Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Bishop of Lincoln Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Lincoln]

146B: Clause 21, page 39, line 21, at end insert—
(e) to have due regard to the need to remove or minimise the disadvantages suffered by looked-after children and relevant young persons.”Member's explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to expand and strengthen Clause 21 by replacing the light-touch duty to be “alert to” their needs with a stronger requirement for public bodies to have “due regard” to eliminating disadvantage and to take reasonable steps to mitigate any harmful effects of their policies. The amendment intends to create a legally enforceable, lifelong safeguard for anyone who has ever been in care.

[The Lord Bishop of Lincoln]

My Lords, I move the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. In relation to Amendment 146B, 120 councils around the country have already committed themselves voluntarily to embrace the “due regard” implementation, but this amendment intends to create a legally enforceable, legislative and lifelong safeguard across government for anyone who has ever been in care.

The tragic case of Nonita Grabovskyte starkly demonstrates the urgent necessity for this amendment. Nonita’s death highlighted severe systemic failures by the corporate parent and associated agencies, as identified by the recent inquest. These failures directly contributed to her preventable death, underscoring how critical it is that public bodies proactively mitigate the disadvantages faced by care leavers. Had all parties exercised due regard to eliminate these disadvantages, Nonita’s death might have been prevented.

Ground-breaking research from University College London reveals that care leavers are 70% more likely to die prematurely than their peers, living on average 20 years fewer. Adults who spent time in care between 1971 to 2001 were significantly more vulnerable to premature mortality, including unnatural deaths such as suicides or accidents.

Terry Galloway, who campaigns passionately for these changes, personally embodies these stark statistics. Terry and his siblings, Hazel and James, were all care experienced. Tragically, Hazel and James died prematurely, embodying the cruel reality highlighted by UCL’s research. Shortly before Hazel was murdered by domestic violence, she and Terry made a solemn promise to change the care system to prevent others from enduring their experiences. Terry’s journey through care was marked by abuse, repeated separations from his siblings and frequent moves involving over 100 different placements.

Children who have experienced abuse and neglect prior to, or during, their time in care may remain at heightened risk of similar abuse as they enter adulthood and beyond. The clause in the Bill that requires public bodies merely to be “alert” to these issues is insufficient. Having due regard requires active, preventative measures through impact assessments, to genuinely protect vulnerable young adults from repeated victimisation.

The urgency is not only in terms of the policy enaction of the corporate parent system and the Government but around the cultural context. This amendment is necessary not only for legal clarity, but to counter negative perceptions of care-experienced young people, exemplified by a recent Reform councillor’s statement characterising children in care as

“not just naughty children, they can be downright evil”.

Such harmful rhetoric underscores why robust legal protections and proactive obligations are essential for systemic cultural change and safeguarding the well-being and futures of care-experienced individuals.

Amendment 147A strengthens the existing duty, moving beyond simply being aware of the needs of children in care and requiring much more active engagement. If a school policy affects children in care, the school must consider how that policy might disadvantage them and take steps to mitigate any negative impacts, such as providing additional support or adjusting the policy. This would strengthen the corporate parenting responsibilities in a way that will actually make a difference to people’s lives.

--- Later in debate ---

Therefore, for the reasons that I have outlined, I commend the amendments in my name and kindly ask noble Lords not to press theirs.

[The Lord Bishop of Lincoln]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I want to pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, was saying about needs. It is really alarming that nearly a million young people aged between 16 and 25 are not in education, employment or training. I am a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on social mobility. While not wishing to pre-empt what our chair will say in her report, I am sure that this will be a strong recommendation from the committee. We are very keen to know, especially if I do not press the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, what the Government’s intention is within the operation of this Bill to address this urgent and damaging situation for such a significant number of young people, some of whom are not able even to leave their bedroom and have insufficient support. What is the Government’s intention in this regard? I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 146B withdrawn.