Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash (Con)]

I have a great deal of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I do not think all of us are going to make a nine or 10-minute speech, but I will wrap up now and hope that keeps him happy.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I was unable to speak at Second Reading and I will resist the temptation to make a Second Reading speech now. Rather, I wish to concentrate on Amendment 1.

Any consideration of a proposed purpose clause should take us all back to the Renton report, in which it was said that sometimes such clauses can be useful and sometimes they can be unnecessary, and that they should be used selectively and with caution. On one view, the scope and effects of this Bill are clear enough and there does not appear to me, at least, to be any complexity for which a purpose clause would help interpretation.

However, there is perhaps some value in this amendment, which uses the word “improve” three times, emphasising the intention of the Bill—and the Bill as amended in due course—to achieve improvement in the areas specifically mentioned, and not to maintain or simply tweak the status quo. For that limited reason, I would support Amendment 1.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, in responding I hope the Minister will be able to point out that the purpose of the Bill has a golden spine running through it, and that is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The different clauses should be able to read across to the convention, and wherever the child is and whatever group they are in—and we have lots of groups in this Bill—fate can be extremely cruel, and we know that every day around 127 children lose a parent.

Bereavement is a major issue and hits different groups in different places at different times and affects their outcomes. I hope that we will have a statement from the Minister in responding to this which is about the principle of what we are really trying to do for children across the whole nation, everywhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I was a family judge for about 35 years, and I tried mostly care cases. I very much support this amendment and will make three points. First, I entirely agree with the previous speakers: hold the meeting as soon as possible, because it is unlikely that the decision to make a make an application for a care order or an interim care order comes at a very early stage. One hopes that the social workers would have been working with the family before this becomes inevitable. Consequently, the sooner the discussions can be had—and the other members of the family identified where possible—the better it will be, and it may not be necessary to have the care application before the magistrates’ court in any case.

Secondly, not only is it important to have the meeting early but there must be a degree of ability for the local authority to deal with members of the family—because, not in every case but in some cases, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has said, there will be very unhappy divorce proceedings pending, whereby the parties will use the children as the arena for their attacks on each other. That is the typical sort of unhappy divorce case—fortunately not frequent, but one that occurs in care proceedings. Consequently, you may find that one or both of the parents should not at some stage be at the meeting. It is crucial that local authorities are warned, if they do not know already, and given at least, under statutory guidance, some help on how to deal with that issue—not in this Bill, of course, but in statutory guidance.

The third absolutely crucial point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, made is not to let a particular parent or someone with parental responsibility have the opportunity to use the meeting to delay the proceedings that are necessary. Again, it is absolutely crucial that, if a member of the family is trying to delay the proceedings, the local authority can go ahead without having the meeting. That is the one point that worries me about saying that they must have the meeting, although I think that probably, under the later part of Clause 1, it is possible not to have it. Again, in the statutory guidance it is crucial that local authorities are warned that the family meeting must not take place if, in fact, the delays are there for that particular reason.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, have laboured long in the family courts. I think that we are all basically aiming in the same direction, but the detail is important. Family group conferences or meetings, as described in this Bill and in the amendments, are a valuable process, often best used as the pre-proceeding stage rather than after a formal application has been issued. I cannot help wondering whether there is not some lack of clarity in the drafting, at least of the amendment. The Bill as I read it is clear enough; it says that the local authority must include the offer of such a meeting in a letter before proceedings. That is entirely desirable in my view, whereas the amendment says:

“When a local authority starts formal child protection proceedings”,


which to my mind reads as if it means “Once it has actually issued the formal application”. In some cases, that may be too late. I think that there is a mistake, possibly unintended, in the drafting of the amendment.

The general thrust of what the noble Baroness said—that the meetings should be initiated as soon as possible—is clearly right. These meetings are valuable for three main reasons. First, they enable family members to be informed of what has happened and why the local authority has intervened, as well as to learn what is planned or may be planned for the child or children concerned. Quite often one finds in practice that the parents have not told the wider family what is happening, sometimes out of shame or pride, so that the first the wider family learns of the proceedings comes from the social worker—and that can come as a surprise or, indeed, a shock. Even if the family knows what is happening, a formal meeting enables it to get an accurate first-hand account that is not filtered by the parents.

Secondly, conferences enable the social worker and guardian, if one has by then been appointed, to form an initial assessment of the strengths, weaknesses and attitudes of the wider family and the possible realistic options for the support of the parents and any alternative arrangements for the children, either in the short term or in the long term. In the long term, if in reality adoption is going to be the outcome, the court will ultimately have to consider the relatives’ ability to provide a secure environment under the statute that governs adoption decisions.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this was a very reasonable sounding amendment, then the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, took a sledgehammer to it. Will the Minister give us a little guidance on the Government’s thinking on this? When people with experience on both sides are talking it is best that we hear the whole thing, but I will be very interested in what the Government say because if the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—probably our biggest expert in the Chamber—says there is something wrong, I would be very inclined to listen to her. But, as I said, it was a reasonable sounding discussion that brought it forward.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I have already expressed my views on Amendment 4, but I think I need to emphasise, particularly as my noble and learned friend has just made the same point, that I think it is unrealistic and unnecessary for private law cases. Many disputes resolved in private law cases are minor and concern perfectly manageable—I will not say “trivial”—problems over contact arrangements and so forth. That cannot justify a family group meeting.

In any event, as my noble and learned friend has said, the existing mechanisms are already well tuned to dealing with disputes. Cafcass gets involved at an early stage; there is what is called a safeguarding report; and if the dispute does not go away, Cafcass produces a Section 7 report. Along the way, there is a dispute resolution hearing in front of the judge, and noble Lords can take it from me that the judge applies a fair amount of pressure to resolve the matter and to explore the realities of settling the case, which quite often involves exploring what can be done with the wider family. Of course, the wider family may have the time and the resources that the parents lack and help sort it out, but it does not really need a meeting; it just needs someone getting the parties in a room in the court with the Cafcass officer to sort out the practical realities of where things are going. I wish to emphasise that I do not think that Amendment 4 will assist.

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

I recognise that the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is to test the extent to which family group decision-making can be used in other circumstances. I think it is a tribute to the significance and efficacy of family group decision-making that people are so keen to test where else it can be used in the process. I will respond to the two examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has identified and then address Amendment 17.

As we have heard, Amendment 4 would extend family group decision-making and, I have to say, was ably opposed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I appreciate the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in seeking to ensure that as many families as possible are offered the opportunity of family group decision-making, including those outside of public law proceedings. The Government recognise the importance of supporting families in private law proceedings. We want to help families resolve their issues quickly and without coming to court. That is why there are already requirements and processes—one of which the noble and learned Baroness talked about—that support families at this point. There is already a requirement, for example, that anyone wishing to make a private family law application must attend a mediation information and assessment meeting to discuss options to resolve their issue outside court, through mediation or other means. The Government also fund the family mediation voucher scheme, providing families £500 towards the cost of mediation. This scheme has helped nearly 40,000 separating parents. The noble and learned Baroness talked about other alternatives as well.

On the Section 7 welfare report, the explanation was ably given by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but my understanding is that, as a welfare report, it can be requested by the court in any family proceedings where there are concerns about the welfare of a child. It is mostly done in private court proceedings, by the local authority if it is involved or by Cafcass if not. I am not convinced, for many of the reasons we have talked about, that this would be an appropriate point to mandate a family group decision-making meeting. I hope the noble Baroness is reassured about the other routes for supporting families in these cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to my Amendments, 21, 22 and 23. First, because these three amendments are explicitly focused on family hubs, I declare my interest as a guarantor of FHN Holding, the not-for-profit owner of the Family Hubs Network Ltd.

These amendments are probing because, as I have said previously today, I am interested in hearing how committed this Government are to local preventive family support in every community. More importantly, dedicated teams in local authorities and their partnership organisations up and down the country also need to know what they can expect. Including this infrastructure in safeguarding arrangements makes complete sense because, as I said in my explanatory statement, family hubs support families as the primary means by which children are safeguarded. This can easily be forgotten when we talk about who has responsibility to keep children safe.

This is also important in the wider discussion of the Government’s social care reforms: how do the Government see the role of family hubs in the landscape of the more preventive, early-intervention approach which I support? Families need to experience non-stigmatising and seamless support. Family support staff, perinatal clinicians, mental health professionals, even mediators around the time of couple separation: any professional based in the hub can spot problems early that might need bringing to the attention of social services. This is presumably how schools and childcare agencies will function in their safeguarding arrangements.

Families’ engagement with social workers, even in quite complex interventions, can take place in family hubs or in the wider family support network of buildings and organisations connected to those hubs. When social workers begin to see progress in these families, it is vital that there is ongoing support and lower-level input, including from volunteers in the community, and that they are not just left to flounder.

Active prevention of cycles repeating themselves can also happen by stepping the family back down into what I will loosely call family help. This was how the Isle of Wight came to pioneer family hubs. Its social services were taken into special measures because so many children were not receiving the assessments that they needed, because social workers were so deluged by actual cases. Hampshire County Council, the overseeing council drawn in to help it reform, was very impressed by this solution. Early intervention hubs, also known as family hubs, were set up within existing budgets to help hold families waiting for social services assessments, so risk was managed. They also prevented many families coming to the point when an assessment was deemed necessary: when a child was returned to a family or the parents had received social work help so that their child dropped below the threshold of need, they were stepped down into family hubs. None of this could have happened unless these family hubs were operating skilfully in safeguarding.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, we should pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, in his promotion of family hubs. They are places where families can be offered a range of services and integrated support and information. In my assessment, they have transformed the picture of family law and family practice. They are increasingly widespread and have an important role in the modern functioning of childcare. To that extent, I support the noble Lord’s amendments.

I have a boring technical legal point. A hub is a place, not a person, which uses volunteers and community workers, as well as professionals. If the noble Lord’s Amendment 21 were to be accepted, we would need some clarity on who exactly, under the legislation, would have responsibility on behalf of the hub.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, before addressing the amendments in my name in this group, I echo the appreciation expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for my noble friend Lord Farmer’s tireless work on family hubs. It is fantastic to hear that they are making a real difference on the ground.

My Amendment 26 seeks to find a way through the difficulty in the degree of statutory involvement—the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is not going to like my language—of education and childcare agencies in safeguarding. It requires the Secretary of State to produce a report to Parliament two years after the implementation of the clause which sets out the impact on the resources and costs for education and childcare agencies from their new duties. It could look more widely at the impact on safeguarding and whether there is a need to follow the recommendations of many of the children’s charities and the Children’s Commissioner in making it a full statutory safeguarding partner.

Page 34 of the Government’s impact assessment is studiously vague. It talks about

“possible costs and time implications on LAs to set up new infrastructure”

and

“time implications on some education leaders to engage with systems that they may not have previously been involved in”.

I am not sure how these impact assessments get written, but this feels like it is bordering on the naive. Of course, there will be direct costs for schools and childcare agencies, in both time and money, and we need to understand the extent of them. My amendment seeks to achieve this.

We need to know what this approach will mean in practice for education and childcare agencies, which already have considerable safeguarding duties. Presumably, they will need to put in additional processes and checks; if this is just making the status quo statutory, I do not really understand why it is necessary. Perhaps the Minister could explain in her closing remarks.

My Amendments 27 and 28 are probing amendments, again trying to find out the Government’s thinking on how this will work in practice. The hesitation on the part of the Government in this area, which I think is reasonable, reflects the difficulty in implementation, given the number of organisations involved in education and childcare. My amendment suggests that it would help to have a single point of contact both within the local authority and within the education and childcare sector. Can the Minister confirm whether the assumption is that education and childcare providers can all contact the LADO in their local authority with any safeguarding concerns, and is she confident that the LADOs around the country will have capacity for this? Similarly, is the local authority expected to contact every organisation directly, or is there a role for a single point of contact who could perhaps advise on general queries?

Finally, I have given notice that I intend to oppose the proposition that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. To be clear, unlike some of my other clause stand part notices, this is purely probing. The policy summary produced by the DfE states:

“These arrangements enable education and childcare agencies to have representation”—


this is my emphasis, not that of the policy summary—

“at both the operational and strategic decision-making levels of these safeguarding arrangements”.

The summary continues:

“Practically, this may look like including the breadth of education settings: from early years and childcare to schools including academies, independent schools, alternative provision and further education in operational safeguarding boards, and”—


again, this is my emphasis—

“having representation for their views at executive boards so that they can influence decisions being made about safeguarding in their local area”.

Interestingly, there is no mention of special schools in that list. I am not clear why, because I would have thought that safeguarding would be a particular priority. I think we all have a sense of what this looks like at an operational level, but the policy summary talks about involvement at a strategic level. Will the Minister explain who is going to be able to represent all agencies in an area, what representation of their views at executive boards will look like in real life, and how this will be resourced? Clause 2 is an area where there is broad support for the Government’s approach, but we need more clarity on how they intend to implement these duties and how they will be funded.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 40 and flag—similarly to my noble friend Lady Evans—a pragmatic timing issue, which I have previously mentioned in your Lordships’ House.

Clause 3 is not a political matter. It is a well-intentioned response, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, outlined, to the tragic cases of Arthur and Star that led to the MacAlister review. I would be grateful, as would the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to know whether these changes will in fact solve the problem highlighted in those two cases that led to the review.

Of course, any new Government will bring in operational and structural changes, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that local authorities are dealing with the integrated care board situations at the moment and of course are preparing for perhaps the biggest local government reorganisation since that of Ted Heath.

In terms of timing, I ask the Minister why it is necessary at the moment to do the structural changes to child protection arrangements when the local authorities are dealing with other changes at the time. Many local authorities, even in times of very restricted finance, have shown that they have prioritised children’s social care, and overall, England’s local authorities are on an improvement journey, in that the “good” and “outstanding” Ofsted inspections are increasing.

Why not wait to do any further structural changes until the new devolution arrangements and local authority boundaries are in place and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, stated, when there is more evidence that such organisational changes in Clause 3 will improve matters, rather than inadvertently potentially making matters worse?

I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, in relation to the culture that might be changed here. If the family help teams do not see that child protection is part of their role, it risks the cultural embedding that has been happening over decades that is similar to a school, where what you need to embed is that safeguarding is everybody’s responsibility. You might then end up with them thinking, “It’s not my responsibility”: it is kind of like the blue light service over there, which is the child protection team. We could lose inadvertently. No one is deliberately trying to make our child protection arrangements less effective, but I do worry about the cultural loss of everybody seeing it as their responsibility, in the family help team and through into the social workers. So I ask the Minister: why not wait until you have done your local government reorganisation and do this afterwards, or maybe do it at the same time, because for the staff this is an awful lot of change in various departments of our local authorities?

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 36 and 40 and respectfully agree with almost everything that has been said so far.

Amendment 40 concerns cases which cross local authority borders, which can present practical problems and sometimes jurisdictional problems. Families, both parents and children, move around and do not conveniently live together at the same time in the same local authority area. Sometimes, as has been suggested, they move to avoid attention, and there needs to be clarification of how and by whom these situations are to be dealt with.

Amendment 36 seems to be more fundamental. There are, of course, existing established arrangements focusing on children in need. Since at least the Children Act 1989, these can involve child protection conferences and child protection plans, which identify risks and assign responsibilities and expectations. It is perhaps not surprising that there are now operational concerns about the new clauses—in particular, whether they will unnecessarily duplicate or even disrupt workable and working existing arrangements.

In particular, we need to know whether the new teams provided for in these clauses will require the introduction of new personnel in a way that will deprive the family of the continuity and familiarity established by the original social work team. It takes time for a social worker to build a relationship with a child and family, and that should not be jeopardised. Changes bewilder the children and frustrate the parents. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, referred to consistency and ownership. Those are not just clichés, they are important and should, wherever possible, be preserved.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we have not got any amendments in this group, but I will make a few observations. First, it is really important we get this right and we have the opportunity to do so between Committee and Report.

I have personal experience of multi-agency working in terms of child protection—not a great deal, but a few cases. The thing that nobody has mentioned is that, when a member of staff has left the job or moved to another authority, the whole process grinds to a halt; the new person who is busy looking at the case files is not able to benefit from the knowledge that has been gained. It is often very disruptive.

Often in Committee, somebody will get up and make a point that you have never really thought about. When the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, had finished, I thought, “Absolutely right”. But I had not thought about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and he is absolutely right: in terms of police involvement, there can be a real conflict. It just proved to me, yet again, the importance of sharing these ideas so that we get a result which is actually workable.

It is interesting that the Children’s Commissioner suggests a

“threshold for assessment and support”

to bring greater consistency. This also picks up on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised about resources—that it is important that we get the resources absolutely right.

I was interested in the point about sharing practice with those practitioners—that they do not come with their own particular viewpoint but have that training and expertise to share and listen. Cross-border working can be very difficult indeed and can sometimes cause real issues as well, but, if we listen to each other, we can get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

A feedback loop of this kind could be helpful in the care system. I know one person who complained to the police about 15 years ago because she suspected that a local Asian restaurant was the scene for the abuse of young white girls. She was told by the police that, if she persisted, they might want to accuse her of racism. I hope and believe that such attitudes are behind us, but the need for better information sharing and knowing where to complain when you see problems is a very important part of improving social care.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I make just one point about the proposed new sections to be added by Clause 4 to the 2004 Act, as probed by these amendments. They would introduce an all-important duty to share information and, it should be noted, a discretion to withhold information. It is important to appreciate that, as drafted, the duty to share and the discretion not to share depend only, as I read it, on the subjective views of the person holding the information as to the relevance of that information to safeguarding or welfare and as to the potential detriment of disclosure. Those are crucial factors, but I question whether what happens or does not happen should depend solely on the subjective views of the information holder, which is what appears to be in the new section. I suggest it should be an objective test: if the information is relevant, it should be disclosed; if disclosure would be more detrimental to the child than non-disclosure, it should not be disclosed. Those decisions should not necessarily depend on what the individual information holder considers appropriate. Surely, the holder should be expected to apply an objective test when considering what is best for a vulnerable child.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and strongly congratulate the Government on having picked up the concept of a unique child identifier. I was part of the group, with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, when we did not get there on previous legislation, and we were told that one reason was that the Department for Education could not see how it could do that and link with health, so seeing the Department for Education involved is particularly cheering.

I will make a case quite strongly for the NHS number rather than anything else, partly because I think we need to learn lessons from other number systems. If we look just at hospital records, different hospitals have different numbers and then there is the NHS number, and that has resulted in all kinds of clinical muddles and potential errors. The other thing is that children move around. People do not stay in the same area all the time, and the NHS number moves with them. If they have one number and move to a new area and register with a GP, for example, and then go to register with a school, if there have been major concerns then eventually those case notes will come through and people will become aware.

Going back to my previous experience, sometimes we found that the families with the highest risk had multiple addresses, out of town and in different cities. The other advantage is that, although we have devolved healthcare systems, we have a unique NHS number so, if people move between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, that number will persist. That is not a central database; it is simply saying that the number is there.

Children’s names change and their “known as” also changes. They may be known as another name but the number, a little like their genetic make-up, is fixed, which is really helpful. It will also avoid problems of lots of children having the same name, which is when muddles happen. I am from Wales, and we have a lot of people called David Jones and David Evans, and quite a few called David Williams, let alone Siân and Ceri. They are great names but, if you are trying to differentiate between them, you have to be really careful.

The final reason why I think this is particularly important is about transition and children who have learning difficulties and neurodiversity. Transition is an extremely difficult time for children. In those late teens, hormones are kicking in all over the place and all kinds of things are happening. Their relationships with the people who have been their carers through childhood change, and they can be at particular risk during those times, particularly during puberty if they have real learning difficulties.

I really hope that the pilot with the NHS number continues. When the Minister responds, it will be very helpful to know what kinds of numbers are being evaluated in those pilot areas—I hope there are more than one—so that the studies are sufficiently powered to be valid. Where have the objections come from? Who has not complied with being engaged? There may be some education needed to remove any sense of threat, because it will make safeguarding easier for people who have responsibility for children.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I was not going to intervene but, after hearing my noble friend, I cannot help but recall having to deal with some of the children of a man who, on inquiry, had had 11 sons by 11 different women. Because he was the sort of man he was, he insisted that each of them had his name.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Speaking as a Smith, I can say that those of us with very popular names recognise the point made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston —although obviously not in quite the same way.

Before starting, I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that there are no publicly available figures specifically detailing how many incorrect NHS numbers are issued annually. If there were, obviously I would have them at my fingertips. The Personal Demographics Service is responsible for managing and correcting NHS number issues, including duplicates, misassignments and demographic errors, but those numbers are not publicly available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her generous words.

These centres are really important for children who have come from extremely disturbed backgrounds. One thing that they need to be able to do is to have contact with the parent with whom it is not safe for them to be in custody in another area. As they grow up, if they do not have that contact, they can end up feeling resentful towards the state, and that the state separated them from the parent, rather than understanding what happened. I will not go into the various cases and stories, but there are certainly quite a lot to illustrate that issue.

The reason this amendment is important is that we know that there is a lack of basic safeguarding training in some contact centres; in others, it is at an extremely high standard. There is variability of practice around picking up and escalating concerns, and challenges are faced by the courts in identifying safe and affordable contact arrangements. As has already been alluded to, the harm panel report of 2020 highlighted that child contact centres have a role.

I could speak for a long time about them, but I will not. I hope that the amendment speaks for itself, and that we might be able to have some conversations beyond Committee and before Report about whether there is some way that the Government would like to incorporate in the legislation the principles behind this amendment, accepting that they may not like the wording as it is on the page at the moment.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I would like the Government to incorporate the wording of this amendment into the legislation—it seems admirable. I am asked by my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss to indicate her support for it as well. Accredited child contact centres are safe, neutral places providing for both supported contact and supervised contact arrangements—that is an important distinction. They allow children in separated families to see and enjoy contact with the non-resident parent and sometimes other family members.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her intervention and contribution. It was very interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Meston, say that a lot, if not all, of the contact centres are accredited. According to the NACCC website, there is DBS checking and there is provision in place. I take on board what the noble Baroness is saying, and that is why we are having this discussion—to get everyone’s views aired and come to an agreement.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, just to add to what has just been said, my understanding is that accreditation depends on the centre having been approved by the national association, and that accreditation lasts, I think, for three years.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

On a point of clarification, I can confirm to my noble friend that what we are asking for, and what we asked for in the earlier amendment, is proper training and management, so that in those cases—perhaps only one a year, but to me that is sufficiently important—of domestic abuse that present to a child contact centre, the volunteers will be properly trained and will be able to manage the situation. It is not a case of inspection and increasing fees; it is giving them the confidence so that they know how to deal with that situation.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

I say, simply from experience of having been a GP, that sometimes you can have some index of suspicion, but you cannot put a finger on it and you need more than seven days to begin to ask questions and explore it. That is not to criticise this amendment. I think it is extremely well drafted and brought together, and I hope the Minister will take the contents of this forward, even though it was proposed as a probing amendment.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I too support Amendment 66 and the proposed introduction of a mandatory reporting requirement for sexual abuse, in accordance not just with the speeches we have heard but with the carefully reasoned recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. In simple terms, failure to report known or reasonably suspected abuse puts the child concerned at future risk, and it can make a person failing to report complicit in what has happened and in what may later happen to the victim of that abuse and, indeed, to others.

Moreover, a failure to report prevents proper and prompt investigation of alleged abuse and can deprive the victim of appropriate treatment and support. A failure to report is a failure to protect. All that is obvious, but it is a complex area. There are only a few cases when it can be truly known that abuse has occurred, because it is largely an unwitnessed crime. Accordingly, under the terms of this amendment, the person expected to report must have reasonable grounds for suspicion. If the child is young, that suspicion could well depend on the adult’s understanding of what the child has said or tried to say, or on an interpretation of the child’s behaviour. That may not be easy, particularly if the person concerned does not know the child well or the structure or dynamics of the child’s family.

These difficulties should not be made worse for victims of child sexual abuse by failures to report and by deflection of evidence of abuse for the sort of reasons and excuses so clearly described by the report of the independent inquiry—in particular, a misguided desire to protect the alleged perpetrators or institutions. In the sort of cases dealt with in the family court, schools can often be the first to realise that there may have been some type of abuse, and some school staff can, understandably, be nervous of the reaction of angry family members if allegations are made. I recall a case in which the teacher admitted not acting when he saw obvious injuries to a child simply because he was reluctant to get involved in making the statements and reports that might be required.

If there is to be a duty in law underpinned by criminal sanctions, as the amendment proposes, it will be particularly important that it is made known to all who will be subject to that duty and that, where possible, they have guidance on how to record and manage disclosure and evidence of possible sexual abuse. It can be crucial to avoid inappropriate and repeated questioning of a child.

Changing the focus slightly, towards cases arising in the family context, I should mention that the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel’s cogent and disturbing report in November 2024, I Wanted Them All to Notice, stated that:

“Over the past 20 years or so, the light on the sexual abuse of children within families has gradually dimmed. We have witnessed a worrying evaporation of the skills and knowledge that professionals (leaders and practitioners) must have to work confidently and sensitively in this complex area of practice. This dilution of focus and expertise may be partly explained by the greater public and professional attention on the sexual abuse of children in institutions, by ‘famous’ people and on the sexual exploitation of children outside their home. This was undoubtedly urgently required, but it may also have drawn our eyes away from the more common experience for children, of sexual abuse in their families”.


It goes on to suggest that the

“moral outrage that can accompany media attention on extra-familial sexual abuse has perhaps distracted attention from the more commonplace nature of familial abuse. In turning our attention away from the latter, we have undermined the confidence and capability of professionals to identify and respond to sexual abuse in families”.

The panel called for a national strategic response. Approval of this amendment would be an important step in that response. There should be a mandatory duty to which all professionals should adhere.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment and agree with everything that has been said so far, particularly the very important and valuable contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. He, like I, tried many child abuse cases. It is a sad part of the work that family judges do that there are so many sexual abuse cases of children, from babies to the age of 17, and they are all absolutely terrible. It is important to remember that there are two sorts of sexual abuse—that within the family and that without. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, there has been less of a mirror on abuse within families as on strangers abusing children.

It is extraordinary in some ways that we do not already have mandatory reporting, since it is so obvious and so important. There are so many people out there, certainly members of families, who know what is going on but do not know what to do. I am talking about siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, because this is a very serious part. I do not know whether noble Lords realise that the majority of sexual abuse is within the family, although there is far too much by outsiders. If it is within the family, it becomes increasingly important that those around the child, who do know but do not know what to do, are told that they have an obligation to do something effective.

I hope that the Minister recognises that this is long overdue. It must come into this Bill or into the Crime and Policing Bill—preferably both. One group of people who have not so far been referred to are the police. If it is an obvious case of sexual abuse, the local authority employee must go immediately to the police. Let us not forget that any sexual abuse of any child, of any person, is a crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Bill as an opportunity to address a number of what we call adverse childhood experiences. I suspect that, given the lateness of the hour, we are not going to reach some of my amendments on care leavers that are scheduled for later. This group, particularly Amendment 171, deals with children who have experienced bereavement. Not much has been said about that in this short debate, so I will say a few words.

I was in that position. My dad died when I was 14, leaving me, my younger brother and my mum. It made my mum the only wage earner in the house at the same time as she was coping with her huge grief at losing her husband at the age of 43. She had two children—boys of 14 and 11, who are not the easiest to cope with. I still do not quite know how we coped. I think I coped by burying it for the next 10 years; my little brother coped by having stomach pains for the next few years. It damaged his education. I sometimes wonder whether having to go through that at that early age led to me feeling that I had a calling to be a pastor; I may have had a silver lining. But there were no bereavement services to turn to and there was nothing to support me.

As the eldest son of the family, I felt I was trying to hold the family together when everybody else was falling apart. I would have so appreciated there being somewhere I could have turned to; some signposting to where I could have looked for something outside the family—for people who were not grieving as I, my mum, my brother, my father’s parents and others were all grieving: somewhere I could have turned to get some support. If the Bill and Amendment 171 can, in a small way, help us create better bereavement services for children so that those who are in the position I was in all those years ago are not left with nowhere to turn, that would be a great thing for us to do.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 172. I do so in preference to Amendment 169, although I see that both are directed to the same wretched problem of successive removals of children and babies from mothers. Quite simply, much more needs to be done to support parents, particularly mothers, after a child has been removed into care, to reduce the risk of a further child being removed from the same mother.

The sad statistics have already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but the fact is that at least one in four women who has already had a child removed will return to court. Too often they have reacted to the removal of their child with an ill-considered or unconsidered decision to have another baby, with all too often the same consequences. These are truly wretched cases for the courts to deal with, particularly if it is impossible for the court to find any real improvement since the previous removal, and particularly if the mother has become mistrustful and finds it difficult to seek and accept help.

As things stand, once the previous proceedings finish, the mother may receive no further attention or support from the local authority until the next pregnancy is made known, by which time it may be too late. The evidence collated and presented by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory on the frequency and impact of recurrent care proceedings and removals is compelling, if depressing. The Nuffield Observatory points out that services are available in some areas but describes them as “few in number” and “mostly small in scale”. The work done by the specialist charity Pause—already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—shows that, with the right work and support, the cycle of recurrent removals can be broken.

The human cost of successive removals, in terms of misery and grief, is all too obvious. The financial cost to local authorities of successive care proceedings leading to fostering and adoption is enormous and, I would suggest, avoidable. When Sir James Munby was president of the Family Division, he encouraged judges to persuade local authorities in their area to adopt the work done by Pause. Many of us tried to do so, but it was not easy, because local authorities were nervous of the cost, thinking only in terms of the current year’s expenditure rather than the potential budgetary benefits in years to come. Accordingly, post-removal support remains unavailable in more than half of local authority areas. That is why primary legislation is needed.

I note that previous attempts in November 2016, similarly presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, were not accepted for reasons that were, I have to say, frankly inadequate. I hope that this Government will do better and accept Amendment 172.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I will make a brief intervention in and around Amendments 68 and 167, which are both about early intervention. I know that situations are often different in Northern Ireland, where the local health trusts look after young people and young people’s services, whereas in England it is the local authorities. However, the principle of the issues is the same, and dealing with the young people and early intervention is hugely important. My issue is that it should not be just about early intervention; it should be an ongoing process.

The one aspect that is not looked at in the Bill—I wonder whether it could be included at some stage—is around the rights of parents. I have worked with looked-after children for many years and am an adoptive parent. Really significant issues with young people can sometimes manifest into wider family difficulties, particularly when a young person is a refuser. Maybe they refuse to take on counselling or refuse to go to school. Then, because that child or young person will not attend either counselling or school, the pressure of maybe facing a court hearing or legal proceedings returns to the parents. Quite often there is then huge pressure on the family, because the law is on the side of taking the family and the parents to court; that is not often a good prospect for family proceedings and family support.

All I am trying to say in this brief moment—I know there are other amendments on the same issue coming up at a much later stage that I will also hopefully speak to—is that, while early intervention is very important, there needs to be ongoing intervention as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak incredibly briefly to the amendments in this group. Obviously, we need protections in place, but I think that across the Chamber we are all agreed that we want to make kinship care a viable option for as many people as possible. These amendments help to do just that by removing some of the hurdles and hoops, and I am very much in support of them.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I do not want to join the competition for brevity, but I will do my best. There is now consensus that preference should, if possible, be given to the placement of children with relatives or those who have some pre-existing connection with the child and are able to offer commitment to care. Kinship carers, like foster carers, are a precious resource, and therefore I support these amendments.

However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Law Commission has recently undertaken a review of the law concerning kinship care, with a view to improving its efficiency and simplicity. That has become necessary because of the great range and variety of situations in which kinship care can arise and might be required—from the temporary and informal arrangement to the longer-term or permanent that can involve foster care, special guardianship or other forms of order.

It has been suggested by some that, rather than have a scattered legislative and regulatory regime, kinship care should now have a separate and distinct regime. That is something that may emerge from the Law Commission. That is not to say that improvements cannot be made to the present piecemeal structures, and that is why I support these amendments. They will make procedures easier for kinship carers or potential kinship carers, without inappropriately cutting corners.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I shall speak to my noble friend Lady Tyler’s Amendments 101 and 102. Without embarrassing my noble friend, I thought that was a very powerful and emotional speech. For all of us in this Chamber, one of the most important things in our lives is the love of our family, our friends and relationships with other people. Those are the very things that children in care are often missing, so we should do all we can to ensure that they have the relevant relationships that they want. My noble friend Lady Tyler rightly said that we all need people in our lives to give us love, support and positive relationships—hear, hear.

Children and young people in care indicate that it is relationships not just with professionals such as teachers and health professionals but with a range of other people who provide an important support network that they need. The quality of the relationships is much more important than the quantity. Research suggests that the presence of one stable and significant adult in the life of a young person is more important than multiple relationships.

Social care cases across the UK reference the benefits of promoting the relationships of looked-after children. Those benefits will include: contributing to children’s resilience; promoting physical and mental well-being; minimising the likelihood of forming alternative, potentially dangerous relationships; helping with therapeutic work; and enhancing the stability of placements. But there are many barriers to ensuring such stable relationships.

As a teacher, in case conferences I found time after time that—through no one’s fault but perhaps the fault of the system—one of the problems was that the social worker had moved on to another area of work. The child or young person had built up a relationship with the social worker, and the social worker, through no fault of their own, had to move on to another job, perhaps because of a shortage of social workers. That created real pressures. Changing social workers and professionals means that there is not the time to build the trust with young people that is so essential. Where young people are excluded from shaping contact plans, or where previous secure attachments have been broken through experience in care, children often struggle with trust issues with adults—something that is exacerbated by the constant changing of social workers, as I have said.

On Amendment 102, an estimated 37% of looked-after children are separated from their siblings when they are placed into care. That is 20,000 children, as referenced by the Children’s Commissioner. For older children placed into semi-independent accommodation, 93% are separated from their siblings. Once separated, very little support to maintain relationships is provided.

Lots of research by social workers and charities emphasises the importance of sibling relationships for looked-after children. Siblings provide the longest-lasting relationships, often extending through their lifetime. Contact with siblings can foster positive identity development, provide emotional support through feelings of connectivity through shared experiences, give priority to existing functional relationships and help support the emotional needs of looked-after children.

When children are going through court cases to be removed from their parents, relations of direct contact are often prohibited between certain family members. This means that siblings cannot continue their relationship. Children are rarely consulted about such decisions.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says:

“No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation”.


In talking to children in care, they express that their relationship with their siblings is essential. The weight of responsibility for maintaining relationships with siblings is often placed on the looked-after person. That should not be the case.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

I speak in support of both amendments but particularly Amendment 102 for the strong arguments which have been advanced.

At every stage of a family’s involvement with a local authority, efforts should be made to enable siblings to maintain contact with each other and not to overlook the importance of the sibling relationship. It is now much better understood that, when parents can no longer care for a child, the most important and significant relationship that child may have is with his or her siblings—a relationship which, as the noble Lord has just said, can last a lifetime.

Although local authorities and courts strive to keep siblings together, that is not always possible and they may have to be placed separately. They may have different and sometimes conflicting needs. At a practical level, larger sibling groups can be more difficult to place together. If, for whatever reason, they cannot be placed together, meaningful and workable contact arrangements are essential.

There is a report, which I think is correct, of two sisters who were placed separately five minutes apart but were not allowed to see each other. One sister had to see her sister at a distance in the same school playground playing with a foster-sister. It is a desperately sad story. I recall having to deal with a case in which the siblings were a short distance apart from each other but in different local authority areas, and considerable efforts were required to get the two local authorities to co-operate. It is for that reason that I support the amendment. Judicial encouragement is usually enough but not always, and therefore court orders may be appropriate.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has highlighted the problem of large sibling groups. I want to draw attention to a very specific group, which is bereaved children. Sometimes there are several children in a single-parent family and, when that one parent dies, often the children left behind are half-siblings—sometimes several of them. The amendment is incredibly important because those children are grieving for the parent who has died and then for the sibling or half-sibling that they are separated from.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has reminded me of a family that I was involved with where the mum died and the father had been abusive so had no contact at all with the children, and the oldest child was a few months away from being 16. We managed, with the help of a schoolteacher and various other people, to keep those children together. Many years later, I still have some contact with them, and all the children have done well. I am convinced that, if we had not struggled to keep them housed together, then one of them in particular would probably have gone off the rails, yet they have all pursued good careers and have all done well.

As an investment for the long term in the lives of all these children, the amendment is important. I hope the Government will adopt it. I cannot see that it would cost anything in financial terms, but not adopting it probably would, because of the emotional trauma to the children who are separated from the people with whom they cannot share memories and remembrances about whomever it is they are separated from.

Another issue regarding that group of children is that sometimes there is a grandparent, an aunt, an uncle or someone who can provide them with some stability but is not in a position to provide kinship care. Keeping all those links going, and enabling them to link to cousins as well, can really support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Russell. I will speak to Amendment 145 in my name. To be honest, I am pleasantly surprised that the Public Bill Office accepted the amendments in this group as being within scope, because the Bill seems to studiously avoid adoption. A search that I carried out revealed that the word “adoption” appears only four times in the Bill’s 137 pages, and three of them are as part of other legislation that is referred to.

That is disappointing because the Bill offers an opportunity to improve outcomes for adopted children, some of whom are among the most vulnerable in society, alongside measures for children in kinship care and foster care and care leavers. That is a package, or a jigsaw, all of whose parts interact, and, frankly, I do not understand why one part is virtually absent. There is overwhelming evidence that adoptees are not currently getting the support they need to provide them with an equal chance to thrive, and that is unfortunate. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell said, it is a relatively small number in the greater scheme of things, but I still do not see why adoptive families are not given the credit they deserve for the important job that they do.

The review mentioned in my amendment would consider the adequacy and effectiveness of adoption support and highlight current gaps in the system. Every year, around 4,000 children in the UK are placed in adoptive families, and government data shows that around 80% of adopted children in England last year will have suffered abuse, neglect or violence before adoption. Before being adopted, children spend an average of 15 months in care, often moving through several foster families, and many lose everything that is familiar to them along the way because of that process. Meanwhile, adoption gives children a chance to build some stability as part of a loving, safe and nurturing home. Evidence is quite clear that outcomes are better for children who are adopted than for those who grow up in residential care. The early trauma that they suffer may well be with them for the rest of their lives, and they need the support that can be provided via adoptive families.

Currently, there is a duty under the Adoption Support Services Regulations for a local authority to provide adoption services and to provide information. Often, adoptive families point out that there is a failure to provide information about the support that is available. Individual agencies, on behalf of the local authority, typically give information on their websites about the support they offer, but it does not always work out that way in practice. The support and information vary, and it has to be said that cuts to local authority budgets over the years of Tory Governments have resulted in reduced support for adoptive families, because local authorities are simply not able to provide what they want to provide.

The Adoption Support Services Regulations require updating so that they reflect the changes that have taken place in adoption over the last two decades. They have not been updated since 2005. That includes the regionalisation of adoption agencies in England. The charity Adoption UK has produced evidence that out-of-date regulations can, and in many cases do, impact on family court proceedings, and thus potentially on the time it takes for an adoption order to be made.

The agencies themselves are not Ofsted inspected, meaning there is a lack of accountability and consistency in the system. The thematic inspection of a handful of regional adoption agencies carried out by Ofsted in late 2023 highlighted some of the challenges for those agencies and partner local authorities in achieving the services that adoptees and their families require. The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, will be aware of that; I do not know whether she wants to contribute to this debate, but she will be aware of the outcome of those inspections.

Adoption UK’s meticulously gathered evidence has consistently shown that there are gaps in support. Its adoption barometer survey, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to, reveals that the proportion of adoptive families who said they are facing severe challenges or reaching crisis point is up from 30% in 2020 to 38% in 2023.

I was going to say something about the adoption special guardianship support fund and the other amendments. I am not going to do that now, as other noble Lords have covered that perfectly adequately.

Without effective support services, adopted children are at a higher risk of returning to the care system, with a lack of ongoing support leading to placements too often breaking down. The impact of such breakdowns on the cost to the Treasury is fairly obvious. I do not think it is right that adoption should be pushed to the margins in this way, when adoptive families play such a vital role. I come back to the point I started on: it is a bit of a mystery to me why adoption is not much more prominent in this Bill.

The review that I am advocating in this amendment would consider whether the services provided by the adoption agencies and the existing regulations and guidance covering adoption are fit for purpose. I do not expect this review to be in the Bill, but I would like to think that my noble friend will consider carrying it out as an initiative of the department. As I think everyone accepts, there are gaps in the provision that need to be filled.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, briefly, I support what the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Watson, have said, on the basis of my experience as an adoption judge.

First, in respect of what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said about the variability—as it has now emerged—of regional adoption agencies, I suggest that that is something the Government should be reviewing carefully. Secondly, I want to emphasise the point he made about the sheer awfulness of disrupted and failed adoptions, particularly in cases where so many hopes have been pinned on the adoption and so much trouble has apparently been made in preparing the child and the adopters.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to add my name to Amendment 107 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I commend him and his colleagues in the other place, particularly the honourable Member for Twickenham, on their concerted efforts to bring attention to this important fund, which provides support to about 20,000 very vulnerable children who have suffered great trauma. The anecdote that the noble Lord gave of the family he met brought this issue to life very vividly. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, all of whom have brought great experience, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his remarks, his expertise and the work of the APPG that he co-chairs.

I will not go into detail on the rather unusual set of announcements that the Government made about the fund, first on 1 April and then very shortly afterwards on 22 April, when it was announced that the fair access limit, or funding per child, would, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, explained, be cut from £5,000 to £3,000 per child per year, and that the £2,500 limit for specialist assessment—which, as I understand it, was in addition to the £5,000—had been abolished. The remaining fund now has to cover both the assessment, judged by the department, I assume, to cost up to £2,500 per child, and the therapy. If we give the department the benefit of the doubt and say that the assessment cost around £1,500, then, being very generous, that leaves about six sessions of funded therapy per year, which for these children is simply insufficient. I am not suggesting that those are the real numbers; they are just my back-of-the-envelope estimates to give the Committee a sense of what is happening here.

Hence the importance of this amendment, which focuses on the per-child funding level and seeks to bring some clarity to the amounts needed. In her Written Ministerial Statement, the Minister said that the ASGF—that is a new acronym for me—

“will still enable those eligible to access a significant package of therapeutic support, tailored to meet their individual needs”.

Can the Minister give the Committee some examples of what the department considers to be a significant package of therapeutic support that could be funded from £3,000, including the assessments?

The issue of therapeutic support is, of course, broader than just this fund. On my visit to Capstone Foster Care, I learned of the difficulty of receiving funding for therapeutic work and the bureaucracy involved in retaining it. This feels so short-sighted as local authorities search for a sound placement—defined in the sector, as I understand it, as a standard placement that does not have additional therapeutic support funding attached to it—which then, perhaps predictably, breaks down and potentially needs to be substituted with a placement in a children’s home at many times the cost.

This is at a time when we hear that funding from integrated care boards for safeguarding work will be cut by around 50% and that the threshold for health involvement is simply too high to be useful. The cuts to the fund will result in a loss of adopters and special guardians, who find—as we heard very powerfully from noble Lords who spoke earlier—that without this support they simply cannot take on these responsibilities. The very late announcement has led to a backlog and will require almost half of applicants to reapply, as their original application does not meet the new threshold.

I wondered what estimate or cost-benefit analysis—and I appreciate that the human cost is far more important than the financial one—the department has done on the savings from the cuts to the fund set against the cost of potential breakdowns. If the Minister does not have those figures with her, perhaps she could write to me with them. As other noble Lords have said, this decision feels like an error, and I hope that the Minister will urge her ministerial colleagues to accept these amendments.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Longfield (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendments 108 to 116 focus on the distance from home of placements for children in care, and the impact of the move to regional care co-operatives. I welcome the move to regional care arrangements of this kind, as well as the significant increase in investment in children’s social care in last week’s spending review. Put together, they offer a real opportunity to power up on the delivery and implementation of the MacAlister recommendations for children’s social care, with real improvements to the experience of and outcomes for children in care.

The distance from home that some children in care have been placed in has, as many noble Lords will know, been an issue for some time. Local authorities across the country have faced increasing challenges in delivering sufficiency of places near to home in recent years, due to increasing demand, rising costs, cuts to early-intervention funding, and workforce challenges, leading to what can be seen only as a broken care market.

The national issue has had a significant impact on the experiences and outcomes of children in care, who too often are moved to homes that are unable to meet all their needs or moved far away from those who matter most to them, due to a shortage of appropriate options. Between 2013 and 2024, the number of children in care living more than 20 miles from home increased by 66%, compared with a 23% increase in the overall number of children in care during the same period. In 2024, more than a fifth of all children in care and almost half of those living in residential care were living more than 20 miles from home.

Research from the charity Become has highlighted that children living in private children’s homes were two and a half times more likely to be living such a distance from their community than children living in other residential care settings. We have talked before about the negative impact of being separated from communities, support networks, friends, families and schools, and what that can bring—exacerbating adversity in a whole range of different issues.

The move to regional care co-operatives is, as I said, welcome, and is an opportunity for better planning. But there is a risk that without effective mitigation, the proposal to regionalise the commissioning and delivery of homes for children in care could lead to more children being moved far from their support networks in communities but within the region. I know that that is not what anyone wants.

That is why I have tabled these amendments, which, taken together, would provide an important mitigation to stop children in care increasingly being moved far away from their support networks but still within the region. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister and her team would consider these changes to provide children in care the surety that they can stay close to those with whom they have relationships and to support networks when that it is in their best interests.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, following on from that, I too wish to support those amendments directed specifically at ensuring placement of children close to home, both in this group and the next. Quite simply, state intervention in the life of a family should, if possible, make things better, not worse. Recent figures from the Department for Education show that one in 10 looked-after children experience three or more placements in a year; this is described as “high placement instability”.

There is already in Section 22C of the Children Act an important requirement to accommodate children close to home. It is recognised that such proximity increases the prospects of a child being later returned home. When a child is accommodated away from home and from parents, and away from a familiar area, some parents become unable or unwilling to provide any further support and they disengage, or at least they give up on active engagement.

There will remain a need for interaction between the local authority and parents. Parents retain parental responsibility and, even if they do not do so, they should be encouraged to remain involved and see themselves as able to remain involved. That is likely to be reassuring for the child and meet that child’s continuing attachment needs. However, parents and wider family members cannot be expected to maintain involvement unless the placement of the child is reasonably accessible to them. Phone and digital contact are no real substitute.

I suspect the Minister might say that the obligation under Section 22C is already referred to in the Bill, but I would support the suggestion that it should be emphasised and reinforced by these amendments. I also support Amendment 117B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, which would ensure that the Bill does not detract from the duty in Section 22C(7) of the Children Act.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 116B, 117B, 117C and 117D in this group, which are tabled in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and to the noble Lords who have already spoken. I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said so far.

The intention behind these amendments is to address the issues of attachment, disruption and trauma, which can ensue from housing children too far from home—noble Lords who have already spoken have addressed this. We know that we can minimise the damage and effects of being housed too far away by proximity. I have therefore tabled amendments in a probing manner to invite the Minister to reflect on whether there is some way in which these concerns, as expressed in Committee today, could be accommodated in this legislation.

Amendment 116B essentially proposes a duty to collect sufficiency data. It would address the basic idea that you cannot plan what you do not measure. We know from the MacAlister review and from many other organisations which support RCCs—as, indeed I do—that there are concerns about current provision already, and that we need to make sure there is strategic visibility, so that RCCs working together know how many foster carers, residential beds and emergency places are truly needed and where investment is most urgent. In the independent review commissioned by the last Government, the now Labour MP Josh MacAlister was very clear that data should drive the planning. I urge the Government Benches to consider that viewpoint. This amendment would give legislative force to his recommendation. It would allow readily available data to be collected so that we could target spending wisely, empower the local leaders who are responsible for assigning the places and avoid waste.

Amendment 117C just builds on the previous proposal requiring the RCCs to publish an annual sufficiency report. It is a basic governance issue of transparency and accountability, which would allow the local authorities, providers, Parliament and, most importantly, children and their families, to know whether the system is, in fact, working. Placement decisions, as we know because there has been a lot of coverage of it, are currently shaped by what is available at the time. Many of us in this House have concerns about supply being driven by various commercial providers. The amendment would help to reverse some of that by making the data transparent at a ready time. It would also ensure that the RCCs are open and responsive to their stakeholders, the local authorities, and to Ofsted, ensuring that young people and foster carers were accommodated rather than the commercial providers. This public report would really just amount to good governance.

Amendment 117C involves the use of the sufficiency data to inform the commissioning and it follows on from the previous provisions. I have said already that I support the amendments proposed by fellow noble Lords, and these proposals invite the Government to consider in what way the best accommodation of this data collection takes place. This amendment would ensure that placement commissioning was rooted in real need, not market convenience. It would help RCCs to invest early in local provision and reduce the reliance—which worries all of us—on expensive private options, which have been driving children to be accommodated out of their local areas, with all the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has raised in relation to that. The amendment also aligns with the ambition of all parties in this House for relational and stable care for children, rather than a race to the bottom in pricing or availability.

Amendment 117D would put the focus on the outcomes for children. I emphasise this amendment because it ties in with the stated objectives of this Bill, whose title includes “Children’s Wellbeing”. It cannot be right that RCCs will be introduced without the requirement to collate data showing whether or not they are working for the very children that they are intended to provide for. It connects two critical questions: did we have enough places, and did we make a difference? As noble Lords know, the children’s care system is too often evaluated on the inputs—how many beds, how many carers—but what really matters, what is really going to make a difference, is whether those children are safe, settled and supported to thrive, hopefully in proximity to their own families or kinship that may be available to them. The amendment would allow the RCCs to link their planning with real-world results, helping the Government and local leaders to learn what works so that there can be continuous improvement.

I believe the amendments are proportionate and sensible measures that meet the stated purpose of the Bill, and I beg the Government’s support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords often say in this Chamber that it is a pleasure to follow whichever noble Lord or noble Baroness. I cannot say it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, because, given the depth and detail of what she says and the experience she brings as a former judge—and she always speaks without a note—it is not a pleasure but humbling to be given the role of speaking in her wake, as it were. She is, as ever, extremely impressive and adds so much to our debates.

I want to speak to Amendment 506B in my name, on the use of accommodation for deprivation of liberty. When a child is in a secure setting, there is a robust framework for reviewing the suitability of arrangements for deprivation of liberty, including through the appointment of independent persons. Where deprivation of liberty orders are used in other accommodation arrangements, the same safeguards may simply not be there. So there need to be additional safeguards, including, as recommended by the Children’s Commissioner, a record in the looked-after child census, including the type of setting and the length of and reasons for restrictions placed. Also, wherever possible, independent advocacy should be provided for all children where a deprivation of liberty order is being considered or is in place.

Clause 11 provides a statutory framework for children to be deprived of their liberty in accommodation other than a secure children’s home through amending Section 25 of the Children Act 1989. The intention is for there to be parity with secure children’s homes in terms of access to legal aid. But the current position for parents and anyone with parental responsibility in these cases is that they are entitled only to means-tested legal aid. Such means tests are very restrictive; research by the Law Society has demonstrated that even those living in poverty can fail the financial eligibility test for legal aid.

Many parents are therefore left to navigate these complex legal proceedings on their own. The result of these court hearings is significant for children because it could lead to a child being put into a placement that is many miles away from their home environment and their local network of support—mirroring the arguments that we heard in the last group of amendments. Additionally, deprivation of liberty orders are increasingly being used to place children in unregistered accommodation —I will not go there again—due to the lack of secure children’s home places.

According to figures published by the Family Court Statistics Quarterly, there were 1,280 applications to the High Court for deprivation of liberty orders for children in 2024, of which 132 were for children 12 years of age and under. That total figure represents a 120% increase since 2020-21 figures, which themselves reflected a fourfold increase since 2017-18—again, according to the Law Society. By way of comparison, there were 261 applications for secure accommodation for children in 2024.

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, mentioned the Nuffield Foundation; the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory found that almost 90% of parents and carers were not legally represented at any hearings in applications made under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction for deprivation of liberty orders. For an event of such importance to those families involved, that is surely a worryingly high figure and is just unacceptable.

It is surely a basic human right for no child to be deprived of their liberty, particularly into an unregistered placement, without their parents having access to legal advice and representation. There should always be access to non-means tested legal aid for parents and carers in these cases, and Amendment 506B would provide for that.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I speak as someone who has had to make these orders, and in doing so I recognise that these amendments are of great importance, shining light on the deprivation of liberty jurisdiction which has persisted in England and Wales for perhaps too long. In an article in the Observer just a year ago, there was trenchant criticism from the former President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby. He wrote:

“When a system is routinely locking up vulnerable children in highly inappropriate settings because they are too difficult to look after, something is clearly going very, very wrong”.


He described this as a

“moral failure – by the state and by society”.

As has been explained, the existing statutory provision for secure accommodation orders made under Section 25 of the Children Act now covers only a few of those with complex needs and those requiring accommodation because they have to be protected from exploitation or present a risk to others. That is because “secure accommodation” is a term which describes only registered children’s homes specifically approved by the Secretary of State, of which, as we have heard, there are only a limited and increasingly insufficient number available.

With the severe shortage of places and the rising need for accommodation for those whose welfare requires some restriction of liberty, that need has had to be met by applications to the High Court for authorisation under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. As places cannot be found in suitable registered homes which are Section 25 compliant, the High Court then has to consider whether an unregistered placement is in the child’s best interests. All too often, the local authority, the child’s guardian in the proceedings and the court have to struggle when considering what is available. The court is faced usually with a short-term crisis, planned for in the short term, and limited services available, and is battling to keep the child safe. In doing so, one is usually presented with only one unsatisfactory option. As the MacAlister report put it,

“Courts do not take such decisions lightly. Deprivation of liberty orders are often made following a nationwide search for homes, and often after the child has experienced multiple home breakdowns … the harrowing circumstances set out in these High Court judgements are a window into the dysfunction of the care system”.


In practice, if a DoLS is justified, the court has to look at the distance from home, the adequacy of education provision, if any, the adequacy of staffing and the nature and level of any workable restrictions required.

I take one slight issue with something the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said. In my experience, children do participate, at least in some hearings. They sometimes attend in person, but, as we all know, they are often placed far too far away—certainly from the court dealing with it—and sometimes they attend remotely. In my experience, one hears children who are depressed, agitated, traumatised and often very worried. In those circumstances, the court is looking not for what is best but for what is available and what is least worst, trying to keep that child safe.

The shortage of provision and the resultant use of deprivation of liberty authorisations have been known about for a long time and have been the subject of strong criticism from the higher judiciary, which has seen what was meant to be only a last resort become the norm, described by the Supreme Court as an “imperfect stopgap”. The judiciary has felt dismayed that its concerns appeared to be unheeded by Governments and Parliament. It has also been concerned that the courts were having to do what the state really should have been doing without recourse to the court in most cases.

The scale of the problem has been repeatedly highlighted by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, whose excellent work has been referred to during this debate, but also by others, including the BBC and responsible journalists elsewhere. I recognise that Clause 11 creates a new statutory regime and the concept of relevant accommodation, extending the places in which children can be confined. Much of what I have heard from Ministers on the Government Front Bench today has been very reassuring, and a recognition that the Government are getting to grips. Of course, it remains to be seen whether what can be achieved will be a sufficient response to the difficulties created by these orders, and to the independent review’s call for more flexible and innovative types of provision of care for children.

I support the amendments to improve what the Bill intends to achieve, in particular Amendment 124, which would require it to be stated that a deprivation of liberty has to be a last resort. Amendments 120A and 127 expressly provide for education and for therapy. Amendment 123 provides for regular reviews—not by the court, which is what happens at the moment, but by the authorities responsible for that deprivation of liberty. There is much to be said also for Amendment 132 on the involvement of the independent reviewing officer. I will also support Amendment 506B, providing for the availability of legal aid.

I questioned what in reality Amendment 122 would achieve, simply because we are where we are because of the severe shortage of registered children’s homes, of which there were 29 in 2002 and there are now only 13, which has, of course, forced reliance on unregistered placements that are often expensive. I think the answer to my question is that the expectation is that there will be improved registration of homes and an extension of the availability of homes to address what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, called the underlying need to increase capacity.

Finally, in respect of government Amendment 128, I ask what this will all mean for cross-border placements. There are awful stories of children from Devon and Cornwall having to be placed in Scotland.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Meston, whose wisdom and experience of the court processes in this area are, I am sure, very valuable to the Committee.

I will speak to Amendment 133 in my name. I have also added my name to that of my noble friend Lady Barran on Amendment 120. Amendment 133 states:

“Information required to be published by a local authority includes information about the authority’s arrangements for enabling children subject to deprivation of liberty orders to maintain, strengthen and build family and social relationships”.


This Bill picks up much of the intent of Josh MacAlister’s Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, but one of its key emphases, the importance of relationships, could feature more prominently throughout. Josh’s review drew on an experts by experience board informing his recommendations: young people and adults who had been through the care system. They said in the foreword that this review was their chance

“to reshape the system by placing relationships front and centre”.

I was on the design group on that review, and this emphasis came through again and again in evidence—hence the first paragraph of the report, which states:

“What we need is a system that … puts lifelong loving relationships at the heart of the care system”.


It calls for a reset that

“starts with recognising that it is loving relationships that hold the solutions for children and families overcoming adversity”.

On an earlier group of amendments focusing on care leavers, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott said we need to make sure that the loving, committed relationships that come to the fore in the family group decision-making process do not fall through the cracks in a child’s care pathway as they walk along it. If the local authority intentionally helps a child or young person to maintain them from day one, these relationships will not only be there when the child leaves but have the potential to transform the whole experience of being in care.

My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott talks very effectively about the lifelong links model imported from California and thoroughly adapted and tested by the Department for Education for British children, families and friends. Lifelong links ensures that children have a lasting support network of relatives and others who care about them throughout their time in the care system. In my work with the Ministry of Justice, I have recommended it for children in the youth custody and wider youth justice system, with whom children deprived of their liberty are an overlapping cohort.

We can underestimate the strength of the pull towards blood connections. Without the corporate parent’s gentle hand on the tiller in this area, many young people in or leaving care go looking on the internet and social media for family members, and not all of them will be beneficial relationships. While I would like lifelong links to be included in regulations and guidance as an offer to all children in care, care leavers and those deprived of their liberty, as the Minister said, this programme is being evaluated. Whatever its future, local authorities should be required to be intentional and systematic about relationships. Children in care, especially when they are in trouble in care, desperately need to feel that they belong somewhere.

Mark Riddell MBE, the Government’s national adviser for care leavers—at least, I think he still is; he certainly has been for some time—tells how his turnaround moment came when he was about 14 years old in the Scottish care system and had just trashed the children’s home where he lived after several failed placements. He had been called to the manager’s office, so he packed his black bag, expecting to be moved on again. The first thing the manager said to him was, “What’s that bag for?”. Mark said, “It’s all my stuff; you’re going to kick me out”. The manager told him, “We can sort out the damage, but you’re not leaving: this is your home”. Knowing that he belonged somewhere and that people were committed to him, regardless of his behaviour, finally settled him down, and he is now a voice for government.

Young people deprived of their liberty need a profound sense of belonging. Relationships with dedicated and compassionate staff are essential, but they also need to know that they have not been abandoned by their families, friends and other trusted adults. They belong in a relational web. We must not let this be torn apart by the already very traumatic experience of being deprived of their liberty.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with all the questions that have been asked by the previous speakers. The use of agency workers is apparent when we see the variety of people who come to court to give evidence. Obviously, there is a problem of lack of capacity, but there are two real problems. The first is the higher cost of agency workers and the second is the lack of continuity which their use involves. Continuity is particularly important when one is considering work involving families and children, who need familiarity and continuity. The noble Lord is quite right. Surprisingly, sometimes the same worker reappears, no longer as an employed social worker but as an agency worker, and one is frankly pleased to see a familiar face. But also, too often, it is somebody completely different who has not grasped the basics of what has been happening hitherto.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I urge the Minister to increase the incomes of social workers, so that they are not tempted to become agency workers, who are of course paid a lot more than social workers. The pay levels of these workers need to be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Meston (CB)]

Since the noble Baroness has mentioned them, I shall also offer some observations on the government amendments in advance of hearing the Minister speaking to them. Amendment 157 and the Scottish equivalent, Amendment 158, are indeed better and simpler than Clause 26 as originally formulated, but I have some reservations about either formulation.

The intention is to replace Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. A treasured possession of mine is an ancient copy of the 1933 Act. The original Section 18 provided that

“no child shall be employed … to lift, carry or move anything so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him”.

That had the merit of clarity and simplicity. The Bill will now say:

“A child may not be employed … to do any work other than light work”.


One turns to the end of the new section to find, in subsection (8), a rather wordy definition of “light work” in negative terms, which tells us what light work is not. In particular, it means

“work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed … is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and … is not such as to be harmful”

to their education, through attendance at school or otherwise. That may somewhat widen the scope of the original Section 18 but, frankly, the drafting is less focused. Indeed, whether, as drafted, it is an improvement on the original Section 18 remains to be seen. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider looking again at trying to retain some of the best of the old version in a more modern context. I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I hope that at some point the Government can look at it, perhaps before Report. Meanwhile, I will say a slightly sad farewell to the original Section 18.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

I, too, want to move on, but I cannot resist repeating my admiration for the admirable Bill last year from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and his work on family hubs. I will concentrate on Amendment 183B from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and concentrate on just one aspect of school readiness and the proposed healthy child programme.

I would like to see specifically included in the proposed healthy child programme referred to in the noble Baroness’s amendment the promotion and encouragement before starting school of vaccination against preventable diseases. Many other countries provide for the mandatory vaccination of children, backed by various types of sanctions—including, it has to be said, exclusion from certain benefits and services. I am not suggesting that for this Bill; that is a debate for another day. However, children are not being vaccinated as they ought to be, and surely vaccination is something to refer to expressly as part of any suggested healthy child programme. It is an important and probably essential public health intervention. A failure to vaccinate a child in readiness for school is seen by some doctors as a red flag for possible parental neglect, because vaccination is the most important thing to be done to protect children. I would like to have seen it in the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Baroness Longfield (Lab)]

I feel the need to add some thoughts of my own to this conversation, which I am very pleased that we are having. I declare my interest as the executive chair of the Centre for Young Lives. I thank noble Lords for their kind comments on that.

This is a really crucial area of policy, and I am delighted that we are expecting an early years strategy and that we have consensus across the House on this—indeed, with the evidence as well. In the spirit of moving on, I hope that there is cross-party consensus going forward on the importance of this, not only for individual children and their families but for the country as a whole, in terms of employment, growth, crime reduction and health.

I could go on for an awfully long time on this, but I shall not. But I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister might say something in her closing remarks about the conversations that she is having with the Department of Health, because that partnership is obviously particularly important for early years and early years development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 183C, which is in my name.

Last year, the revised Working Together guidance removed the requirement for Section 17 assessments—or children-in-need assessments—to be done by a qualified social worker. At the time, although the change was welcomed by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and others, some groups, including Ofsted and the British Association of Social Workers, expressed concerns about the change. This was, in part, because they felt that these practitioners—including family support workers, domestic abuse workers and youth workers—already held high caseloads, and, in part, because they do not typically have the necessary qualifications to do this to the required standard needed by the courts, given the gravity of the decisions taken that are based on these reports.

My Amendment 183C is very simple: it seeks to probe, and get on record, confirmation from the Government that only qualified social workers will be able to prepare reports ordered by the courts. There is real concern that this should be the case, and the new arrangements, which are being brought in to merge targeted help and child-in-need provision, could lead to a change in approach.

A court-ordered report for private law proceedings would not generally meet the threshold for child protection and is therefore likely to be held in the team, which includes non-social work qualified practitioners. As the court will order an assessment, I argue that there should be—and my amendment seeks to probe whether there will be—parity with other private law reports and assessments ordered by Cafcass, which are undertaken by qualified social workers. This work is of course highly contested and complicated, so can the Minister confirm that these concerns are unfounded? I beg to move.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I do not question the proposition that substantive court reports should be done by qualified practitioners. Such reports are valuable, and often essential, to the court, providing information, analysis, assessments and recommendations—and not just to the court but to the parties who are thereby helped to settle their differences without a full contested hearing.

Until I heard the noble Baroness’s introduction, I wondered at the nature or extent of the problem that prompted her amendment. Most final reports nowadays—and I mean final reports—are well written, well researched and well reasoned. Substantive reports are prepared by the allocated Cafcass officer—or social worker, in my experience—and social workers often state their academic and professional qualifications. Sometimes, the worker has to be a substitute or a trainee, but in those circumstances the report will be checked and countersigned by a team leader. So, although I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, I do not believe there is problem.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 183C, tabled by the Baroness, Lady Barran.

I will begin by giving everyone in the Chamber some reassurance, although I am sure that I do not need to do this. It is absolutely crucial that everyone understands that, for child protection cases, there is a requirement for a social worker. It is imperative that we make that that point absolutely clear. The issue that has perhaps driven the concern is that of quality, and I will go on to give some reassurance about that. At the end of the day, the absolute imperative is that we do right by, and make the best decisions for, children, and that we have the right people available to make sure that that happens.

In line with the current framework, reporting to the courts can come from a range of experts, as we have heard. The legislation, as written, surrounding court-ordered reports provides a degree of flexibility, depending on the circumstances of the case and the discretion of the local authority or the court. When specifically considering Section 7 reports, there is currently no requirement for them to be prepared by a qualified social worker. It is important that there is flexibility in who may prepare these reports, to make sure that they are prepared by the right person, with the right skills and the right experience. Courts and local authorities should have discretion in determining this, too.

We know that most S7 reports are prepared by Cafcass social workers, with a small number of them completed by local authorities. Where social work leadership or oversight is needed, this should be built into the supervision and sign-off of the reports. Of course, the court has a duty to ensure that the reports are of sufficient quality.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

We have a lot to debate on these measures and I look forward to that. I hope that we can try to be succinct, given the amount we have to cover, but noble Lords should please rest assured that they will still receive a full answer, either in my responses or in the engagement that I have identified we will be very content to involve noble Lords in between now and the next stage of the Bill. I hope that means that some noble Lords might feel able not to introduce some of the very detailed and narrow amendments should they feel that their point has been addressed.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 226 in my name differs from others in this group, which are more concerned with children not attending school because they are not registered at any school, and the amendments we have discussed so far are more concerned with home education in its various forms. My amendment concerns those who are on a school roll but not attending and focuses on the responsibilities of local authorities in such situations. I apologise, therefore, if my amendment seems to be somewhat out on a limb, but I think it is quite an important limb.

There is no doubt that the Government are working hard to address the problem of what has been described as an epidemic of school absences. It is well understood that such absences disadvantage children educationally and socially and deprive them of the value of education and of opportunities, in both the short and the long term. I will not attempt any analysis of the many explanations for failures to attend school, but they clearly include poverty, mental health problems and the pandemic, which is thought to have led some parents to see daily school attendance as optional. In this context, the fundamental duties are those of parents to ensure that their children of compulsory school age are receiving suitable full-time education and those of schools to record and monitor attendance and to inform local authorities of failures to attend regularly.

In August last year, important revised statutory guidance on children missing education was issued. It states:

“Schools should monitor attendance closely and address poor or irregular attendance. It is important that pupils’ poor attendance is referred to the local authority”.


The guidance is also clear that the duties of schools and local authorities are to be viewed alongside the wider duties and local initiatives to promote the safeguarding of children.

In October last year, the Government announced increased investment in attendance mentoring. On 22 October, the Minister, in answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, expressed her determination to bring absenteeism figures down. She also referred to the work already done by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

Between the guidance issued in August and what the Minister said in October, in September 2024 the Children’s Commissioner published a powerful and wide-ranging report entitled Children Missing Education: The Unrolled Story. This provided analysis of the procedures followed by local authorities to support children missing education and analysis of the characteristics and histories of children known or suspected to be missing education, who are among the most vulnerable in society and in need of support.

The report found that there are significant inconsistencies between local authorities in the use of the term “children missing education”, which can lead to children falling through the gaps; that few local authorities take proactive steps to prevent children from going missing from education; and that there is little one-to-one support available for children missing education to reintegrate into school. It referred to the lack of a shared national definition and to differing interpretations of children missing education. It called for resources for local authorities to trace and support children missing or at risk of missing their education.

The commissioner expressed her increasing worry about thousands of children being denied their right to education, having fallen off the radar of their local authorities. She said that in too many instances, no one knows where these children are or whether they are safe. She described a shocking lack of urgency in trying to trace these children. My amendment seeks to address, in terms of statutory duties, some of the main deficiencies and inconsistencies identified by the commissioner and to underpin in primary legislation what is or ought to be required by existing guidance and regulations.

Absenteeism requires a fast and sometimes robust response. Good practice should not be piecemeal. The amendment seeks to provide for such a response with consistent arrangements for local authorities to be promptly informed of persistent non-attendance or irregular attendance; a duty to take urgent steps to trace any child known or believed to be missing school without authorisation or satisfactory explanation; and a duty to provide appropriate support as soon as the child has been traced. I therefore hope the Minister might take the opportunity to indicate the Government’s response to the commissioner’s report and recommendations and indicate what is already being done to ensure compliance with the latest guidance.

The other trigger for this amendment is my experience of cases in the family court when the court is provided, sometimes as an afterthought, with the school attendance records of the child or children concerned in those proceedings. These can show how unexplained or unsatisfactorily explained absences can be a marker of significant neglect or mistreatment, which may have been unknown or not visible to other agencies. On occasions, with provision of those records, the court is left wondering why nothing or nothing more was done to follow up the absences much nearer the time. On other occasions, the court itself can be left to ask for unprovided information about school attendance. That explains the last sub-paragraph of the proposed amendment. All in all, I seek that the Government confirm that there will be a consistent approach, better communication and a better and faster response to absences.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I think this is a very important amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It reminds us that, in this part of the Bill, we dealing not just with parents who choose to educate their children at home but with some very substantial problems that state education has in not keeping hold of and looking after children who are nominally registered at school. I will come on to the question of unregistered alternative education, to which the state commits many children, in a later amendment. This is about looking after the children and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has put his finger very firmly on what we ought to be doing.

If there is a whole structure being built here to get better information on home-educated children, what is the point of it if we are not already using the information we have on children who are registered? Is there actually a responsive system that all this extra information is going to be fed into? Are we actually focusing on the children who need our help, or are we just making life more difficult for a lot of very responsible and successful parents? I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s approach to elective home education. I felt that there was a good deal in common in our approaches and I very much hope to be able to build on that as we look at these amendments.

I will very much endeavour not to take up the time of the House if I can avoid it. In that context, picking up on the Minister’s very kind offer of conversations with officials, might it not help if those conversations could take place between today and 1 September? That would mean that I would not have to take up time in Committee: we could short-circuit it before then. I am in the UK all August, but perhaps that might not amuse her officials.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 502YG and pass on the apologies of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, who has had to go but had agreed to introduce the amendment on behalf of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, who cannot take part on the Bill. In summary, the amendment is to improve allergy safety in schools, but it marks the culmination of a long campaign in conjunction with the inspirational Helen Blythe, following the tragic death of her son Benedict in 2021, when he was only five. An inquest last month concluded that Benedict’s death was avoidable and caused by the accidental ingestion of cows’ milk after his school failed to follow the processes and procedures in place to protect him.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, outlined, almost 20% of all allergic reactions take place in schools and, sadly, we now know that not only do they not necessarily have the EpiPens but they do not necessarily have a plan or training in place. Only putting these protective measures on a statutory footing will ensure that adequate protections are there for the two children in every classroom with allergies. Helen has worked tirelessly to establish the safety measures necessary to ensure that no child is ever lost again in such a tragic and avoidable way. I also pay tribute to the work of Alicia Kearns in the other place, MP for Rutland and Stamford, with which I am connected. Helen Blythe is her constituent.

The current government guidelines do not even mention allergies. There is only one line on food and one link to an anaphylaxis charity. The key aim is of course spare EpiPens, trained staff and a proper policy. The Government would prefer any change to be by way of guidance, but that just does not give the guarantees necessary—hence tonight’s amendment.

Between 1998 and 2018, 66 children died from allergic reactions. There are 680,000 pupils in England’s schools who have allergies—that is one or two per classroom, according to the Benedict Blythe Foundation’s REACT report of March 2024. At a time when the Department for Education is rightly focused on the attendance crisis, children miss half a million days of education due to allergy each year. These adrenaline auto-injections are life-savers, and the Benedict Blythe Foundation estimates that it would cost only £5 million for the rollout in English schools, plus the training. I remember a similar campaign to put defibrillators into every school; that was done, so why not put these EpiPens, and proper training and policy, in place? I welcome the department’s engagement, but the time for action is now.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I want to underline, in respect of Amendment 462, the importance of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about reducing the pressures on CAMHS. The family courts are being frustrated, as I know from recent experience, and impeded in reaching necessary long-term decisions about the future for children. They are told, week by week, that they are waiting for an appointment with CAMHS and then that they are waiting for an assessment report from CAMHS—and then that they are waiting for the recommended treatment to take place. If Amendment 462 serves to help with those tasks, children, their parents and the courts will benefit. The courts are being criticised for the delays in reaching decisions, and certainly the problems with CAMHS contribute to those delays.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I really want to challenge the assumption of some of the amendments in this group that what we need is more dedicated mental health practices and provision in schools. One of the problems is that there is too much emphasis on mental illness and mental health in education at the moment. That awareness is taking up too much time in school life, is over-preoccupying young people and is becoming a real problem.

If you look at what is going on in schools at the moment, there are indeed endless numbers of staff, volunteers and organisations with responsibility for emotional well-being: mental health leads, support teams, emotional literacy support and assistance, mental health first aiders, counsellors, and well-being officers. If you go into any school, the walls are covered in information about mental illness, mental health and so on; it is everywhere you go. Yet despite this booming, school-based mental health industrial complex, almost, the well-being of pupils continues to deteriorate—or that is what we are told.

Mental health problems and diagnoses are rising at the same time as all the awareness initiatives are taking place. Something is going wrong and that at least needs some investigation, but these amendments just assume that we should carry on doing the same and more of the same. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, I think that real, critical thinking needs to be done around some of the awareness campaigns.

I want to challenge the idea that schools are the vehicle for tackling the undoubted spiralling crisis of unhappiness among young people. It is also important that we untangle that from the crisis of CAMHS. There is actually a serious problem in NHS mental health support for children, and I would like that to be taken on. That is very different from the kind of discussion we are having here about schools, which is that mental distress becomes such a focus of all the discussions in schools.

I tend to agree—for possibly the only time—with Tony Blair on this. He said,

“you’ve got to be careful of encouraging people to think they’ve got some sort of condition other than simply confronting the challenges of life”.

That is true. Starting with children, we are encouraging the young to internalise the narrative of medicalised and pathologised explanations and the psychological vocabulary of adopting an identity of mental fragility, and that is not doing them any good. That can then create an increasing cohort of young people and parents demanding official diagnosis, more intervention and more support at school.

Dr Alastair Santhouse, a neuropsychiatrist at the Maudsley, argues this in his new book, No More Normal: Mental Health in an Age of Over-Diagnosis. He says that it has become crucial to reassess what constitutes mental illness, so that we can decide who needs to be treated with limited resources and who can be helped in other ways. He is talking about the NHS, and he warns that the NHS has buckled under a tsunami of referrals for some conditions. He also says that other state services such as schools are straining to the point of dysfunction in dealing with this issue, and I tend to agree with him.

I admire the passionate intervention by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, calling for measurement and evidence, but one of the problems is that I am not entirely sure we know what we are measuring. There is no clear definition of well-being to measure. The psychiatric profession is making the point that the definitions of what constitutes mental illness are now contended—there are arguments about them. What are you measuring? This woolliness of definitions is becoming a problem in schools.

The counsellor Lucy Beney, in her excellent recent pamphlet, worries that this means that mental illness in schools is leading to a kind of diagnostic inflation itself, as pupils compare notes on what they have got and go to different professionals to ask what they have got and so on. It can create a sort of social or cultural contagion, enticing the young to see all the ups and downs of life through the prism of mental health, which can be demoralising and counterproductive. There is no doubt that too many children and young people are not thriving mentally and emotionally in the UK today, and I would like to have that discussion, but I do not think that well-being and mental health is necessarily the way to do it. Schools are definitely not the places to solve it.

A lot of the well-being initiatives, counselling and therapeutic interventions encourage young people to look at life through the subjective filter of their own feelings and anxieties. That, in turn, is likely to lead to inward-looking, self-absorbed children. The role of education in schools is to introduce new generations to the wonders of the millennia, of knowledge outside their experience, which takes them outside themselves. That is what schools are for. That is what teachers are good at. It is not just about gaining credentials. In fact, I hate the credentialing aspect of it. But if you get into a brilliant novel, the law of physics, the history of our world or evolution, you forget your troubles. If you are constantly talking to the counsellor about your troubles, yourself and endlessly thinking of your own well-being, it is boring, demoralising and stunting. It is enough to make anybody depressed, including the young. It is important that schools do not get completely obsessed with this issue. I fear that they have, and it has made matters worse.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 502G in this group. This amendment would ensure that Part 2 of the Bill complies with Article 2 in Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which the United Kingdom not only signed and ratified but incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

My amendment is based on the wording of the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol 1, which provides:

“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.


Part 2 of the Bill directly engages this article, since the Government will be, in the words of the ECHR, “assuming many new functions in relation to teaching and education”. For example, local authorities will be given sweeping new powers to monitor, register and regulate the independent sector. The Secretary of State will be empowered to regulate proprietors of independent schools, arrange inspections, prescribe standards and suspend registration. He or she will be able to make regulations using Henry VIII powers so as to dictate which educational institutions are covered, and to mandate the national curriculum for academies using yet more Henry VIII powers to regulate the contents of the four key stages, as well as attainment and assessment targets. We are well within the Article 2, Protocol 1 envelope. I know that this Government take their ECHR obligations very seriously.

Without my amendment, these new powers in the Bill would impede the right of parents to ensure an education for their children which accords with their own religious and philosophical convictions. Why is that? It is because Article 2 is about parents having the right to choose which education and teaching is right for their children. As the Strasbourg court said in a Danish case, Article 2 of Protocol 1 aims

“at safeguarding the possibility of pluralism in education which is essential for the preservation of the ‘democratic society’ as conceived by the Convention”.

Our very own Supreme Court recognised this need for plurality in a case in 2020 concerning members of the Orthodox Jewish community. The court stated that their needs are different from those who are not members of that community, and they have a need for their own community facilities, including schools. The same could be said for members of other faiths who choose schools which support their religious and philosophical convictions, such as Christian schools.

This is all about the primacy of parental choice. I repeat: it is about the primacy of parental choice. Whether it is an academy, a single-sex school, a language or music school, a faith school or indeed a maintained school, parents must have the freedom to choose an institution whose ethos accords with their own religious and philosophical beliefs and with what they perceive is best for their children. This may mean choosing a school which has freedom to innovate, without regulation by the state, so as to promote the skills and talents of each pupil, including varying the curriculum or attainment targets and adapting assessment procedures or the daily schedule with a view to bringing out the best in each and every child. All these are the hallmarks of our diverse educational landscape and exemplify the rights which Article 2 of Protocol 1 protects.

As it stands, Part 2 fails to respect such rights. Therefore, my amendment is surely unobjectionable and indeed to be welcomed by all who value maximising the unique talents of our children in an educational environment consistent with the religious and philosophical upbringing their parents have chosen.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 469 and 470 and have added my name to Amendment 502F. However, I suggest that altogether more forthright and comprehensive embedding of the UNCRC into English law is now both appropriate and overdue, even if that cannot be fully achieved under this Bill. That convention was signed by the United Kingdom, among many others, as long ago as 1991. It commands widespread respect. Since then, England has fallen out of step with Wales, where, as we have been told, a measure in 2011 placed an express duty on Ministers to have regard to the rights and obligations in the convention. England is yet more out of step with Scotland, where the convention was fully and directly incorporated into law by statute last year. Amendment 470 would align England with Wales, but not yet with Scotland.

Amendment 502F would impose a duty on public authorities, not just on Ministers, yet both fall short of unqualified incorporation. The convention provides a wide-ranging and valuable list of rights which should be an invaluable checklist for any public authority. Even if some may criticise parts of it as idealistic and aspirational, the convention both sets and raises standards, and specific articles of the convention supplement current gaps in practice and procedure and enhance accountability. Without going into too much detail, significantly, it was the first international convention expressly to recognise and underpin a child’s right to identity, as set out in Articles 7 and 8. This is not unimportant for migrant and unaccompanied children, or in the complexities of modern parental relationships.

Article 12 is widely recognised as important in requiring proper consideration of the views of a child on all matters affecting that child. Any family law practitioner can see the potential general and specific influence of many of the other articles. For example, Article 10.2 could influence disputes over child relocation. More broadly, several topics and problems discussed in the course of this Bill’s progress through Parliament are covered by the convention. Article 24 is relevant to the real problem of the poor take-up of vaccination for children; Article 28 to school attendance; and Article 33 to drugs. Overall, although I submit that these amendments could be more robust, they would be a step along the way to following Scotland.

Although I support Amendment 502F, I suggest that the drafting of proposed subsection (5) could be simplified to remove the double negative. Amendment 470 would require publication of reports every three years, and Amendment 502F would require them every five years. It would probably be better to co-ordinate the timing of any reports with those required under Article 44 of the convention itself, which may have been what was intended. Scrutiny of such reports is important to ensure that they are not selective and altogether uncritical, as can occur.

If we are serious about children’s rights, they should be incorporated into law—irrespective of any future formulation of human rights. These amendments should be accepted. I am glad that Amendment 502G has been added to this group; Governments have to balance children’s rights and parents’ rights with care. All children are entitled to equality of educational opportunity in a way that broadens horizons, rather than narrows potential. Children have rights and parents have rights, but parents also have responsibilities.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, it is good to be back scrutinising the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill after what seems like a long break. But noble Lords will remember that, while I think all sides of the House supported the approach of family group conferencing or a family group decision-making meeting, as described in the Bill, a number of points required clarification. I think those are still outstanding and I hope the Minister will be able to cover them in her response today.

Amendment 1 seeks to clarify what the Government really intend to implement. We have been told that the introduction of family group decision-making is based on the success of the pilot sites in the Families First for Children pathfinders, but the evaluation published in July is clear that family group conferencing, not family group decision-making meetings, was used in the pilot sites when children were on the cusp of care proceedings. Which approach is it and if it is not family group conferencing, what is the evidence base?

I suppose I am concerned that the Government are not actually committed to following the evidence-based family group conferencing model, but a slimmer or stripped-down version that we might call “FGC light”. The evaluation published in July did not have any outcome data and was largely a process evaluation, because of the stage the pilots are at.

Amendment 2 aims to press the Government for a commitment to no dilution of the model. The Bill talks about a meeting while the evaluation talks about the importance of careful preparation, including pre-meetings, and that being followed by funded support through the family network support package. Again, can the Minister be clear that the Government are proposing that the evidence-informed model is followed?

Turning to Amendment 3, we questioned in Committee whether it was necessary to have a duty to offer family group decision-making in statute at all, and in particular at the point of care proceedings, when there is already an expectation set out in the statutory guidance to the Children Act that this should be offered. Our amendments in Committee included a focus on using family group conferencing at different points in the safeguarding process, and it seems that the evaluation published in July agrees with this. On page 58, it recommends that:

“The timing of the offer of”


family group conferences

“needs to be explored in greater detail to establish clarity around the pros and cons of offering it at different phases in the family’s journey”.

Amendment 3 would require family group decision-making or family group conferencing to be offered at the point when a child who has been in care returns to their original family, something that occurs in over a quarter of cases. This is an obvious point at which additional support would be helpful and could avoid a second care placement, as happens all too frequently—in about a third of those cases. It does not take much imagination to appreciate how traumatic and damaging it is for children and their parents for that to happen.

Finally, Amendment 5, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who brings great personal experience to this topic, introduces the idea of a kinship support plan. As we will come to in a later group, we believe that the Government need to take action to increase the number of foster and kinship carers beyond what is already proposed. The idea of a kinship support plan is to increase the resilience of a kinship care placement by offering additional support, either from the local authority directly or from wider community resources. I wonder whether the Government are considering anything of this type, which would increase the chances of successful kinship placements.

These are cases where the threshold of significant harm will have been met, and therefore it is reasonable to offer additional support to carers and right-touch oversight of the safety and well-being of the child in their care. I beg to move.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for returning us to this important topic of family group conferences and for the refined amendments she has now presented, including Amendment 3, to which I have added my name. They would embed what is now established as good practice into legislation. I also welcome the noble Baroness’s request for clarification of what lies behind the differing terminology.

The Government, to their credit, recognise the important role of family group decision-making meetings. The arguments for such conferences are strong, enabling family members to be informed about local authorities’ concerns and proposals, including the wider family members, who may have been kept in the dark or given an incomplete version of the problems from just the parents’ perspective, perhaps coloured by a negative view of the local authority’s intentions. They are a good opportunity to maintain focus on the child or children while listening to and respecting the views of the family, particularly if the family has otherwise been marginalised.

As well as sharing information, conferences allow social workers to explore and assess what family members might have to offer, and what support might assist them to help divert cases away from legal proceedings. There is no doubt that family group conferences secure considerable financial savings for local authorities and for the courts. I emphasise the point that the noble Baroness has made: proper preparation for them is essential.

Ideally, such conferences should take place as early as possible, and at the pre-proceedings stage that we discussed in Committee. However, Amendment 3 would also require such a meeting to be offered when it is planned that the child will be returned to the care of family members. Again, that would be a good opportunity for informed discussion to clarify the expectations of the local authority for the future care of the child, and to discuss any difficulties that may have to be confronted. I hope, therefore, that the Government will use these amendments as an opportunity to build such points into the legal structure.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, while welcoming the Government’s amendment to ensure that the child’s voice is heard in family group decision-making, I add my support to the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran.

As we discussed in Committee, family group decision-making is a broad, generic term—without clear principles and standards—about what families can expect. Indeed, the Explanatory Notes for the Bill themselves state that

“FGDM is an umbrella term”.

As a result, concern remains, unsupported by evidence, among charities and organisations supporting vulnerable families that FGDM approaches may proliferate at a local level as a result of the lack of specificity in the Bill. As my noble friend highlighted, that is despite clear evidence, both in the UK and internationally, that family group conferences in particular are a successful and effective model for diverting children from care and supporting them to remain in their family. If the Minister is unable to accept Amendment 2, I hope that in her response she will be able to provide strong reassurance that, in the regulations and statutory guidance, it will be made clear that local authorities will be expected to follow the principles and standards drawn from the robust national and international research findings on the efficacy of the group conference approach.

I turn to Amendment 3. As was highlighted during our discussions in Committee, reunification is the most common way for children to leave care but, sadly, too many reunifications break down due to lack of support. There is currently no strategy by which to support reunifying families, and 78% of local authorities admit that what they provide is inadequate. In winding up our previous debate on this issue, the Minister said that she had some sympathy with the objective of including this measure in the Bill, not least because of the challenges of reunification, and the need to ensure that it is supported. I hope, then, that even at this late stage, the Minister might look favourably on accepting this amendment, as it could make a real difference to the stability of a child’s return home.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Meston]

27: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Child contact centres(1) All child contact centres and child contact organisations that offer child contact services must be accredited in accordance with national standards for safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse.(2) The accreditation in subsection (1) must be granted by the National Association of Child Contact Centres.(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument specify the standards and accreditation procedure under subsection (1). (4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is unable to be here and has therefore asked me to lead on this amendment. It follows on from that moved by the noble Baroness in Committee on 22 May last year. As I have said, the noble Baroness regrets that she is unavailable, but I want just to take a moment to recognise her dedicated support for the work of child contact centres and her wish to maintain and raise the standards of such centres, standards which are already high if accredited by the national association.

This is a more straightforward amendment than that moved in Committee. It would simply require all contact centres and organisations to be accredited in accordance with national standards for safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse, with such accreditation to be granted by the National Association of Child Contact Centres.

There can be no doubt about the value and effectiveness of child contact centres, as they have evolved, since the first was set up in the late 1980s in Nottingham by a family court magistrate to help those separated parents who could not arrange contact for themselves. The centres allow parents and children to adjust to child contact in a safe and neutral environment.

The use of such centres, when court-directed, has been reinforced since 2000 by judicial protocols, the first of which was endorsed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, when president of the Family Division, and was later updated and revised by her successors. One of those was Sir James Munby, who sadly died earlier this month. In a speech in 2018, he said:

“Everyone in the family justice system knows just what a vital role is played by Child Contact Centres and the contact centre movement. Child Contact Centres enable contact which otherwise might not occur to take place and they play a central part in maintaining, and if necessary restoring and rebuilding, the child’s relationship with parents, grandparents and other relatives”.


He went on to say:

“NACCC and the whole contact centre movement are a distinguished example of the voluntary sector at its very best and of civic society operating as it should”.


Sir James, for those who knew him, was never given to understatement, but in that he was completely correct.

It is the experience of all of us who work, or have worked, in the family justice system that such centres are now essential in enabling courts, Cafcass and those advising parents, but also unrepresented parents and marginalised grandparents, to manage contact problems and disputes. They facilitate supported contact and, for those cases requiring more vigilance, they can provide supervised contact.

Typically, use of a centre is a fairly short-term measure—a temporary solution on the way to more normalised arrangements. It is certainly the experience of all judges that it is very gratifying to see contact arrangements progress in a way that moves the arrangements away from the centre, perhaps after six months or so, with the use of a well-run centre having reassured, typically, an anxious mother and/or a suspicious and resentful father, that contact can proceed away from the centre and in the community.

The strengths and potential weaknesses of contact centres were shown in the recent report by Cordis Bright, published in 2023. This amendment builds on that. Its emphasis is on the use of

“national standards for safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse”.

Those who refer a family to a centre should already be required to inform the centre of the relevant background history and, in particular, any violence, abusive behaviour or conflict, so that the more profound problems can be screened out and conflict avoided.

Those working in centres need training to identify and deal with the risks. Having accreditation, as proposed in the amendment, which would require all centres to work to the same standard, will be important in helping centres deliver their services. It will underpin the confidence of those using or thinking of using such centres and will further safeguard the children concerned. It is on that basis that I beg to move.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. One of the rather sad aspects of a minority of families who cannot get on and separate is that they so often do not recognise that the children love both of them. It is all too common for one parent to say, “The child won’t want to see daddy; she can’t stand him”, or for daddy to say, “I know that I won’t be allowed to see her; that woman can’t bear me”. This is, I regret to tell your Lordships, absolutely typical.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 49, specifically relating to sibling contact, to which I have added my name. In doing so, I do not want to repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, other than to stress, as she did, the importance of maintaining and developing sibling contact.

Where a child has to be separated from his or her parents, temporarily or permanently, the most important viable relationship remaining is often with that child’s siblings or half-siblings. Typically, siblings have shared experience of the parenting they have received, and they have, of course, a relationship which can long outlive the relationship that they have or have had with their parents.

The Children Act created a presumption that children should be placed together, but that is not always possible to arrange or to achieve. Contact between separated siblings, particularly if no longer in the same school or placed at some distance apart, can require commitment not only by their respective carers but by the responsible local authorities. Properly arranged sibling contact typically requires a concrete plan by the local authority and an underlying framework of support. It may, it has to be said, sometimes influence what happens at the next stage after the care proceedings and determine what happens if the children are to be placed for adoption.

Amendment 49 would help, because it would not require or assume that both or all of the children will be in the care of the local authority, and it would thereby sensibly extend the scope of local authority duties towards siblings.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in support of Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler.

The case for this is, really, fairly straightforward. Children in care often have quite strong mental health needs and are not in the best of mental health. Care leavers comprise about 1% to 3% of the general youth population, but that translates into them being responsible for one quarter of the homeless population. That group are twice as likely to die prematurely than the general population, and in many cases suicide is the largest reason for that high death rate. That is a fairly strong causal link between children in the care system, or those going into the care system, having fragile mental health, and that not being picked up as early as it should be. This amendment simply asks that we please ensure that, when children have an assessment of the quality of their mental health, the practitioners who are doing that are qualified in mental health. Only in that way can we be sure that we catch those vulnerable young people at that early stage and that they do not become one of the depressing statistics that I have just mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I have promoted a number of amendments in this group and signed others, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has so elegantly given. I will not waste your Lordships’ time by repeating them. I simply say that, over these last few years, I have become all too familiar with the acronym ACE—adverse childhood experience. We know that any child who has had four or more of those experiences is effectively traumatised, in one way or another, for life. It is a major thing to deprive them of their liberty, so whatever we can do to support these children and ensure it happens as little, for as short a time and with as careful scrutiny as possible will be vital. I therefore urge noble Lords, if these matters are put to a Division, to support them.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I too support these amendments. The debate in Committee threw a light on the working of the deprivation of liberty jurisdiction, which, one could not help noting, was not altogether familiar to many.

Typically, these orders are made when parents cannot provide good enough care and the child concerned needs protection from outside pressures and their own risk-taking behaviour. Before they come to court, the local authority, the guardian and the court have to do their best to provide placement in appropriate settings and to enable the child to maintain significant relationships, both of which are easier said than done. Problems that follow the initial order can include unstable placement and repeated changes of placement. These are not easy to manage. I have read of a child saying that it was pointless to try to build up any relationship in the setting in which she was placed because she knew that she would be moved again or the staff would leave. That is a very unhappy state of affairs.

There can be review hearings by the court, but they are not always satisfactory in my experience. Therefore, sensibly, Amendment 54 would require review by the director of children’s services to ensure proper monitoring and adherence to the objectives of the original authorisation to deprive liberty. Therefore, among this package before us, I strongly support this amendment, which would also comply with the child’s right to regular reviews in accordance with Article 25 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will briefly focus on Amendment 53, on the right to education. I want to bring in the voice of one child who spoke to the Children’s Commissioner in her report on this issue. Talking about the lack of education they were receiving, this child said:

“I don’t think it’s fair that they’re making us miss out on our education because they don’t know where to put us”.


That child understands the situation they are in, and it is just unacceptable. All but two of the children whom the Children’s Commissioner spoke to said they were receiving less education when subjected to deprivation of liberty than they received in their otherwise often very chaotic circumstances. We have to make sure that these children continue with an education.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak to the amendment, but I also met Ceri this week, and it was a privilege to talk to him. I had not heard that part of his story until my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson told us about it.

I recently stepped down as a trustee of the children’s hospice Noah’s Ark, in Barnet. When I think about the support that families get there—not just during the course of their child’s illness and while they pass away but support for siblings, and the ability, through the Butterfly Suite, to be with the child they have recently lost for a number of days thereafter, through to follow-up and bereavement support that hospice staff provide, as well as advice on benefits and access, which might be crucial to the well-being of those parents —I am struck by the stark difference. That support is provided by charitable funds. It should not be that way. This is a postcode lottery. We have responsibilities to this group of families, who fight so bravely by themselves but who need our support and that holistic wraparound care.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendments 99 and 101, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These are designed to tackle the sad and difficult problem of successive removals of children and babies from their parents, in particular from their mothers.

When a child is removed permanently under a court order, typically, a number of things can happen, and, indeed, not happen. The court which made the care order and consequent order for placement for adoption will have no further involvement. The local authority which brought the case may well have little or no further engagement with the birth family, who will receive no more attention and support, at least until there is another pregnancy, by which time it can be too late to address the underlying problems.

The mother, probably traumatised, may react to the first removal of a child with a bad decision to have another child, in the hope, rather than the expectation, that things will turn out better next time round, which is unlikely to occur. The mother and the father, if identified, will have become mistrustful of the local authority social workers and feel stigmatised and unwilling to seek or accept help. The mother may become hard to reach and may not reveal the next pregnancy until the last minute. Her underlying problems, by then, will not have been addressed; indeed, they may have become compounded.

Unless there has been some significant and unexpected change, the local authority will have no alternative but to start new care proceedings for the new child, usually with the same bad outcome as before. Speaking as someone who has had to deal with these cases, I know that those representing the mother and the court will struggle to find any real improvement or anything else to distinguish the case from that of the previous child. These are truly the most wretched cases for any court to deal with.

The charitable organisation Pause has considerable expertise in this area and has evolved a model of preventive support to break the cycle of repeated pregnancies and recurrent removals. The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory and others have had valuable input into this problem and highlighted the statistics. One in five care proceedings are repeat proceedings. The repeat proceedings are more likely to involve babies, and almost half of all newborn babies subject to care proceedings are born to mothers who have had a previous child removed. Indeed, it is quite likely that the mother herself will have been in the care system not so long before. The additional financial cost to local authorities for care proceedings and consequential adoption proceedings, and the support required to pay for foster care and adopters, is enormous. The human cost, obviously, is unresolved misery and grief.

Amendment 99 would require local authorities to provide post-removal support where there is a risk of further removal, based on the Pause model of specialist focused and intensive support. Some local authorities do this work, but it should be universal. It has been suggested that, for every £1 spent, £4.50 would be saved in the next four years. However, some local authorities—understandably, given their constraints—are reluctant to look beyond this year’s budget. The Pause model does make a difference, and primary legislation can now make a real difference. That is the basis for Amendment 99.

Amendment 101 would provide for data collection, which would be a valuable aid to local and central government. Ironically, if Amendment 101 was agreed and Amendment 99 did not succeed, it would simply serve to highlight in the data which would be collected the support that should have been provided through Amendment 99. That opportunity should not be missed.

In Committee, the Minister was sympathetic and suggested that one way forward might be by way of family group conferencing, which is part of the structure of the Bill. Quite frankly, that would not be of particular value in these circumstances. The first set of proceedings probably would not have got to where they were if there had been a supportive family in the background, and it would, by then, be too late to prevent what had already become a further pregnancy. Therefore, I do not think that is the answer.

I have tried to avoid repeating points that were made in Committee. I simply quote the late Nicholas Crichton, a pioneering district judge:

“A family justice system that removes the fourth, fifth or sixth child from families without doing anything about the reasons for removal is a failing system”.


I commend Amendments 99 and 101 to the House.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to lend my support to all three of these amendments. I was very pleased to add my name to Amendments 99 and 101 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

Listening to the debate today, I think this group is dealing with some of the most heartbreaking events that children and families ever face. It has really been very harrowing just to listen to the circumstances that some of these families have found themselves in. I was profoundly moved by the way the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, introduced her amendment. It is a really important amendment, and I very much hope that the Government will be able to look sympathetically at it.

I will just say a few words in addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said, particularly about Amendment 99. As we heard from the noble Lord, almost half of newborns in care proceedings are born to mothers who have already been through proceedings with another child, so far too many children are entering care from parents who have already had at least one child removed from their care.

As we have heard, without support—and that is what this amendment is all about: the support that we want to see local authorities offering after a child is removed—parents, particularly mothers, are often left struggling to cope with all the existing difficulties that led to the child removal in the first place, while facing the additional trauma, grief and stigma of losing a previous child. This leads to further child removals too many times. It is simply a heartbreaking, vicious cycle.

But with the right support, parents can stabilise, overcome that trauma and make lasting change. The reason I feel so passionately about this is that in my time as chair of Cafcass, I was privileged to visit various Pause projects, to talk to the people who were providing the support and to talk to the mothers about the difference that having that support had made and why they now felt they could turn their lives around so that they would not find themselves in a position like that of a mother I was talking to—I think I said this in Committee, so forgive me if I am repeating myself—who had had eight children removed and now it was about the ninth child. We just cannot allow these situations to perpetuate. It is not something that a decent and humane society can do.

At the moment only about half of local authority areas are providing any support at all. This amendment is so critical to ensure that support is available and that this incalculable human suffering that we have heard about can be alleviated. I very much look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the Minister, and I really hope we can make progress here.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I have also added my name to Amendment 121A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. This is a very important set of amendments. I welcome the fact that many of them are about strengthening safeguarding. That is really important.

I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, because he had, as ever, some very important points to make. I do not agree with everything he said, but I agree that the time is ripe have a broader debate about a wider set of issues around the whole issue of home education that go outside the scope of this Bill. I hope it will be possible to do that. I also agreed with the noble Lord about the need for any safeguarding action to be proportionate, but it is my view that the targeting of action—as it is in Amendment 121A, so that

“local authorities must consent to the withdrawal of a child from school”

if they are involved in either child protection plans or are a child in need as classified under Section 17 of that Act—is proportionate in trying to provide additional support for vulnerable children and making sure that they do not fall through the cracks.

We have heard too many times, over the years, these heartbreaking cases of children who have fallen through the cracks—the most recent one, of course, was the harrowing and terrible case of Sara Sharif—because of a lack of visibility. This amendment would ensure that greater visibility is given to these children, which is why I added my name to it. I know people have different views on this, but that is my reason for believing that it is a proportionate amendment.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I support Clause 31 and government Amendment 120. I also support Amendment 121A, which would extend the scope of what Clause 31 seeks to achieve, which is to prevent concealment of the real reasons for attempts to withdraw children from school, in particular by parents or a parent with something to hide. The clause provides that the consent of the local authority is required if there is a Section 47 inquiry under way or there has been such an inquiry. Amendment 121A would extend the scope of the need for the local authority’s consent, which I support. However, if we are talking about cracks, I suggest that it could go further. The need for consent should also be triggered if the family court, in private law proceedings, has directed a report and investigation under Section 37 of the Children Act or has directed a local authority to report under Section 7. Experience shows, and certainly my experience is, that it is often in private law proceedings that alarm bells first ring. That is the first opportunity to investigate what really might be happening in the family home.

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s sensible proposals in Amendment 121A—they obviously have cross-party support. The Bill proposes a power for local authorities to withhold consent to a child being removed from school in certain circumstances and my noble friend’s amendment would strengthen that principle by giving a local authority the power to refuse consent if a child has ever been subject to a child protection plan or if they are currently defined as a Section 17 child in need because of abuse or neglect.

It is important to remember that although education in this country is compulsory, schooling is not. For some parents this is a very important principle, which is why I support other amendments supported by my noble friend to require a local authority to give its reasons for withholding consent and, importantly, to simplify the huge amount of information a parent choosing to educate their child at home currently has to provide.

My noble friend Lord Lucas, who is in his place, asked an apposite question in Committee:

“What is the Government’s purpose in seeking to be … so intrusive and punitive towards elective home education”—[Official Report, 20/5/25; col. 173.]


in this Bill? The vast majority of parents do not choose home schooling for their children, but for those who do, it is an important freedom. I say to the Minister that I am flagging up a possible situation beyond this Bill. Although parents may choose home schooling, for some it is becoming not a principle but a necessity. I am looking at the parents of children with special needs who are forced into home schooling because the local authority cannot afford to provide for their child, or offers unacceptable alternatives, such as return journeys of 90 miles to a school every day or private tutoring in a public place. Of course this is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is a warning note because we may find that there then is established another category of home schooling for parents who have been offered an unacceptable solution to their problem.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my fellow signatories to Amendment 221, those who supported a similar amendment in Committee, and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, UNICEF UK and the NSPCC for their assistance. I also thank Minister MacAlister for a helpful meeting to discuss it.

In a nutshell, the amendment would introduce a statutory requirement for Ministers to prepare and publish a child’s rights impact assessment—CRIA—on any proposed legislation, policy, budgetary or other strategic decision related to children’s well-being, social care or education, and to publish periodic reports on the steps taken to ensure that CRIAs are being carried out to a high standard.

I am grateful too to my noble friend Lady Blower, who moved this and a related children’s rights amendment in Committee, on my behalf. I am bringing back this one amendment, minus a reference to operational decisions—in response to my noble friend the Minister’s comments in Committee—as a practical and proportionate way to ensure a children’s rights perspective on the issues covered by the Bill.

Crucially, since Committee, the report of module 2 of the Covid inquiry has recommended that

“the UK Government should introduce legislation to place child rights impact assessments on a statutory footing in England”.

This was in response to the inquiry’s finding that children’s needs and rights were not properly considered or understood by the Government during the pandemic, and its conclusion, based on extensive evidence, that the use of CRIAs could have guided better outcomes for children during the pandemic.

In Committee, my noble friend the Minister accepted that CRIAs offered policymakers a “valuable tool”, but argued that they should be “effective and proportionate”, and that voluntary rather than statutory CRIAs would be more manageable and less challenging. But experience, including that of the pandemic, suggested that a voluntary approach is not working. Only a small number have been undertaken across government since the DfE’s introduction of a template in 2018, practice is highly inconsistent, there is no oversight of their quality and there is no guarantee that the few that are concluded are published, which is necessary in the interests of transparency and accountability.

Under the previous Government, it was all too obvious when scrutinising relevant legislation that a CRIA had not been undertaken. On the rare occasions when one was finally produced in response to parliamentary pressure, it was nothing more than a post hoc tick-box exercise: a far cry from being a “valuable tool” that would help ensure that children’s best interests were addressed from the very outset of policy-making.

When questioned about CRIAs, other Ministers and officials often point to the inclusion of age in equality impact assessments as being sufficient, but equality impact assessments are no substitute for CRIAs. They do not engage with the requirements of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which include taking account of the views of children themselves.

I therefore hope I can persuade my noble friend that a statutory duty to undertake CRIAs would not be the challenging and disproportionate burden on departments that my other noble friend fears. Here I will draw on the experience of Wales, which I learned about at an inspiring parliamentary round table chaired by my honourable friend Helen Hayes MP, chair of the Education Select Committee. The experience of Wales, and indeed of other countries that have mandatory CRIAs, is that they can be easily embedded into existing policy-making processes without a disproportionate impact. Typically, they include an initial screening stage to assess whether a full CRIA is required, so that in practice not every policy is subject to one. They are designed to be light-touch and proportionate. They inform every stage of policy-making and are published in the interests of transparency and accountability. The Welsh Government have developed a manual and comprehensive support system, and I am sure we could learn a lot from this, rather than reinventing the wheel.

The Welsh experience and wider research by UNICEF UK have confirmed that, where properly applied, CRIAs result in better outcomes for children, reflecting their rights as set out in the UN convention, to which we are a signatory. Identifying and addressing potential rights breaches early can help to prevent poor decision-making, saving time, public money and, most importantly, avoidable harm to children. They are thus both proactive and preventive. As it is, though, England is seen very much as an outlier. Do we really want English children to be the poor relation compared with children in Wales and Scotland, or the treatment of Welsh and Scottish children to continue to be dependent on whether or not it is a reserved matter?

The amendment is now supported by the Children’s Commissioner for England and by around 160 organisations spanning a wide range of children’s interests, around 40 more than in Committee. Rejection of it would in effect mean rejection of the Covid inquiry’s recommendation, the need for which has been reinforced by evidence of the children and young people’s module. Acceptance of it would be widely applauded by civil society. It would strengthen and underpin the Bill, ensure that children’s voices were heard in policy-making and provide a lasting legacy to help ensure that children’s rights were properly recognised by future Governments.

If nevertheless my noble friend rejects the amendment, I remind her of what my noble friend Lady Smith said in Committee when she acknowledged that CRIAs provide

“an important toolbox of ways in which policymakers can be, rightly, driven to consider the rights of children … We need to improve the way in which we use that toolbox across government”.

She finished with the very welcome assurance that

“we will continue our work to ensure that child rights impact assessments will be delivered across government and that children’s rights and interests will be at the heart of decisions made by this Government”.—[Official Report, 18/9/25; cols. 2430-32.]

Could my noble friend now tell us what steps exactly the Government are taking to achieve these aims, and could she give a commitment that they will evaluate the effectiveness of this voluntary approach with a clear timeline to inform their formal response to the Covid inquiry’s recommendation? This should be done in partnership with the key organisations that have worked hard on this amendment. It would show the way for the introduction at a future date of statutory CRIAs, as recommended by the Covid inquiry, so that children’s rights in England are protected and promoted as well as in Wales and Scotland.

I will conclude with the words of Ben, a 13 year-old boy who is following the Bill, who was quoted in Committee and who wrote to me again last week:

“I think the CRIA amendment would make a significant difference to children’s lives ... For me personally it would feel good to know that the government is taking my concerns and the concerns of other children into account when they come to pass the Bill”.


I beg to move.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 221, cogently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to place child’s rights impact assessments on a statutory basis for the purposes referred to in her amendment.

In Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to the

“shared goal of putting children’s rights at the very centre of policy-making”.—[Official Report, 18/9/25; col. 2429.]

Last week, in answer to a question by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, described the UNCRC as

“an essential framework which will guide both Ministers and officials in drawing up the appropriate policies”.—[Official Report, 27/1/26; col. 764.]

There is therefore no doubt about the Government’s stated intentions and commitment, but those make it only more difficult to understand why there has been a reluctance to act on the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, as long ago as 2023, for stronger national frameworks with greater efforts to embed child rights into law by full incorporation. That would be the best way to maintain and raise standards, enhance accountability, and show that children’s rights are regarded as truly important and should have a strong influence on decision-making.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has just said. As a family judge, I had a number of cases where children had been on protection orders—and, in particular, supervision orders—and I vividly recall an appalling case in Liverpool where there was a continuing supervision order that was utterly disregarded. I called the Director of Social Services to explain it, and she was absolutely thinking that it did not really matter; so everything that can be done to put added pressure on making sure that children who are home educated are kept under proper supervision by local authorities seems to me to be absolutely crucial.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I will confine myself briefly to supporting Motion B. It is commonly agreed now that the pilots of the pathfinder model in selected family courts have been a success and represent the way ahead. This model has been shown to reduce delays significantly and has forced the focus on to making things better for the child concerned, rather than on the parents’ disputes and confrontations. That model has developed sufficiently well, in that the delay in moving it on into the mainstream should really now be avoided. It means that the very recently announced expansion into child-focused courts will be welcome.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I will o speak to Motion K1, tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran. The Government are rightly acting to give local authorities the power to prevent children subject to a child protection plan being withdrawn from school. However, the scope of the Bill is clearly too limited, even with the amendment to give effect to a backward extension of five years for child protection plans.

I will briefly remind noble Lords of the characteristics of the children we are talking about. Clearly, they have all experienced abuse or neglect, but even apart from this we are talking about an exceptionally vulnerable group. Nearly three-quarters of children in care have special educational needs—often conditions they were born with that can make them particularly challenging to bring up and to educate—and often complicated physical or behavioural needs as well. Alongside that, these are children of parents whose ability to care for and protect their own children has already been shown to be inadequate, at least for a time. Even after a care order or child protection plan has been discharged, these are, in the main, children with serious challenges and complicated needs, whose parents have limited capacity. They are very often fragile families needing a lot of support and with a strong likelihood of further social care intervention being needed in future.

Therefore, there should be local authority consideration of proposals to home-educate any child who has been in care, had a supervision order or is under a child protection plan: first, to make sure that the child will actually get the education and support they need at home; and, secondly, to make sure that the child can safely be removed from view. Once a child is home-schooled, it may not be seen by any adult from outside the family for years. That may have been exactly the thing that was keeping that fragile family in balance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I gently remind all noble Lords that, if they wish to speak, they should do so before the Official Opposition wind up, and that they should not be repeating lengthy arguments that have already been debated in Committee and on Report. Should they speak, they should speak briefly and to the amendments.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I was going to be brief in agreeing with what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, just said and in welcoming Motion D, because the Government’s proposed amendment in lieu, which relates to sibling contact, is to be welcomed; indeed, it is a pleasant surprise. It promotes the local authority’s duty from the schedule to the Children Act to Section 34 of the Act, and reinforces it as a positive duty to allow contact between siblings; at the same time, it gives the court a major say in the type of contact, the level of contact and how it should progress.

Through their amendment, the Government have recognised in primary legislation the real significance of sibling relationships, particularly when siblings have to be separated and have differing needs. These are children whose parents have failed them, and the most important relationship left to them is with a sibling. The courts and legal professionals are familiar with the working of Section 34, which will now govern these cases, and the amendment will be a valuable, beneficial addition to it.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I chaired a Select Committee on adoption some years ago and very much welcome this sibling amendment. It is absolutely excellent. I remember we met a number of children who were in care. One boy of 15, with four younger brothers and sisters, said to us, “No one tells me how my brothers and sisters are getting on—I brought them up”. This is excellent, and the Government are very much to be congratulated on it.