Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran. We have heard from a number of Members of the House about the changes that this part of the Bill is making. A fundamental rebalancing of responsibilities in social care is being carried through in the pilots. It is putting much more on to the shoulders of less-qualified staff. The reforms are intended to streamline the system and manage rising costs but, as my noble friend has pointed out, there are many concerns from experts such as Professor Eileen Munro and from many practitioners about the implications of inexperienced staff finding themselves doing child protection work, which, paradoxically, could lead to more Section 47 investigations, not fewer, which was one of the aims of the reforms.

Taking one step back, the hypothesis behind the reforms was the idea that the social care system had become weighted too much towards individual children in isolation rather than children in the family context, and that more of the support available should be diverted to families rather than given to individual children. However, little account was taken of the profile of the children most likely to be in the care of a local authority. They include children with severe disabilities and special needs, often children who are most likely unavoidably to live in social care as adults. They are children whose parents simply do not have the capacity to manage at home, even with extensive support. Indeed, the strain of trying to manage a child’s needs has sometimes fractured parental and other family relationships. More family support and more kinship care is often simply not a solution.

Then we have to acknowledge that there are some children who simply do not have a decent parent nor any other decent adult in their family and realistically never will have. It is horrible, but true, that there are children who simply do not have a family member able and willing to give them the care, attention and love that they need. We have somehow to recognise and face this.

A substantial minority of looked-after children are unaccompanied migrant children, typically boys in their late teens. These children are not here because they have a dysfunctional family network that needs support and intervention by our social workers. They need help, but other kinds of help. There are, of course, risks to these children, and there are also risks to others from some of them.

Together, these kinds of children account for a substantial proportion of the social care caseload, yet the reforms that are being pushed through do not acknowledge their particular needs. For all these reasons, considering all these kinds of children, Amendment 17 in particular, which would defer carrying through the full reforms until the full findings from the pilots and pathfinders are published, discussed and understood, and any necessary changes reflected, is important. It would be unsafe to proceed.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, creating new multi-agency child protection teams through Clause 3 is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, suggested, about saving money; it is about bringing together social workers, police, health and education colleagues with experience in child protection to take swift and effective action that protects children from harm at the earliest opportunity. I hope that I will be able to respond to the points raised in this short debate, as we did at length in Committee and have continued to do since then through engagement, which noble Lords have acknowledged, including, in my case, directly with directors of children’s services.

Government Amendments 12 and 14 broaden the range of police staff who can work in these teams to include police officers and other police staff experienced in child protection. The need for this amendment arose as we talked more closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing to make sure that we were providing the scope for the correct representatives from policing to be on these teams. We are confident that this will improve front-line operational capacity through the right people with the right skills working in the team. Regulations will be clear that individuals must have appropriate levels of experience, seniority, qualification and expertise. I will come back a little later in my remarks to how we will ensure that those appropriate levels are delivered.

Noble Lords have heard me speak before in Committee—in fact, at some length—about the Families First Partnership programme, where we are investing £2.4 billion over the next three years to change the way that we help, support and protect children. One element of that—introducing new multi-agency child protection teams—brings a sharp focus to better multi-agency working, information sharing and decision-making. I therefore welcome the opportunity to address amendments relating to these new teams, to clarify what we are learning through the national rollout and how this will inform the future legislative framework on day-to-day operations.

I turn first to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on the important matter of child protection for very young children in legal proceedings. Of course, as the noble Baroness identified, these are children who are widely represented in the system and for whom we need special care. However, Amendment 6 would require specific senior sign-off for the decision to end a child protection plan when proceedings have been initiated or care or supervision orders are issued for children under five. As I have outlined before, these plans should end only through a child protection conference, when multi-agency practitioners are confident that a child is no longer suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, and not automatically when proceedings are initiated.

I know the noble Baroness is concerned that children in these circumstances may fall between teams or services deciding whether staying at home will keep them safe from harm. I want to reassure her, and other noble Lords, that I am confident that reforming the system of family help, with new multi-agency child protection teams wrapped around, is about exactly this: making sure the whole system holds the safety and well-being of children as the number one priority.

I will now speak to Amendments 11, 13, 15 and 16, also tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These amendments focus on the operation and delivery of the new multi-agency child protection teams. Amendment 13 seeks to ensure that the new teams would operate within the existing statutory framework, Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, and that these teams have sufficient access to health safeguarding expertise, specifically in relation to the NHS intercollegiate document, Safeguarding Children and Young People in Care: Competencies for Health Care Staff.

I reassure noble Lords that these teams, as part of the safeguarding partners, will absolutely be required, under the existing duties in Sections 16E, 16G and 16K, to comply with the expectations set out in the working together statutory guidance and local arrangements. We are working closely with health, police and local authority national leaders to ensure that practitioners in the teams have the skills, expertise and knowledge they need, or need access to, to deliver effective child protection interventions.

On the specific point about the police, I want to be clear that the intention of broadening the category, as we have done in the government amendments, would not suggest that a volunteer special constable would be suitable for one of these roles, but we could envisage police staff who would be appropriately qualified. In fact, as I have said, regulations will set out the requirements for the skills and qualifications, including police representatives.

The College of Policing’s professionalising public protection programme is developing resources to make sure that the police workforce has enough of the right professionals, with the right competences, qualifications and experience, to work in multi-agency child protection teams. There are good examples of police forces providing expert staff for child protection work: Thames Valley Police deploys experienced senior police representatives to its local multi-agency safeguarding hubs, including detective sergeant equivalents. They are decision-makers and offer expertise to support their police representatives at all levels. Thames Valley will take this approach to staffing multi-agency child protection teams as well.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification. When I was speaking, she said that special constables would not be represented, and I think she has said that again just now. In the letter she sent to all Peers on 7 January, she said that, to Clause 3, the Government are laying two amendments to broaden which practitioners from the police can be deployed to multi-agency child protection teams so that it includes police, staff and special constables. Can the Minister explain that?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I regret that we included special constables. Given the criteria that will be set out in regulations for the level of expertise, experience and skills necessary to be part of these teams, I could not envisage a situation in which a volunteer special constable would be an appropriate part of these teams. I was about to reiterate that we are setting out in regulations the skills, knowledge and qualifications that all practitioners nominated in multi-agency child protection teams will need, and that these regulations will be subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. In that way, we will be able to be clear about the types of people from those safeguarding partners who would be appropriate to be part of the teams.

Amendment 11 seeks clarity on the support that multi-agency child protection teams will provide to local authorities to keep children safe from harm. I have listened to requests to be more specific about what these teams will do in practice. That is why, last week, the department published a policy statement to give clarity about the scope of regulations for the operation of these teams. I hope noble Lords have had the chance to look at that. The statement makes it clear that the teams will deliver all statutory child protection functions, from strategy meetings to conferencing. The teams will lead investigations and make decisions about what needs to happen to keep children safe from harm and then hold agencies to account for delivering support. I hope the statement reassures noble Lords that we are working closely with multi-agency partners, and will continue to work with noble Lords and others, as we develop the regulations through public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny to make sure that these teams are the very best they can be.

Amendments 15 and 16 seek to allow the social worker and education practitioner in multi-agency child protection teams to operate on behalf of multiple local authorities, where teams are combined across local authority boundaries. As I clarified in Committee, local authority professionals in the teams must remain responsible for children in their area. This ensures that the local authority with statutory responsibility for the child continues to be accountable and that children do not fall between the cracks. Collaboration across areas and between practitioners will happen. In fact, Clause 4 creates a clear duty on all practitioners to share information to safeguard or promote the welfare of the child, regardless of local authority boundaries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I know this is semantics, but the point that I made about pathfinders is important. The pathfinders are trying out different approaches within the criteria and the framework set for them. They are discovering, as we suggested at some length when we talked about examples in Committee, different ways of doing things. They are also ensuring that we are doing this on a basis that will have the right professionals in the right place so that children do not fall between gaps—and in fact will actively close the gaps that exist within the system now—and from which we will continue to learn. I will come to the point about timing in a moment, because that is important.

I was just coming to the point about the round table with pathfinder directors of children’s services and representatives from each of the regions that I held to discuss the opportunities and challenges in implementing these new teams. I reassure noble Lords that I said specifically to my team in setting up the round table that I was interested in hearing not only from people who thought that everything was going well but from those who might be more sceptical as well. I have to say that I heard overwhelmingly from pathfinders that, while changing the approach to child protection has been challenging, the benefits of multi-agency expertise and working are already evidenced in the decisions and outcomes for children. For example, areas shared positive examples of innovative whole-family work enabled by multi-agency collaboration, and noted that more empowering and transparent practice has given partners confidence in the approach.

I want to take a moment to reassure noble Lords that we recognise the scale of the ask here. This is a complex national system reform that requires leadership, co-operation and commitment from agencies, and that requires us—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, is right—to learn from the pathfinders. By the way, I undertake to ensure as far as possible that, as we continue, we are able to provide some of the evidence that the noble Baroness identified.

That is why, through the families first partnership programme, we are working, for example, with three police force areas—the Met, Thames Valley and West Mercia—to identify how we can create multi-agency child protection teams that align with policing footprints. This work includes over 40 local authority areas working together to create effective delivery approaches, and we will bring into that work representatives from health and education as well.

Finally, on delay, it is not the intention—assuming this Bill passes through both Houses—that the multi-agency child protection teams will instantly need to spring into action. It is not even the case, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, that we expect them to be fully in place during this calendar year. I want to reassure noble Lords that the provisions will not come into force before late 2027, following public consultation and further scrutiny of regulations by Parliament. We also have a comprehensive quarterly monitoring process to measure progress, impact and outcomes as the Families First Programme rolls out nationally and are working across sectors to share learning about what works. I just ask noble Lords not to slam the brakes on an important reform for which I think there has been considerable support, and on which work is already under way.

I turn to Amendments 250 and 251, on resourcing, funding and effective delivery of these teams. To be clear, as we were in Committee, safeguarding partners already have a joint and equal duty to work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. The statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children is clear about the expectations on safeguarding partners in making these local arrangements. Guidance will be updated in line with the new regulations to clarify what this means for delivering multi-agency child protection teams. Therefore, resource and funding are already agreed locally, and this will be the same for multi-agency child protection teams.

Once again, we are learning from the pathfinders. For instance, some areas are funding new roles; others are using existing or seconded resources, and some are using agreements between agencies to pool resources for multi-agency child protection teams. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seemed to suggest that it was wrong for different approaches to be taken in different areas. That is precisely the type of flexibility and local recognition of responsibilities in the way teams have been set up that is important.

The Children Act 2004 means that safeguarding partners can already work with relevant agencies, such as probation and youth offending teams, to support their arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Clause 3 will supplement these local arrangements and allow safeguarding partners to choose from a sub-list set out in regulations, which relevant agencies will work most closely with to support the multi-agency child protection team functions, agreeing this locally through co-operation memorandums. We say more on this in the published policy statement.

In Committee, I outlined the £523 million of funding made available in 2025-26 for national rollout of our children’s social care reform. Since then, we have confirmed a further £2.4 billion over the next three years. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this is a significant and important investment that shows our commitment to reforming the system, to reforming it right and to improving protection for children. I hope, therefore, with the reassurance and clarification that I provided, that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I wonder if the noble Baroness could clarify two things. I apologise if I missed the first, but she went through a series of expectations for qualifications for staff in the multi-agency child protection teams and I did not hear her confirm that those would align with the intercollegiate document, so I would be grateful if she could confirm that in relation to health staff. Also, I wrote down that she said “these teams”— I was not sure whether that was the multi-agency child protection teams, the early help teams or both—will not be implemented until the end of 2027, which feels later than was previously projected. I wonder if she could clarify that.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the point about the NHS document on intercollegiate guidance, the point I was making was that we believe the provisions are already set out in the Working Together requirements. We will be able, of course, to set them out more fully in regulations; I am pretty confident about that. If I have gone beyond where I should have, I will make that clear.

When I referred to teams, I was in some ways shortening my speaking note. I think every time I did so, I was referring to multi-agency child protection teams. The point I was making was that many of those teams will already be set up and operating as part of the pathfinder process. But in recognition of the scale of the challenge, we are clear that we will take time to get the regulations right and continue the learning from the pathfinders, and to do that in a way that ensures we can all be confident that they will be successful. That is the reason for the timescale I set out.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much for that clarification, as I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I also acknowledge the Government’s financial commitment to this programme.

In relation to my Amendment 6, the Minister said that a child protection plan should end only when there is a multi-agency child protection case conference. One could argue that under the Government’s proposed system, where the same social worker will work with a family but also chair that conference, there is the need for fresh eyes to look at those cases of very young children who are at risk of not having adequate protection and are not nearly so visible to society as those over the age of five, because obviously they are not in school. I am not convinced by the arguments the Minister made.

I am amazed that the Minister regrets she put special constables in the letter. I can imagine she is feeling a bit irritated about that, but I think a lot of people who will have received the letter are not in the Chamber, so I hope she will write to clarify that special constables will not be eligible, because that looked like a cost-cutting measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, alluded to.

In relation to cross-border work, I agree that one should not in any way blur accountability, and Amendments 15 and 16 aimed to introduce some more flexibility. But as the Minister knows, families move around a lot, particularly in London, so having rigid boundaries will be unworkable and more flexibility will need to emerge in future.

Turning to Amendment 17, whether they are pathfinders or pilots is semantics. I hear and absolutely believe what the Minister says about the Government seeing increasing commitments from some local authorities, but she is also aware that some very senior, experienced and committed people who want to see the best for children also have specific concerns. This was before my time—I am not for a second suggesting I would have got it right—but those who were involved in the special educational needs reforms and who introduced the Children and Families Act did so in the same spirit: to address an urgent problem that needed an urgent solution. However, without proper piloting that has ended up in a place that nobody intended. The spirit of my Amendment 17, together with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is to avoid that happening again.

As I say, I am not convinced by the Minister’s explanation in relation to Amendment 6. We are talking about 65% of child deaths and serious harm occurring to that age group, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his focus on bringing forward these amendments. They are obviously well intentioned, but His Majesty’s loyal Opposition harbour certain reservations. We of course recognise that safe- guarding arrangements should, wherever possible, be consistent across different childcare providers and settings. Many families both depend on and place a huge amount of trust in early years providers and nurseries. Therefore, approaches to safeguarding should be well co-ordinated and the relevant staff involved should be trained to a level where they feel fully confident and able to engage with safeguarding partnerships.

Indeed, only last month, Ofsted warned that early opportunities to identify children with special educational needs and disabilities are being missed. This can result in a lack of understanding of individual children’s situations, meaning that schools do not always take a flexible approach to their behaviour policies or make reasonable adjustments. There is of course a clear need for early years training to adapt to this emerging reality.

However, as was so eloquently put in Committee by my noble friend Lady Spielman, former Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills, there are key concerns about the capacity of providers to implement the proposed changes: namely, the majority of schools that on inspection fall down on safeguarding are small schools, primaries and special schools that struggle to cope with the complexity.

Given this, we are concerned about whether the amendments are feasible. While we believe in a co-ordinated, multi-agency approach, the inclusion of early years groups and nurseries to these partnerships may risk adding further layers of complexity that would not necessarily be of help. Nor would we wish the lines of responsibility for safeguarding to be blurred between ever more partners, to a point where it is no longer a functioning or focused local safeguarding partnership. No one would want the unintended result to be that safeguarding does not improve but administrative capacity declines.

These concerns remain about the implementation and impact in practice of the noble Lord’s amendments. Before the 2024 election, the Department for Education committed to setting out a timetable for a consultation covering education’s role in safeguarding. The Education Committee in the other place has recently launched a call for evidence as part of its ongoing inquiry to examine how safeguarding can be strengthened in nurseries, for childminders and in other early years settings under the early years foundation stage. There is yet to be concrete evidence to support the proposals here, and we feel that it would be potentially pre-emptive to introduce such amendments now.

These are obviously important issues which need to be consulted on further. We look forward to acting on the findings, as and when they are brought to your Lordships’ House. We support the aims of the amendments to support a holistic and thorough approach to safeguarding arrangements, but that approach must be evidence-based to ensure that providers have sufficient capacity and resources for this to work in practice.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On group 3, particularly Amendments 7 and 8 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, let me be clear that I fully recognise the vital importance of ensuring that every education setting and childcare provider is fully embedded in local safeguarding arrangements. We are acutely aware of the appalling incidences of abuse that have occurred within certain nursery chains, and no one in this Chamber underestimates the gravity of those failures.

While I cannot comment on the specifics of ongoing reviews, I know that our thoughts will remain firmly with the children and families affected. I extend my thanks to the commitment of the honourable Members Munira Wilson, Tom Morrison and Tulip Siddiq, who have been powerful champions for the families and children affected. Their contribution underscores the importance of the reforms the Bill takes forward. It is precisely because we take this so seriously that we must avoid the temptation to duplicate duties unnecessarily, or to legislate in ways that create complexity rather than strengthen safeguarding practice.

I emphasise that the system already places clear multi-agency safeguarding duties on all registered early years settings through existing regulations. Clause 2 reinforces and clarifies these obligations by placing a duty on safeguarding partners to include education and childcare settings in their arrangements, and ensures that providers continue to take part in safeguarding activities. In short, the settings in scope of Amendments 7 and 8 are already captured by the legal framework and measures in this clause. Adding an extra layer of statutory designation risks creating legislative duplication with no clear operational benefit.

In addition, robust accountability is already in place, including through independent inspection and statutory guidance under the Children Act 2004. This ensures that relevant agencies participate fully in safeguarding arrangements and are supported to do so. Additional legislative compliance conditions, such as linking participation to funding or registration, are unnecessary. The existing framework, combined with the enhancements delivered through Clause 2, gives safeguarding partners the tools they need to secure meaningful and consistent co-operation across the sector.

I turn to Amendments 9 and 10, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. As he set out, the overarching aim of these amendments is important, and it is already recognised by the Government. Amendment 9 seeks to make specific provision for Ofsted inspection and reporting on nursery chains. Amendment 10 requires the statutory framework to be revised so that nursery groups must ensure that their safeguarding leads and staff are trained in, and engaged with, local safeguarding arrangements across all their settings. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that we are committed to reviewing nursery chain regulation, to improve market oversight and the quality and safety of early years education and childcare.

This commitment was first made in the Government’s recent Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life strategy. It was reconfirmed in the Statement that the Secretary of State made in the House of Commons in response to Operation Lanark, and I am happy to reconfirm it today in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey.

On Amendment 9, I appreciate the concern of noble Lords regarding Ofsted inspection of early years groups and chains so that safeguarding problems that span multiple settings can be identified and addressed at group level. Although Ofsted can already take action against settings that are linked by the same registered person, we are in complete agreement that we need further consideration of bespoke powers for the regulation of nursery chains to better safeguard the youngest and most vulnerable children. To that end, we have committed to working with Ofsted to review the regulation of early years chains. We expect this will very likely lead to recommendations relating to inspecting and reporting on chains. However, careful consideration is needed to ensure that we get this right before we make legislative change.

On Amendment 10, again, I appreciate the concern of noble Lords regarding safeguarding training in early years settings. In September 2025, we introduced new safeguarding training requirements within the Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework. All early years staff must be trained in line with these, and designated safeguarding leads must know their local child protection procedures and how to liaise with local statutory children’s services agencies and local safeguarding partners. Any new requirements which would need to be considered at a chain level will form part of the previously mentioned nursery chain regulation review; they will be in scope of that review.

Given that, I hope that I have addressed the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. He is right—particularly in the light of some of the devastating events that he referenced—to have brought these issues to the notice of this House. I hope that, given my reassurances, he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her fulsome response. Like her, I have concerns—it is almost the opposite position to that of my noble friend Lord Addington—about large nursery chains, nursery businesses and large groups of nurseries run by a business where often decisions are made away from that individual nursery.

I should say that I was a head teacher and had a nursery of 100 places. If there was any issue, I was always on hand to deal with it and support my staff. I am wondering whether, if you have a nursery business of several dozen nurseries, you can have that immediate impact of change that might be required.

I add that after hearing about the parents in these two tragic cases, you feel helpless, and you want to do something. I pay tribute to them for, while grieving for their child, coming forward with ideas to improve the safeguarding arrangements. It is amazing that they can think of other children, having faced the loss of their own child.

I am very grateful to the Minister. She recognises the problem of those large chains and that we should work with, or talk to, Ofsted about how we can bring forward some recommendations in the future. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

12: Clause 3, page 4, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—
“(d) a constable or relevant police employee who— (i) is nominated by the chief officer of police for a police area any part of which falls within the area of the local authority, and(ii) has experience in child protection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and my other amendment to clause 3, at page 4, line 20, would broaden the range of persons with policing functions who may be nominated to a multi-agency child protection team, and requires a person nominated by a chief officer of police to have experience in child protection.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

14: Clause 3, page 4, line 20, at end insert—
““relevant police employee” means—(a) a person (other than a constable) who is—(i) employed, or engaged to provide services, for the purposes of a body of constables, and(ii) under the direction and control of a person who has the direction and control of a body of constables, or(b) a person who is—(i) employed by the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority, and(ii) under the direction and control of a chief officer of police;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would define “relevant police employee” for the purposes of section 16EA of the Children Act 2004, inserted by clause 3, and as amended by my other amendment to clause 3, at page 4 line 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I will speak to the amendments in reverse order. We very much support having a single unique identifier. Unless the pilot of using the NHS number causes some unforeseen problems—we hope that that would not happen—we believe that it makes absolute sense to use the NHS number to link health and education. It is also important for children’s safeguarding: we need to know where they are, what is happening to them and when they change schools. It rightly brings added responsibility to schools, headteachers and governors.

We also believe that Amendment 19 is important. When there is a multi-agency approach, it is important that information and understanding are shared between different teams when cases are passed between them. This amendment rightly highlights the problem and comes up with a way forward.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We are cooking with gas today. We are all fresh—at this point.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, there has been strong interest in provisions to improve information sharing for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and others that information sharing is a necessary but not sufficient determinant of whether we have an effective practice. As others have identified, it is enormously important and has too often been lacking in cases where children have come to harm. It must be a basis for action.

The call for improved information sharing includes the long-requested introduction of a consistent identifier for children which mirrors provision for adults introduced as far back as 2015. As we have heard, there is broad support for these measures, with concerns focused on ensuring that they can be implemented successfully, appropriately and as soon as possible. The government amendments in this group aim to provide further clarity.

Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require safeguarding partners to establish practical multi-agency arrangements for initial information sharing before Section 47 thresholds can be determined. As the amendment suggests, clear information sharing processes are crucial. However, as I have previously suggested, that needs to be followed by action, which is why safeguarding partners must already publish their multi agency arrangements, including how they identify and respond to children’s needs. Therefore, the requirements set out in the amendment would duplicate existing requirements. Local leaders must retain flexibility to establish effective systems for their context, including how information flows between services.

I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that it is neither our intention nor our belief that the legislation as currently drafted implies a one-way flow only—it does not. It determines precisely the sort of flows of information, backwards and forwards, that the noble Baroness rightly identified as fundamental to this being a success.

In addition to the existing requirements to publish multi-agency arrangements, prior to commencement we will consult on and publish statutory guidance, including a template data-sharing agreement, to help partners agree information flows and ensure timely and consistent information sharing within and across agencies. I hope that that provides the assurance that the noble Baroness was looking for.

I support the sentiment behind Amendment 23, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran: to broaden the consistent identifier regulation-making powers to ensure scrutiny of how the consistent identifier operates and which number is used. Government Amendment 21, introducing an information standard, and government Amendment 26, introducing a code of practice, also support the effective operation of the consistent identifier but are more focused.

As I already set out in Committee, we are piloting the NHS number only. We want to be assured of the benefits and information governance before naming a consistent identifier in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

20: Clause 4, page 7, leave out lines 16 and 17
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 4, page 7, lines 11 to 14.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

24: Clause 4, page 8, leave out lines 10 to 13
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made a compelling case for the value of child contact centres in and of themselves and for the importance of having clear minimum standards, and achieving that through additional training and accreditation. I felt that the Minister gave a good answer in Committee on this specific case, when she highlighted the role of the National Association of Child Contact Centres. I do not in any way disagree with the aims of the amendment, but, having worked in a charity that did a lot of training and accreditation, my experience is that we can place too much weight on it and what it can achieve.

The point the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made about unregistered contact centres is extremely important. Anything the Minister can say that would ensure that courts and magistrates have absolute clarity about whether a centre is or is not registered would be critical. If we are going to go down this route, having simple links for contact centres with their local specialist services, whether they be specialist domestic abuse services, drug and alcohol services, or whatever the issue is, might be the simplest and most effective way of making sure that these centres are as safe as they can possibly be.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It would require all providers of child contact centre services to be accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres to national standards set by the Secretary of State. In responding to this, I start by recognising, as all noble Lords have, the vital role played by the National Association of Child Contact Centres and the many dedicated child contact centres across England and Wales. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made clear, their work is fundamental to the family justice system, providing supervised or supported contact in a safe, neutral environment, allowing children to maintain a meaningful relationship with a non-resident parent. The commitment of staff and volunteers to safeguarding and creating a child-focused space is invaluable. I express my sincere appreciation for the work that they and the NACCC undertake.

I understand the motivation behind this amendment, but the Government do not believe that it is necessary and are already responding to some of the points made in this debate and in the debate in Committee. The NACCC already accredits the majority of centres in England and Wales, with research showing that unaccredited centres are uncommon. In preparing for this, I asked the obvious question: how many unaccredited child contact centres are there? Interestingly, the Cordis Bright research that the noble Baroness referred to found that there was only a small number of unaccredited contact centres, but the report did not provide a figure or estimate for the number of unaccredited contact centres. When those working in accredited child contact centres who took part in the research were asked about unaccredited contact centres, they indicated that such centres were few in number. This may well suggest that we have made progress, due to the efforts of the NACCC, in ensuring that many more child contact centres are accredited by it.

Following the meeting that noble Lords had with my noble friend Lady Levitt, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords, a range of work has been commissioned and is being taken forward by officials at the Ministry of Justice. One of those pieces of work is for officials to work with the NACCC to further understand how we can identify the number of unaccredited contact centres in England and Wales.

Also following from that meeting, other streams of work are taking place that will, I hope, provide reassurance to noble Lords on some of the specific issues that they have raised. These include, first, exploring the possibility of introducing a protocol or similar mechanism for mediators to ensure that they refer families only to accredited centres. Secondly, several noble Lords raised an important point about ensuring that those in child contact centres are suitably trained. Another piece of work is carrying out a further review of the mandatory training already in place for child contact centre staff and volunteers in order to ensure that it is as good as it can be. As I have already said, we are developing a more robust understanding of where any unaccredited centres are and of any concerns that may exist in relation to them.

While I completely understand that the amendment is well intentioned, I do not believe that mandatory accreditation is the best way to approach the issues that have been raised. The NACCC already provides effective leadership and oversight to the majority of centres. Further to this, the work the Ministry of Justice is now taking forward will provide additional reassurance in this space. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment, given the good work that is already being undertaken in relation to the points that noble Lords have raised.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, what action can be taken against a centre that appears to be quite dubious and unaccredited? While the amendment is not being accepted, there is recognition that there may be activities going on which are effectively underground. The children who may be having contact with a family member—usually a parent—in such a situation might be exposed to quite serious risk.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not believe that there is evidence to suggest that that is the case. All the research suggests that there is a very small number of unaccredited centres. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby made an important point about how it is possible to identify centres that are accredited. The vast majority of them are. Given that it is clear that the NACCC accreditation scheme covers the vast majority, I would have thought that that is the appropriate route. As I have said, we are going to ensure that there is a protocol for mediators that means they use only accredited routes. I would have thought that that would also have been the case for courts.

An unaccredited child contact centre might be used in limited circumstances for specific, short-term purposes because of the individual circumstances of the case—for example, in order to limit the travel that a child had to do in particular circumstances. Local authorities are under a legal duty to ensure that such provision meets all statutory safeguarding requirements and promotes the child’s welfare, so there is another level of assurance in the system. I will refer to my noble friend Lady Levitt the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby about the ability of courts to always be able to determine the nature of the contact centres where they are referring children. He raised a reasonable point, and I am sure all of us would want to ensure that it is covered.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Before my noble friend sits down, I just want to be clear about one aspect. She talked about mediators recommending only contact centres that are registered. Of course, very often in court, particularly in private cases, there are no mediators; there are people self-representing, very often men. They are the ones who propose contact centres, which may or may not be registered. The point I was making was that it is not that straightforward for a court to find out the nature of the contact centre that is being recommended.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, and this was the point I was accepting when I said I would ensure that our noble friend Lady Levitt is informed about it from this debate. As I have said, I am sure we will want to give more thought to how the labelling, almost, of the accreditation that does exist for the vast majority of contact centres can perhaps be made more obvious to courts in the sorts of circumstances that my noble friend identified.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions to the debate on this amendment. It seems to me that the debate has exposed two possible problems. First, there is no sanction for the creation or use of an unregistered contact centre. Secondly, there is a gap in the knowledge of what is available, whether registered or unregistered. The Cordis Bright report was aware of that gap, and I suggest it is a worrying gap. It may well be, as Cordis Bright reported, that there is only limited evidence as to the prevalence of non-accredited centres, but it is still a small number, which could do quite a lot of damage.

That said, I think it is important to understand that the courts, when ordering contact, will always apply the protocols that are laid down by the president of the Family Division. I am also reassured by the Minister’s indication that mediators and indeed, possibly, others who have responsibility for guiding people towards contact centres, will be required to use only accredited centres.

We are not working from a blank page; there is already an excellent network of centres. On that basis, and because of the work that the Minister has been good enough to indicate is being undertaken, particularly by the Ministry of Justice, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will respond briefly, given the hour. Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerns implementing a government child neglect strategy, and I absolutely understand his aim in advocating for this. It is right to raise issues concerning the neglect of children, but in my own experience, neglect almost always coexists with other forms of abuse or harm. I fear that focusing on one element of a child’s experience might lead professionals to overlook others that are frequently interlinked. There are real risks with that approach, so we on these Benches do not support the amendment.

I genuinely look forward to the Minister’s reply to Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We had powerful speeches in favour of what has happened in Wales, and, I would argue, equally important speeches from my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Meyer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. These reminded the House of the current law and raised important balancing points about some of the impacts of the Welsh legislation. I am sympathetic to the push by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for transparency and understanding the data as the Government navigate this very difficult area.

On a smacking ban, the only point that has not been raised this evening, and which worries me—I am sure that nobody would disagree with this—is that children also suffer terribly from psychological violence, emotional abuse or coercion from their parents. The point was made early in the debate about the importance of parenting programmes and positive support for parents. I hope that the Minister can talk about the Best Start in Life hubs, and say that the Government are finding routes, which we all want to see, to support parents without having to criminalise behaviour.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a good debate in this group on new clauses regarding a national child neglect strategy and the removal of the reasonable punishment review in Wales. I will also speak to three government amendments that will ensure that providers of regulated children’s social care settings or youth detention accommodation are held accountable for their role in the ill-treatment or wilful neglect of under-18s in their care. As we have heard in the debate, this group of amendments raises important issues around child safety and well-being—areas to which the Government are wholly committed.

Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a national child neglect strategy. Protecting children from all forms of abuse and neglect is a key priority for this Government. Neglect accounts for 50% of all child protection plans in England, and we know that it is often cumulative. Harm builds up over time if not addressed early. This is why, along with measures in this Bill and backed by over £2.4 billion of investment, our focus is on strengthening multi-agency family help and child protection through national reforms, and statutory guidance that explicitly references neglect as a safeguarding and child protection concern throughout. These practical steps will support practitioners to identify and respond effectively to children and families who need support, including where neglect is present.

We also know that poverty can increase the risk of neglect, although I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that being poor does not imply that you will neglect your children. It does, of course, make your life more difficult. That is why the recently published child poverty strategy prioritises early intervention and integrated support for families, addressing stressors such as parental mental health difficulties, parental substance misuse and domestic abuse—factors that often co-occur with neglect.

I acknowledge the strong case made on this topic by the Liberal Democrats, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, when we met to talk about it. The Government have heard a range of representations on this issue, and I can commit to the House that we will continue to work with key stakeholders—including the Government’s What Works Network, Foundations, and the national child safeguarding practice review panel—on specific matters relating to child neglect, helping to shape our understanding of this complex issue.