support. The reasons why that was happening seemed fairly simple: resources were constrained and these were the statutory services, so it was logical for local authorities to prioritise their spend on those.

I was therefore surprised when the Minister cited this concerning shift as a reason for the changes proposed in the care review and in the Bill. There are potentially much simpler solutions, such as rebalancing the obligations or providing funding. Yet this Bill creates a lot of additional structures, duties and complexity, which could unintentionally take more resources and time away from front-line work, which I know everybody would like to prioritise. I would like to get more sense of the thinking as to how the Bill can enable all the players in an extremely complex system, rather than simply direct and control from the ministerial office.

A particular missed opportunity is data and the value of a common open data standard to help facilitate sharing at individual level, but also to make it easier to aggregate and analyse. Every service working with vulnerable children has its own data system. Typically, a number of proprietary systems are available in each sector; each of those is set up and works in different ways. There are no common data standards for the bodies involved. This makes it genuinely hard. There have been obligations to share data between the different parties for very many years, yet every serious case review points out failures in data sharing, almost without exception.

It is right that we have privacy by default, so it is a hard decision each time you decide it is important to share information and override privacy. The process of sharing is itself time-consuming and expensive, because these systems do not work to any common standard. There would be potential improvement in the management of individual cases if we can reach the kind of common open data standard that is being developed and used in other sectors.

In the care review, everybody realised quite how hard it often is to put together a national picture with data about social care. The understandable protection around individual children, and the kinds of disconnect that have already been referred to, mean that information about those who are causing harm, or the children or others who are collateral damage in the same situation, is not necessarily neatly joined up. It is genuinely hard to find out about types of abuse and all its different aspects, and who is implicated. This is a real problem; it should not be down only to journalists armed with FOIs to go hunting for things that we should already know about and be acting on.

As chief inspector, I served until the end of 2023 on the national implementation board for the care review. I was sitting alongside the eminent professor, Sir Anthony Finkelstein, who is a data systems expert and gave me valuable input into the framing of this amendment.

Data was an important strand of the initial care review and the report, and an important part of the initial plan for its implementation, but it seems to have got largely lost. So, I have put forward this amendment to bring this strand to the fore. The Minister should make sure that this opportunity is not lost to enable all the players in this complex system. By making this provision now, she will have the flexibility to set a sensible, reasonable and proportionate timescale for all these proprietary providers to start creating the kinds of alignment that can help us going into the future to do the best for all children.